1.

Did the researchers maintain sufficient involvement at the site to overcome distortions, uncover peoples
constructions, and understand the contexts culture?

Yes. Researchers Cassie Quigley and Anna Hall, in their study, Taking care: Understanding the
roles of caregiver and being cared for in kindergarten classroom have maintained involvement at the
site to overcome distortions, uncover peoples constructions and understand the contexts culture.

In fact, the researchers pointed out as a context of their study was an all-girls public science
academy. They stated also that the school and the community decided to become a science-focused
academy primarily to debunk some of the gendered stereotypes regarding girls science ability.

Since the researchers context of their study was an all-girls school, they employed a so-called
feminist methodology to understand the problematic activity, especially when they are interviewing
very young girls. This feminist methodology complements with the researchers data source, photo-
talks, Listening Guide for data analysis approach.

2. Did the researchers avoid premature closure?

Yes. The researchers actually avoided overgeneralization, selective observation, and the
defensive uses of illogical reasoning which all conspire to the premature closure of inquiry. The
researchers did not stop the inquiry too soon before they know enough about the topic and do
not decide to have further study.

In fact, on the discussion part of their study, the researchers were able to document one teacher
demonstrating the three key practices of relational pedagogy and at the same time observe how
the students responded to the teachers caring environment.

While on the conclusion part, the researchers pointed out that their study attempted to expand
the research on early childhood education research emphasizing on developing a praxis for
caring. Hence, the conclusion of the researchers has satisfactorily complied and demonstrated
their chosen methodology for their study.

3. Did the researchers use peer debriefing?

No. The researchers did not use peer debriefing in their study. The study was focused only to Ms.
E, the kindergarten teacher, and some of her students namely: Rava, Macy, Shiya, Anaria,
TYael. The researchers did not engage in an extended discussion with other disinterested peer of
findings, conclusion, analysis and hypotheses.

4. Did the researchers use negative case analysis?

No. The researchers did not use a negative case analysis in their study. On the conclusion part of
their study, they pointed out that further study will be conducted in order to look for specific
spaces and schools where relational pedagogy can and be enacted. Further, they suggested that
teachers should have specific pedagogical strategies to create an environment that is supportive
of an ethic of care which they claimed as the foundation to learning.
5. Did the researchers prepare a statement of beliefs and share those with the peer debriefer?
None at all.

6. Did the researchers use member-checks?

Yes. The reconstructed notes made by the researchers were member-checked by Ms E as explicitly
stated on the studys Teacher interviews section.

7. Did the researchers use triangulation?

Yes. The researchers use triangulation in their study. In fact, they cited several literatures and
related studies on caring and other pedagogies related to their study. The researchers also employed
several methods or sources to gather data such as conducting interviews, photo-talks, and Listening
Guide in order to assure the validity of research through.

8. Did the researchers provide sufficient thick description?

Yes. The researchers provide a thick description to describe and explain the contextual process
of human behavior, especially on the importance of teachers learning to care for the students. Such
description could be found on the introduction part of the study where the researchers explained their
observation with Ms. E. The researchers also provide context of an act and stated the intentions and
meanings and presents the action as a text that can then be interpreted.

9. Did the researchers do a dependability audit?

Yes. The researchers actually conducted a dependability audit on their study. In order to
understand the way teacher and the students viewed caring in the classroom, the researchers employed
a Listening Guide to understand the extent of caring was part of the classroom for young girls.

10. Did the researchers do a confirmability audit?

Yes. The researchers conducted a confirmability audit. The findings of the study was based on the
sufficient evidence from the gathered data.

11. Did the researcher display conflicts and value differences?

None at all. The researchers declared no potential conflict of interest with respect to the
research, authorship and publication of their study.

12. Did the individuals and groups become more informed or sophisticated about their experiences?
Yes. As stated on the discussion, the students were aware that they are cared for by their teacher
Ms E as caring for her students is part of her job as a teacher. Thus, she situated learning in
students experiences.

13. Did the evaluation stimulates actions?

Yes. The evaluation stimulates actions. The researchers demonstrate credibility, in the form of properly
used scientific methods, their trainings, experience and beliefs. The procedure, where the research
process and researcher's work has been closely examined and evaluated by other experts in the field.
1. Did the researchers maintain sufficient involvement at the site to overcome distortions, uncover peoples
constructions, and understand the contexts culture?

Yes. The researchers actually involved themselves at the site to specifically understand the contexts
culture and uncover peoples constructions. Observations and onsite interviews were conducted to fully
understand the construction of the school community. Their study on A qualitative investigation of
early childhood teachers experiences of rhythm as pedagogy emerged while two researchers D.R.M
and V.A.Uwere working on a evaluation project in an elementary school in rural Southwest Ohio. The
said school was piloting Brain Maze, a local program inspired by Candace Meyers work, among
others.

2. Did the researchers avoid premature closure?

Yes. The researchers avoided premature closure to avoid of accepting an idea before it is fully verified.
Their reasoning and analysis were based from the interviews and through the use of Interview Guide.
All these are sufficient evidence that are verified and validated by the researchers.

3. Did the researchers use peer debriefing?

No. The researchers did not use peer debriefing. No disinterested person or group was involved in the
study that researchers discussed their findings, conclusions and analysis of their study.

4. Did the researchers use negative case analysis?

No. The researchers did not use negative case analysis.

5. Did the researchers prepare a statement of beliefs and share those with the peer debriefer?

No. As stated above, no peer debriefer participated in the study.

6. Did the researchers use member-checks?

No. The researchers did use member-checks. However, they just noted that after the interview,
participants were debriefed only regarding the purpose of the study.

7. Did the researchers use triangulation?

Yes. They used the researcher triangulation meaning each author of the study independently read and
re-read each interview transcription and marked any slice of data that answered the question of their
study: What are public elementary school educators perceptions and experiences of rhythm in the
teachinglearning process generally and in their classroom teaching, specifically? The researchers,
thereafter, met to share and discuss their analyses. They also subsequently met to share their
construction of themes and the specific data that comprised the themes identified.
8. Did the researchers provide sufficient thick description?

Yes. The researchers provided sufficient thick description and explanation about their study. In fact, on
the introduction part of their study, they cited several literatures and related studies about rhythm
such as Gardners (1993) multiple intelligence, Ubbes (2008) on health education, Perret and Fox
(2006) on rhythmic component, Taub and Lazarus (2012) on the role of rhythm on reading
achievements, among others.

9. Did the researchers do a dependability audit?

Yes. The researchers did a dependability audit. While their study employed phenomenology as the
specific qualitative research approach, their study also attempts to questions the teaching-learning
process and to explore other possibilities on how education is provided and practiced.

10. Did the researchers do a confirmability audit?

Yes. The researchers conducted a confirmability audit. The findings of the study was based on the sufficient
evidence from the gathered data.

11. Did the researcher display conflicts and value differences?

None at all. The researchers declared no potential conflict of interest with respect to the research,
authorship and publication of their study.

12. Did the individuals and groups become more informed or sophisticated about their experiences?

Yes. According to the researchers, educators who participated in their study perceived rhythm as a
patternsthat were created in repetition, beat or movement. For them, rhythm is natural, meaning it is
an experienced that exists in anything. With this, the researchers hope that the educators experiences of
rhythm in their teaching maybe incorporated into classroom teaching and enhance childrens learning
and development.

13. Did the evaluation stimulates actions?

Yes. The evaluation stimulates actions. The researchers demonstrate credibility, in the form of properly
used scientific methods, their trainings, experience and beliefs. The procedure, where the research
process and researcher's work has been closely examined and evaluated by other experts in the field.