Table 3 Cross-team focused codes, descriptor, and example extracts

1. Team chemistry

Instances that indicated how a team generally operated or individual roles that were taken up. These could be deemed positive or inhibitory.

Jill: Now that you’ve presented this Evan, it sounds like we are in agreement that this is the way to go.

2. PD–supports/orchestrations

Mentions of PD activities or structures that were brought up in conversation or during an interview. Typically, these were brought up as being beneficial.

Derek: The whole point of us writing this curriculum is to share (it). That’s why we are doing this stuff.

3. STEM integration

Occasions wherein teachers discussed any of the disciplines of STEM education, STEM integration, or STEM curriculum. Engineering design challenges were prevalent here.

Nathan: As an engineering piece, what can they (students) build that will reinforce those learning targets.

4. Teacher ideas/influences

Occurrences where teachers brought ideas to the team or were influenced in their thinking about what their curriculum could be. Discussions of the idea generation process were also included here.

Samantha: We did not need to stay with this idea and feel like…let’s brainstorm some new ones that we like. Let’s be proactive because I’m not attached to this (idea) at all. I think at this point, I feel like I’ve had everything I have to say about it.

5. Facilitator role

At certain points in the process, graduate students (in a facilitative role) were deemed valuable to their respective teams. Influential instances were collated here.

Derek: We have been talking so broadly. I mean you’re shortening it to “How do we get non-bike riders riding?” it’s just a nice clean way to do that and it’s in student friendly language already.

Hank: That’s kind of my goal.