Table 2 Three-stage coding.
Open coding | Axial coding | Selective coding | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Node name | Sources | References | ||
Teachers view it as a school-based course | 18 | 20 | Teachers have cognitive biases regarding course positioning and goals | Teacher cognitive biases, insufficient localization of course resources, distorted evaluation systems, irrelevant school interventions, vague top-level design, weak teaching staff |
Teachers view it as an extracurricular course | 14 | 14 | ||
Teachers focus on the development of students’ basic knowledge and skills | 21 | 24 | ||
Teachers tend to overlook higher-level course goals | 16 | 18 | ||
Course resources are not well integrated with the local context | 17 | 18 | Course resources are insufficiently connected to the local context | |
Teachers blindly admire urban course resources | 14 | 15 | ||
Teachers do not pay enough attention to local resources | 20 | 22 | ||
Misalignment in evaluation roles | 12 | 12 | The purpose, process, and outcomes of course evaluation are distorted | |
Evaluation still focuses primarily on knowledge | 13 | 13 | ||
Evaluation emphasizes form and results | 16 | 16 | ||
Lack of evaluation of the effectiveness of teacher guidance | 15 | 15 | ||
Schools are keen on publicity | 14 | 14 | Schools are more focused on grand, impressive external outcomes | |
Schools are keen on organizing events | 20 | 22 | ||
Schools are keen on creating “unique features” | 14 | 15 | ||
Course status is inconsistent with its nature | 15 | 16 | Top-level design is in the exploratory phase | |
There is much overlap in the course forms | 19 | 21 | ||
Too many course activities | 18 | 19 | ||
Serious lack of full-time teaching staff | 14 | 15 | Teaching staff is fragmented, weakened, and their development is limited | |
Teachers lack the necessary competencies | 23 | 29 | ||
Teacher development paths are not smooth | 25 | 34 | ||
