|Focused code||Indicator descriptor||Example extract|
|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.