Rethinking Schooling for the 21st Century

Content analysis of this kind also implied the risk of subjective interpretation
and biased analysis.
Box A.1: Measures taken to reduce the level of subjectivity and ensure intercoder
reliability
In order to reduce the level of subjectivity:
1. a detailed coding guide was developed;
2. a capacity building workshop was held in Delhi in May 2016 to ensure a common
understanding of the coding scheme;
3. a Technical Support Group was established;
4. in several countries, a research team was established and more than one individual
was coding, which verified the coding results;
5. national research teams underwent a pilot coding before they formally began coding;
6. national research teams underwent a mandatory coding exercise of an excerpt of the
NCF of Malta, in order to further enhance shared understanding amongst coders;
7. the MGIEP team (consisting of 1 international staff and 2 national officers) reviewed
the submitted coding sheets and inquired the national research teams when there
were doubts about coding results; and
8. the MGIEP team also responded to all queries received and concerns raised from the
national research teams, both via email and Skype calls.
(4) The Development of a National-Level Background
Paper
For each country covered by the study, a country-level report (ca. 10,000 words)
was developed, partly based on the content analysis of the data sources, and
partly on the review of secondary source materials and interviews with relevant
stakeholders as necessary and appropriate. Researchers were provided
with an outline of 22 questions under the following sub-headings: context;
understandings of ESD/GCED concepts in the country; the notion of the ‘ideal
citizen’ and the self-image of the country manifested in policy and curriculum;
ESD/GCED integration into policy; ESD/GCED integration into curricula; and,
discussion and ways forward.
Each report went through an extensive review process, both internally and
externally. In particular, most final reports were sent to external peer reviewers
(experts who had knowledge of ESD/GCED at the national level, and were in a
position to provide adequate advice to improve the quality of the reports) to
ensure that the nature of ESD/GCED at the national level was accurately captured.
228
Appendices