This paper is about methodological challenges in a research project about inquiry-based learning in teacher education that occurred because usual ways of data collection became impossible due to the worldwide Covid 19 pandemic.

Starting point was the idea to carry out offline face-to-face group discussions to collect data in the context of inquiry-based learning in teacher education at university. Following the theory of inquiry-based learning, this didactic principle can prepare student teachers for their future profession by fostering teaching competencies like collaborating in teams or reflecting on lessons, but also by fostering academic competencies like analysing classroom interaction via scientific methods or by developing a critical inquiring attitude (e.g. Spronken-Smith & Walker, 2010; Levy & Petrulis, 2012; Weyland, 2019). Nevertheless, there is not much empirical research on the question how inquiry-based learning can stimulate professionalization processes.

To get access to the collective knowledge structures underlying learning and professionalization processes, face-to-face group discussions (Bohnsack, 2010) should be conducted at two German universities. To reach as many student teachers as possible, data collection should take place during the courses. However, due to restrictions in the context of Covid pandemic, the courses were held via the video conferencing tool Zoom. As a consequence, we had to carry out online group discussions via this tool as well.

On a theoretical basis, collecting group discussions via video conferences leads to some challenges, especially when data shall be analysed with a qualitative, reconstructive method like Documentary Method (Bohnsack et al., 2010) in our project. Following Bohnsack et al. (2010), the way of collecting data is important to get a certain quality of data. To attain rich data that allow deep reconstructive analysis, researchers should consider eight ‘reflective principles’ including e.g. addressing the whole group, not intervening and proposing themes rather than setting propositions. Following these principles should lead to a discourse led by the group members, not by the researcher. This is important as Documentary Method is about analysing the explicit as well as the implicit knowledge structures of the participants by giving them the possibility to unfold their relevancies.

As group discussions of this kind were developed and are used in face-to-face situations, there is no research yet about the question whether and how online group discussions can fulfil the established principles. When looking at German and English-speaking studies, there is also little research about other data collection methods conducted online (e.g. Schmidt-Lux & Wohlrab-Sahr 2020). There are studies that generally discuss advantages and disadvantages of using Zoom for interviews (e.g. Archibald et al., 2019; Boland et al., 2020; Gray et al., 2020). Most of this research is based on the assessments and impressions of the participants, emphasizing e.g. the accessibility to research given by online video tools or technical issues. Methodical or even methodological questions concerning data quality are therefore not treated directly. When it comes to group discussions, there is research about written, asynchronous forms of individuals discussing topics e.g. via chat or commentaries (e.g. Lijadi & Van Schalkwyk, 2015; Wilson et al., 2015; Schiek & Ullrich, 2016). Such research findings are not very useful or significant for conducting verbal, synchronous group discussions. How the group organize their discourse under the condition of compulsions of narrating and describing is not taken into account. Furthermore, there is no research about using online group discussions in the context of research on teacher professionalism or teacher education.

Against this background, this presentation aims at entering new ground by following the questions whether, and if yes how online group discussions affect data quality and what this would mean for further analysing teacher professionalization.

The data analysed are generated in the project “Reconstructive longitudinal study on professionalization processes in the context of inquiry-based learning: A comparison of two universities” (ReLieF, 2021-2023), funded by the German Research Foundation. This project aims at exploring whether, and if yes how two different ways of implementing the didactic principle of inquiry-based learning (Huber & Reinmann, 2019) lead to professionalization processes of teacher students at Master-level. Data collection took place at the beginning and at the end of the courses which run over two semesters. In sum, 15 group discussions were conducted at the beginning of the research courses in the summer term (April 2021, t1). At the end of the following winter term, these groups were once again asked to discuss (January 2022, t2). While at t1, the teacher students were asked about their associations about doing research in general and at university, at t2, they should discuss their experiences in the research courses they were about to finish. At both times, the participants were also asked to draw a picture showing their shared experiences with doing research. All group discussions were conducted online via Zoom in separate breakout-sessions during the courses. Data analysis with Documentary Method aims at exploring the shared knowledge structures of the teacher students that underlie the way they speak about doing research as well as their experiences with inquiry-based learning. As Documentary Method is mainly based on the sociology of knowledge by Mannheim (1982), two sorts of knowledge are explored. At first, formulating interpretation is about decoding and formulating the topical structure of the transcripts: What do the teacher students literally say? This step focuses the explicit knowledge that comes visible e.g. in norms and common sense-theories about doing research at university and in school. Second, reflecting interpretation is about reconstructing the formal organization of the discussions and the way the teacher students speak: How do they refer to each other? This step focuses on the implicit knowledge that refer to shared frames of orientation structuring the habitus of the teacher students (Bohnsack, 2010). To analyse the quality of the data and to enable the analysis by Documentary Method, we reflected the principles of conducting group discussions proposed by Bohnsack (2010, see above). We also checked the dynamic of the discussions by analysing the number and lengths of speeches and looked for noticeable passages that could be affected by the online form.

First findings show that conducting synchronous group discussions online has some potentials but also challenges for analysing teacher professionalization. Concerning the potentials, all ‘reflective principles’ of conducting group discussions (Bohnsack, 2010, see above) could be fulfilled although some had to be adapted to the online form. The discussions seem to be self-dynamic which allows to analyse the relevance systems and knowledge structures of the participants and thereby enable us to detect professionalization processes. Nevertheless, several challenges occurred: technical challenges (e.g. familiarity with the tool ZOOM), challenges considering ethical principles (e.g. saving and processing data), challenges for the moderation and the flow of interactions (e.g. ‘netiquette’ of online meetings) and challenges for data analysis. Concerning the last challenges, we can see that some passages in the discussions were influenced by the online form. In the presentation, it will be discussed whether and to which degree these passages and the other challenges produced biased data quality. Furthermore, the fact that the participants could just see each other’s faces will be considered. In personal meetings, communication in groups has also something to do with body language, e.g. when it comes to turn taking or communicating agreement resp. disagreement. Also, the significance or insignificance of artefacts concerning disturbances of the online data transmission for the recorded discussions will be discussed. Finally, one potential is eye-catching: Conducting the group discussions online was the only possible way of collecting data due to Covid-restrictions. Against this background, the presentation shall be an occasion to discuss a worldwide problem: accessing research fields not only in the context of teacher education, but also in other contexts in pandemic times.

Archibald, M., Ambagtsheer, R., Casey, M. & Lawless, M. (2019). Using Zoom Videoconferencing for Qualitative Data Collection: Perceptions and Experiences of Researchers and Participants. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18. https://doi.org.10.1177/160940691987459 Bohnsack, R. (2010). Documentary Method and Group Discussions. In R. Bohnsack, N. Pfaff & W. Weller (Eds.): Qualitative Analysis and Documentary Method in International Educational Research (pp. 99-124). Opladen & Farmington Hills: Barbara Budrich Publishers. Bohnsack, R., Pfaff, N. & Weller, V. (Eds.) (2010). Qualitative analysis and documentary method in international educational research. Opladen: Budrich. Boland, J., Banks, S., Krabbe, R., Lawrence, S., Murray, T., Henning, T. & Vandenberg, M. (2021). COVID-19-era rapid review: using Zoom and Skype for qualitative group research. Public Health Research & Practice. https://doi.org/10.17061/phrp31232112 Gray, L. M., Wong-Wylie, G., Rempel, G. & Cook, K. (2020). Expanding Qualitative Research Interviewing Strategies: Zoom Video Communications. The Qualitative Report, 25 (5), Article 8, 1292-1301. Huber, L., & Reinmann, G. (2019). Vom forschungsnahen zum forschenden Lernen an Hochschulen. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Levy, P., & Petrulis, R. (2012). How do first-year university students experience inquiry and research? Studies in Higher Education, 37(1), 85-101. Lijadi, A. & Van Schalkwyk, G. (2015). Online Facebook focus group research of hard-to-reach participants. International Journal of Qualitative Research, 14(5). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406915621383 Mannheim, K. (1982). Structures of Thinking. London: Routledge. Schiek, D. & Ullrich, C. G. (Eds.) (2016). Qualitative Online-Erhebungen. Voraussetzungen – Möglichkeiten – Grenzen. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Schmidt-Lux, T. & Wohlrab-Sahr, M. (2020). Qualitative Online-Forschung. Methodische und methodologische Herausforderungen. Zeitschrift für Qualitative Forschung, 21 (1), 3-11. Spronken-Smith, R., & Walker, R. (2010). Can inquiry-based learning strengthen the links between teaching and disciplinary research? Studies in Higher Education, 35(6), 723-740. Weyland, U. (2019). Forschendes Lernen in Langzeitpraktika. In M. Degeling, N. Franken, S. Freund, S. Greiten, D. Neuhaus, & J. Schellenbach-Zell (Eds.), Herausforderung Kohärenz (pp. 25-64). Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt. Wilson, E., Kenny, A. & Dickson-Swift, V. (2015). Using blogs as a qualitative health research tool: a scoping review. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 14(5). https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406915618049