TRI scoring manual

Teacher Relationship InterviewQualitative Coding Manual

1

TRI scoring manual

General Code Points for Each Scale

The following guidelines apply to all of the Qualitative TRI scales, with the exception of the final scale, the Coherence Scale, which is on a 5-point scale:

Coders should make overall qualitative judgments based on all the information in the interview. Certain dimensions might have stronger emphasis on responses to certain questions, but even in those cases, coders should consider the interview as a whole. All of the codes relate to the teacher’s relationship with one specific student.

6, 7 = High End — The teacher articulates the construct in a clear way and gives fresh examples of the construct that seem natural and to come to life in the interview. Clear evidence of the construct is provided. Details or elaboration are provided to support the presence of the construct.

3, 4, 5 = Mid Range – There is mixed presentation of the construct. The teacher provides some evidence of the presence of the construct, but the explanations and support are less rich and less clear. The teacher might also provide examples that occlude the construct or provide inconsistent information regarding the dimension.

1, 2 = Low End — There is very little or no evidence of the construct.

2

TRI scoring manual

Sensitivity of Discipline

This scale measures the teacher’s approach to behavior management in the classroom with the particular student. Higher scores indicate more sensitive and proactive modes of management with the student. Lower scores reflect less preventative and more reactive responses by the teacher, whereby the student seems to trigger the teacher’s response.

7

6 = These teachers tend to report having rules and expectations for their students’ classroom demeanor and they seem to clearly and consistently communicate their expectations to the students. The rules are generally geared to encourage students to take full advantage of learning opportunities rather than attempts to simply control students’ behaviors. These teachers may report using proactive responses to prevent undesirable situations with the student, such as praising the student’s positive behavior or reminding the student of rules to proactively respond to a situation that might result in an infraction of the rules. These teachers have a sense of fairness of discipline in the classroom and appear to be able to make exceptions to the rules based on the circumstances and the individual characteristics of the student. They also try to help the student learn from conflicts and assist the student in taking an active lead in solving their own dilemmas. In response to the “misbehavior” question, these teachers often report talking with the student about the misbehavior to explain the consequence, inquire about the child’s intent and the circumstances, and/or to explain more appropriate strategies for approaching the situation. Often, they report providing reasons for the rules and expectations to the students. These teachers do not report yelling at their students.

5 = Teachers included at this level might discuss incidents of misbehavior with their students and provide more appropriate behavioral alternatives, but they do not demonstrate much praise or actions to prevent misbehavior. These teachers have less of a controlling feel to them, than teachers who score lower on this scale.

4 = These teachers have a sense for the need for rules in the classroom, but when compliance issues are mentioned, it is not clear that rules were clearly stated and consistently enforced. These teachers have more of a reactionary feel to them and tend only to tell the student when he or she misbehaves, without providing reasons for the rules or alternative actions that the student should have taken. In response to the “misbehavior”

3

TRI scoring manual

question, these teachers might report telling the student that they were wrong, but do not provide room for discussion or processing with the student. These teachers might also acknowledge that the student misbehaves, but they do not describe their actions to correct this problem. In addition, these teachers tend to take more of the lead in solving children’s problems, rather than helping children learn to solve their own problems. These teachers have more of a controlling feel to them.

3 = Teachers in this category may include those who are more “fly by the seat of the pants” types, whereby they seem to devise rules as they go along and it is not clear that the expectations are communicated clearly to the students.

2 = Behavior management issues and lack of more effective strategies contribute to interruption of activities and there is a loss of valuable learning time. These teachers appear overly focused on compliance and may provide very elaborate explanations of the classroom rules in the interview or they might not mention having rules at all. Whether or not these teachers appear overly focused on compliance or extremely lenient in their management, there is no or very little evidence of the teachers predictably and clearly enforcing rules. These teachers do not tend to report using preventative management methods, such as praise to reinforce specific behaviors. These teachers tend not to provide sympathy for children with regard to their misbehaviors or lack of progress, only focusing on the classroom expectations without consideration for contributing factors, such as the student’s relationship with the teacher, or the student’s background, potential disabilities, and family situation. These teachers might provide several examples of less sensitive behavior management without providing support for sensitive behavior management.

1 = At the very low end, these teachers report resorting to less sensitive modes of discipline, including making a more public example of the students misbehaviors or yelling at the student.

4

TRI scoring manual

Secure Base

This scale measures the teacher’s ability to express, either through statements of their beliefs and/or through behavioral examples, the understanding that her emotional support is linked to the student’s social, emotional, and cognitive competence. At a high level, the teacher clearly understands and acknowledges her role as a secure base for the student, allowing the student to actively explore and learn while they serve as a source of comfort, reassurance, and encouragement. Particularly salient are instances in which the teacher describes the importance of the teacher-student relationship to the student’s development (academic, emotional, or social).

7

6 = Teachers describe themselves or the relationship with the student in a way that reflects a definitive secure base. Teachers describe that they provide consistent emotional security and clearly connect the importance of the student’s sense of security to their ability to grow socially, emotionally, and cognitively. These teachers may provide a clear example of themselves successfully serving as a secure base for the student. Teachers may describe episodes in which the student was comforted by the relationship between them, their views of the importance of student’s relationships with teachers, or instances when they supported the student’s growth by providing a sense of support, stability, and confidence in the student. These teachers often report performing behaviors that comforts the student. These teachers express a belief that feelings are free to be discussed and dealt with in the relationship with the student. Teachers who score on the high end often handle the “misbehavior” question by discussing the incident with the student. For the “upset” question, these teachers generally report a time when the student was upset and approached the teacher, and the teacher performed some action to try to help the child cope with his or her emotions. In addition, often these teachers report their relationships with their student as “warm” or “close;” however, it is not necessary for one of the adjectives to be a positive one in order to score at the high end on this scale.

5

4 = These teachers are less certain about the concept of secure base or how to act as a secure base for the student. The teacher’s understanding of the importance of trust in the relationship with the student is less clear. They communicate a vague sense of the notion

5

TRI scoring manual

of secure base and the idea that the student’s relationship with the student affects the student’s development, but the concept is not rooted in the teacher’s personal experiences working with the particular student. These teachers may talk abstractly about the concept of the teacher as a secure base and may state the belief that building trust with a student is meaningful to the students’ ability to learn and take advantage of the school environment; however, these teachers do not provide examples of times when they attempted to serve as a secure base for the particular student. Alternatively, these teachers might report marginal attempts to link the concept of secure base to their behaviors with the student, but they do not link their behaviors to the development of students’ competencies. These teachers might also provide vaguer examples of serving as a secure base. They might report inconsistently allowing the student to express his or her emotions or they might make references to creating a safe classroom environment, but do not link this belief to children’s social, emotional, or cognitive development. These teachers may report maintaining physical proximity or closeness to the target child, or may speak more generally about the classroom environment. The teachers may describe occasions when the child came approached the teacher for support, but the teachers do not link that contact to the successful comforting of the student.

3 = Teachers scoring at the lower end of the mid range tend to be acting more out of duty rather than based on their belief of the importance of trust or security for the student. Thus, these teachers may report some instances of behaving in a supportive manner to the children, but these actions appear linked to their role as a teacher, rather than their understanding of the concept of secure base or the importance of trust in the relationship with the student.

2 = Very little evidence of the concept of secure base, neither through expression of beliefs nor through discussion of interactions with the student. These teachers might also report a lack of sensitivity in meeting the emotional needs of the child.

1 = No evidence of secure base. No examples of attempts to comfort the student are included in the interview. There might also be a consistent dismissal or avoidance of the child’s need for emotional support in the classroom. They might include descriptions of themselves consistently rebuffing the student’s attempts to make contact.

6

TRI scoring manual

Perspective-Taking

This scale measures the quality of the teacher’s awareness of a student’s internal states, and her ability to put herself in the position/mindset of the student. The teacher’s response indicates that she views the student with independent states, thoughts, and feelings that are tenable and believable, and not misattributions. If teachers describe the idea of taking the student's perspective, without more detail, they tend to score in the mid-range. To score on the high end, the teacher must provide consistent examples indicating awareness of the student’s perspective, including a description of the student’s state and the reason for that state. Much of the feel for the teacher’s score of this scale will be derived from the questions that ask her how the student felt in different situations.

7

6 = Teachers put themselves in the position/mindset of the student and are not just labeling the student’s feelings/thoughts. These teachers attempt to understand the student from the student’s perspective and offer reasons for the student’s experience, possibly from the student's perspective. These teachers move past the more superficial labeling of the student’s states and appear to understand how the student views the world, given what they know about the student’s unique qualities and experiences. The teachers view the student with independent thoughts and feelings and provide reasons behind the student’s states. The teachers indicate this awareness by describing a situation when they accurately judged the student’s state. These teachers are more likely to show an appreciation for the student’s point of view in the “misbehavior” and “upset” question. In addition, these teachers often explain the student’s perspective with regard to the example described in the “social challenges” question.

5

4 = These teachers might report a student’s state, but they are less clear about the causes or reasons for the student’s state. On some occasions the teacher might report reasons for the student’s state, but generally these teachers describe the student’s state without explanation as to how he or she came to the conclusion of the student’s thoughts or feelings. These teachers do not tend to elaborate regarding the student’s internal state, but they are able to label the student’s perspectives. These teachers might also provide

7

TRI scoring manual

examples of hypothetical perspective taking, (e.g., "if she wanted to go to the playground and I said no, she'd be pretty mad").

3

2 = These teachers provide little evidence for perspective-taking throughout the interview.

1 = No evidence of perspective-taking. These teachers appear unaware that students have independent emotions or beliefs.

8

TRI scoring manual

Neutralizing Negative Affect

The overriding theme of this scale is the teacher’s attempts to distance herself from the NEGATIVE affective component of the question. The code is akin to the avoidant or dismissing strategy in discussions of attachment, in which negative emotion in the context of a discussion/interaction is dismissed, neutralized, or avoided. If the end result of the response does not seem to neutralize negative affect or somehow avoid the question, neutralize should not be scored at the high end. Teachers who delay responding to the question, but then talk at length about something else or discuss other feelings are not neutralizing. The scale is designed to reflect the degree to which teachers "back away from" discussion of negative emotion in the interview, and may take many forms—including not responding to a question about feelings ("I don't know"), or more sophisticated forms in which the teacher responds with great detail for events, but does not provide any information about their feelings. Teachers who refuse to respond to questions without providing believable support for their lack of ability to provide an example or response are more likely to be scored on the high end of the scale. Teachers who neutralize tend to be less willing to respond to questions that probe for more difficult situations or negative emotions.

7 = Strong attempts to neutralize affect are apparent throughout the interview.

6 = Other teachers scoring at the high end are consistently reluctant to engage in affective discussion, dismissing affect or ignoring affective components of the question and denying their feelings. These teachers feel uncollaborative to the interviewer. They appear to be trying to impress the interviewer with an image of a “perfect” or overly positive relationship with the student. These teachers acknowledge little, if any, negative affect throughout the interview, and if they do acknowledge negative affect, they tend to retract their statements. They might provide positive adjectives in response to the initial questions asking the teacher to choose adjectives that describe their relationships; however, the teachers do not provide examples in the interview to support those positive adjectives. These teachers may also consistently fail to respond to probes about negative emotional states. For example, these teachers often respond neutrally or overly positively to the “how did you feel” questions and they often say “fine” in response to questions that are probe for emotions of teachers during more difficult interactions with the student. Teachers should be scored at the high end if they consistently transform the negative affective component of the question into something neutral or positive. Although these teachers report their relationships as very positive or without negative aspects, they lack examples to support

9

TRI scoring manual

their impressions or their examples are contradictory to their descriptions of themselves, their student, or their relationship with the student. These teachers often describe instances in absolute manners that neutralize more difficult emotions, using phrases such as “always” or “never.” These teachers often deny being disappointed or upset in response to the “misbehavior” question and they might deny having any doubts regarding meeting the student’s needs in response to the “doubts” question.

5

4 = These teachers acknowledge negative affect, but they might turn away from it, such that they might begin answering the questions with negative affect, but then veer away from the emotions. These responses may acknowledge negative affect but in a veiled or incomplete manner by admitting the possibility of negative affect, but then turning away from it. These teachers might provide some credible support for their descriptions and judgments, but they also have some contradictory statements. They might discuss negative affect, but deflect it by often using “you” statements. Examples may include:

You always feel bad when a kid is having a rough time.

In the context of discussing negative affect/experience, these teachers often include statements and “positive wrap-ups,” whereby the teacher returns to a positive summary or appraisal after describing the negative aspects of the student or the relationship.

Yes, sometimes I do feel mad...but that almost never happens, and in fact I think I am happy most all the time.

3 = These teachers often seem to find it challenging to discuss negative affect and might take a longer time to begin discussion of negative affect, but they are eventually able to discuss it without retracting such statements.

2 = Little evidence of negative neutralizing throughout the interview. The teachers appear comfortable discussing more difficult emotions. These teachers might also provide primarily positive affective statements regarding the student and their relationship with the student, but they provide examples to support those judgments. There is very little or no evidence of contradiction between the teachers’ adjectives and the provided examples.

1

10

TRI scoring manual

Agency/Intentionality

This scale reflects the teacher’s feelings of effectiveness within the classroom. The teacher’s sense of agency may be reflected in any area of her job in which she feels particularly effective (e.g., instruction, discipline, inspiring creativity). At the high end of the scale the teacher describes particular incidents in which her specific actions had the intended effect upon the student’s behavior. At the low end the teacher is less sure of her influence on the student or may give more generic statements about the efficacy of her teaching. The essential feature of this scale is that the teacher is describing events as teachable moments; she is seeking opportunities to promote the student’s growth in either social or academic domains.

7

6 = It is clear that these teachers have the intent to change the student’s behavior in a way that makes them feel effective in their jobs. They have a sense of their potential or actual influence on the student and this influence is consistently expressed, even if at times, the teacher judges her efforts as unsuccessful. These teachers clearly link their behaviors and the intended response from the student. These teachers provide clear, episode-level details about incidents in which the teacher clearly links her actions to the target student’s resulting behavior or statements that describe the teacher’s intent to be effective in the classroom and link that intent with the student’s resulting response. These teachers tend to discuss some individual differences between students in the class, but they report to adapt their actions based on the characteristics of the student. The teachers scoring in this range tend to describe students’ competency as a function of classroom opportunity. In response to the “misbehavior” or “push” questions, these teachers often describe their actions as effective. These teachers might report uncertainties in response to the “doubts” question, but they handle these doubts by trying new strategies to impact the student.

5

4 = These teachers have a mixed sense of themselves as having potential influence on the student. They tend to give vague descriptions of either their intent or how their behaviors may have influenced the student. These teachers appear less sure of their influence on the student. They may describe attempts to affect the student, but they are not as confident about the effects of such actions on the student. These responses are notably vaguer than those that are scored in the high end. The teachers report having some

11

TRI scoring manual

“teachable” moments, but there are less explicit connections between the teachers’ behaviors and the student’s responses. These teachers might report having attempted to encourage or help the student, without reporting whether these attempts were successful. It is still evident that these teachers are conceptualizing themselves as having the potential to influence the student, although they do not link their behaviors and the student’s response explicitly. The use of words such as “encouraged” and “helped” are good cues for coding this mid-level agency. Alternatively, these teachers might report a mixed sense of agency, with some reports of ineffective attempts at influencing the student and other reports of effective attempts at influencing the student.

3

2 = There is very little evidence of the teacher’s attempt to have an influence on the child. These teachers do not believe that their actions have an impact on the student and tend to believe that the way the student behaves or performs is more inherent to the individual student’s characteristics and is less influenceable by the teacher. These teachers do not report adapting their behaviors to the specific needs of the student because they believe that the student’s behavior is driven by the inherent characteristics of the student. Statements such as “I told him to pick up the pencil and he did,” which lack any intent, are not conceptualized as “teachable moments”. In general, teacher’s reporting “I told him/her to…” without more specific information falls more under the category of business of teaching and does not reflect agency.

1

12

TRI scoring manual

Helplessness

This scale reflects teachers’ feelings of hopelessness and ineffectiveness within the classroom. Teachers’ sense of helplessness may be reflected when they report that their efforts to help a student (socially, emotionally, or academically) have failed, that they do not know what a student needs to succeed in her classroom, or that they are not able to provide what the student needs to succeed. At the high end of the scale, the teachers may describe particular incidents in which their specific actions were ineffective or when they felt at a loss as to how to work with the target student or with the class as a whole in problem areas. Teachers scoring at the higher end seem to have “given up,” feel upset about the lack of progress, and have stopped trying to make the desired changes in the student’s progress. At the low end, teachers may make more benign statements regarding her uncertainty about the effectiveness and it is evident that they continue to develop new plans intended to positively affect the student. Often, the question inquiring about the teachers doubts and how she deals with her doubts is very useful in helping to conceptualize the teacher’s score on this scale.

7

6 = There is an overall sense of hopelessness communicated by these teachers. The teachers recount specific incidents in which they were unable to have a positive influence on the student’s behavior or performance, or statements that clearly indicate they had no idea of how to help the student. Teachers at the highest end report feelings of sadness about their lack of efficacy with the student. These teachers often report feeling worried, confused, depressed, or disappointed in response to the student’s lack of progress or lack of responsiveness to the teacher’s intervention. These teachers tend not to attempt new strategies to make change in the student’s progress due to the teachers’ feelings of frustration or their lack of hope regarding its potential effectiveness.

5

4 = These teachers seem less certain about their lack of influence. These teachers have a more variable sense of control regarding influencing change in the student. They may indicate that they are unsure of the effect that they had on the student or that they are concerned that the student may not be provided with needed resources. These teachers may report some occasions when they felt that their strategies for making change in the student were effective, but they also report instances when their efforts were less effective

13

TRI scoring manual

or ineffective. These teachers might report some feelings of concern for the child, but these feelings are less obvious and pervasive than teachers who score at the high end of the scale.

3

2 = There is little evidence of the teacher feeling helpless or ineffective. Although these teachers might have reported that some previous efforts to work with the student have failed, they report to continue to develop new strategies to improve the student’s performance or behavior. Thus, these even if they report past failed attempts to make change with the student, these teachers still have hope that their behavior can influence the student and as a result, they are adapting plans to try to help the student.

1

14

TRI scoring manual

Anger/Hostility

This scale measures the extent to which the teachers express anger or hostility regarding their relationship with the student. Teachers who are scored at the high end of the scale explicitly and consistently express anger.

7 = Overt and consistent expressions of hostility are provided. These teachers speak in a critical manner about the student or the relationship with the student, and may belittle the student.

6 = Direct expressions of anger or hostility are provided. These teachers explain or embellish their anger or hostility toward the student, even in response to more neutral or positive questions, such as the adjective questions at the beginning of the interview. The teachers tend to communicate feelings of blame toward the student. These teachers might express disapproval of the student’s efforts. In addition, these teachers might use pejorative statements or long sentences and explanations describing the faults of the student. When focused on the anger and hostility, these teachers might report feelings that seem to challenge their sense of emotional stability. These teachers appear to the interviewer to hold on to the anger from past events and as a result, may describe approaching or conceptualizing their relationship with the student or with the school in a more hostile way. These teachers might also be less able to integrate the positive emotions associated with their relationship with the student or their role as a teacher. At the highest end of the scale, the teachers might report anger in response to a question that probes for positive affect, such as the “click” or “satisfaction” questions.

5

4 = These teachers more vaguely reference feeling anger or hostility. Although these teachers express some anger, they do not elaborate about these feelings and these feelings are not pervasive throughout the interview. Their feelings of anger and hostility appear less strong and might be communicated as “frustration.” These teachers do not describe that these feelings impact their emotional stability in the school or in their relationship with their student. The teacher might report some instance of annoyance, anger, or hostility, especially in response to the “not click,” “misbehavior,” or “doubts” questions, but the feelings are described as reflection in isolation because they were associated with a particular incident and the teacher does not appear to hold on to those

15

TRI scoring manual

feelings in the present time. These teachers are also more able to integrate other feelings into their descriptions.

3

2 = Little evidence of anger or hostility. They might include vague references that imply hostility or anger, such as an occasion when they felt the student or a situation in school was challenging or difficult, but they do not directly express feeling angry or acting hostilely in response to those challenges.

1

16

TRI scoring manual

Positive Affect

This scale measures the extent to which the teacher expresses feeling positive affect in their relationship with the student. Examples of positive affect include happiness, joy, close, pride, loving, etc. The teacher may also provide examples that include physical affection between the teacher and the student such as a hug or holding the student in an affectionate manner.

7

6 = It is clear that the teacher derives positive feelings from the relationship with the student. These teachers give the impression that they enjoy their role as a teacher of the student and are supportive and friendly in their interactions with the student. These teachers also use “I” statements that reflect their benefit from serving as teachers or relating to the student. These teachers frequently report positive affect in response to the “click” or “satisfaction” questions. These teachers embellish their positive affect, such as by providing examples or reasons to support their feelings. Teachers at this end of the scale tend to provide more positive adjectives describing their relationship with the students.

5

4 = These teachers appear generally positive about their relationship with the student, but they provide few or little examples to support their affect and they are less descriptive regarding their positive feelings. These teachers report some positive affect regarding their relationship with the student, but the affect is not embellished and is less evident throughout the interview. They might report an occasion when they derived pleasure from their relationship with the student, but the affect does not appear to pervade most interactions with the student.

3

2 = There is little evidence of positive affect throughout the interview, or the teacher only reports the student’s positive affect. These teachers might vaguely or indirectly describe positive affect, but they do not directly express positive feelings about their relationship with the student. There are very few or no examples or embellishment provided to support the teachers’ positive affect. These teachers do not appear to be positively emotionally

17

TRI scoring manual

connected to the student. These teachers do not tend to describe positive affect in response to the “satisfaction” or “click” questions.

1

18

TRI scoring manual

Global Coherence

The Coherence scale measures the teacher’s ability to present and assess experiences in a reasonable and understandable manner. There are several positive indices of coherence, as well as aspects that render a transcript incoherent. These positive and negative indices of coherence are described below. They are followed by the rating guidelines, ranging from 1 to 5. At the low end of the scale a teacher is extremely incoherent, frequently contradicting herself and very difficult to understand. At the high end the teacher is very coherent, providing a steady and well-developed flow of ideas.

Positive Indications of CoherenceTeacher…

provides a unified, yet free-flowing picture of events and their effects on self and the student.

is collaborative with interviewer, willingly engages in the discussion, lacks defensiveness. easily recalls specific experiences. focuses on the questions and answers them directly. presents thoughts, feelings, and experiences in a consistent manner, without

contradictions. Is succinct, offers evidence for what she says.

Indications of Incoherence

These indications of incoherence are based on the work of the Philosopher Grice (1975). He identified four maxims of coherence: quality, quantity, relation, and manner. Violations of these maxims are described below. Each violation leads to a lower rating of coherence.

Quality (Truthfulness): Contradictions between abstract descriptions of the child (e.g., adjectives) and specific

examples. Logical or factual contradictions within the transcript. For example, a teacher may

recount a time the child misbehaved early in the interview and then fail to come up with an example when she is asked to tell about a time the child misbehaved.

Rapid oscillations of viewpoint.– He was never bad—well sometimes he was horrible—but really he was a great kid.

Quantity (Succinct, yet complete): Teacher gives too much information, providing extremely long answers to most

questions. Teacher may get lost in her thoughts or appear to attempt trying to convince the

interviewer of the truthfulness her answers. Refusal to respond to a question.

– I can’t think of a time we didn’t click.

Relation (Relevance):

19

TRI scoring manual

Departures from the interview topic. Losing track of the question. Provide excessive irrelevant information.

– We really clicked when we were studying India. You know I love Indian culture. I’ve been there several times. The last time I went was just an amazing experience. I traveled all around the country and met so many interesting people.

Manner (Clarity and Order): Excessive use of jargon or nonsense words.

– He was really laying a trip on me all day.– I went and told him, you know dadada.– Well we all knew what he would do, blah, blah, blah.

Use of metaphors inappropriate to the interview context.– I think of him as a fawn, embroidered in bright colors against the background of…

Excessive use of run-on sentences which are difficult to understand Odd explanations or biases.

– We had a great relationship because he was so tall. Sentences which are left unfinished.

– He went outside to play with his friend. He was having a difficult time because…He came back in for help.

Ratings

1- Highly Incoherent: This transcript is markedly disorganized and difficult to understand for any variety of reasons, including the following. There are pervasive contradictions of thoughts and facts. The teacher is unable to describe experiences in a meaningful way. There are frequent violations of quality, quantity, relation, and/or manner. In addition, there are virtually no positive indices of coherence.

2- Incoherent: The teacher does not present a coherent picture of her experiences and is incoherent in one or more ways. She may have occasional periods of positive indices of coherence but overall she seems uncooperative or untruthful. The coder is unlikely to agree with the teacher regarding all of her experiences. These transcripts might include some contradictions or unusual speech.

3- Neither Coherent nor Incoherent: The teacher’s responses are not especially clear nor difficult to follow. The transcript has some positive indices of coherence, as well as some violations of quality, quantity, relation, and/or manner. This teacher may be coherent through most of the interview, with brief periods of incoherence, or she may be moderately coherent throughout the interview. These responses tend to make sense, but are more vague and there are times when they are more difficult to follow.

4- Coherent: The transcript has many positive indices of coherence. The teacher’s experiences appear truthful, consistent, and plausible. She answers questions completely, but not with excessive lengthiness. The coder is likely to agree with most of

20

TRI scoring manual

the teacher’s statements. This transcript may lack some elements of coherence (e.g. not flowing, mild contradictions) and may require occasional interpretation of the meaning.

5- Highly Coherent: The teacher provides a steady and well-developed flow of ideas throughout the interview. She is at ease with the topic and may even express new insights during the interview. All central positive indications of coherence should be present at this high end of the scale. In addition, these teachers tend to be both thorough and concise. It is likely that there will be occasional violations of quality, quantity, relation, and/or manner due to the verbatim transcription of the interview, but they should be infrequent and relatively minor.

21