AM-ME: Analyze Qualitative Data

Our Approach to analysis 

Our analysis process combined structured coding with meaning-making, grounded in community-engaged research practices. We approached this work in three main phases: 

1. Organizing the data 

• We first sorted the qualitative data by wave of collection. Each wave has its own folder, and within each folder, files are labeled by school, data type (e.g., focus group, interview), participant type (e.g., student, teacher), and year. 
• We then de-identified all transcripts to protect participant privacy and ensure ethical data use. This step is essential for safe sharing and analysis. 
• • Replaced all real names with consistent pseudonyms for schools, teachers, and students. 
  • Reviewed the entire transcript carefully, as names can appear anywhere. 
  • Flagged personal details that could reveal identity (e.g., “I’ve taught here for 26 years”). 
  • Made edits directly without tracking changes. 
  • Contacted the project lead with any questions. 
• Finally, we uploaded the cleaned, de-identified data into Dedoose, our qualitative coding platform. 

2. Coding the data 

• We developed a coding framework based on our research questions and early patterns in the data. In addition to initial insights from focus groups and interviews, we considered existing frameworks—such as the Math and Science Engagement Scales to help shape our early codes. 
• We then used content analysis techniques to refine and organize these codes, focusing on recurring ideas about math engagement (e.g., learning behaviors, peer dynamics, emotional responses). This helped us build a structured codebook to support consistent coding across data sources. 
• We used Dedoose to apply our coding framework systematically across transcripts from student focus groups and teacher interviews. 
• For some waves of data, we also created participant-level summaries to synthesize key insights and surface patterns across individuals, supporting our team’s early sense-making and refinement of the codebook. 

3. Interpreting meaning 

• We used memoing to reflect on patterns and make sense of how themes showed up across different students, settings, and roles. 
• We also applied thematic analysis to identify broader patterns that could help guide the narrative framing of our findings and support targeted dissemination efforts. 
• We further enriched our interpretations by working closely with the AM-ME Research Group. 

4. Ensuring rigor and grounding 

• We held regular team discussions to review findings, resolve questions about code application, and reflect on emerging interpretations. 
• We were also mindful of our own positionality—recognizing that our personal, professional, and practice-based experiences around equity and education shaped how we understood students’ responses. As a team, we discussed these influences openly and used those conversations to strengthen our awareness and interpretations. 
• Most importantly, we kept our focus on centering youth voice. Our goal was to elevate students’ lived experiences in ways that would inform not only the development of the AM-ME, but also how math engagement is defined, measured, and supported in practice. 

How Qualitative findings informed the final AM-ME 

Our qualitative analysis played a central role in shaping the final version of the AM-ME. For each factor in the measure, we used qualitative data to: 

• Provide evidence of its importance based on what students and teachers shared 
• Clarify how engagement shows up in real classroom settings and beyond, including the community resources for learning 
• Shape the language and structure of items to reflect students’ lived experiences 

Our analysis also informed a culturally responsive math engagement framework that guides the interpretation and use of the AM-ME. By centering student and teacher perspectives, we surfaced key themes and practices that show how engagement is shaped by context. These findings now help schools use the AM-ME in ways that are meaningful, culturally grounded, and supportive of deeper student engagement.