Methodological Knowledge and Expertise
We can use this thread to share experiences of developing knowledge of AR in all its presentations, ask the questions that continue to challenge us, and share thinking/resources in a mutually supportive way.
Comments
Please use this thread to ask questions, share expertise, and provide support.
I hope you are very well.
I am writing up a PhD thesis at the moment.
I have a pretty standard layout so far C1 Intro C2 Lit Review C3 Methodology (PAR) C4 Pedagogic Design (i.e how the theory in C2 translated to class activities/lessons on the ground and how they were implemented)
Then it comes to C5 onwards - Data analysis
The challenge here is I had one Reconnaissance Cycle and then three Action Cycles
I wan to demonstrate how each cycle was shaped by the outcome/findings/feedback from the previous cycle
Obviously data was analysed from one cycle to the next to achieve this.
Some of this was 'on the go' analysis/findings etc
There is also other data that was analysed at the end of the three cycles- which encompassed the whole project- some of which would be pre- and post- intervention questionnaires- the results of any comparative analysis reflects on whole project, not individual cycles.
Thus my current shaping of data analysis is this
C5 Data Analysis I: Interim Analysis as Praxis
Here I detail any analysis/ decisions made within cycle etc which shaped the next cycle.
The purpose is demonstrate the rigour of each cycle
C6 Data Analysis ll: This will look analysis of the project as a whole- data which reflects this, as well as honing the analysis in the context of the research questions, triangulation- pulling the elements of interim data analysis together, triangulating where appropriate etc.
It seems to be working so far. Am at that stage now of populating these chapters and navigating what goes where etc.
It's an alternative to a cycle-by cycle approach - a single chapter encompassing all that happened in each cycle etc. I have read a number of PhDs written in that way and it worked brilliantly.
However it didn't seem to be working for me as my C4 Design had already delved into the Action Cycles from a design/implementation perspective- what is happening on the ground in terms of teaching, co-design, co-researcher students etc- so the Action cycle story has already been told from a design/implementation perspective. I wanted to separate design/what happened on the ground (essentially the pedagogy and the PAR aspects of collaboration, co design, reciprocity etc) from analysis of surveys, emergent findings etc)
For example if I take the example of the Peer Tutoring Lesson Evaluation sheet- A weekly reflection sheet that pupils completed in relation to the 2 Peer Tutoring lessons in which they participated
This features in C4 design/implementation chapter as it was a resource that was co-designed by teacher and children. It was piloted in Wk 1 and was improved and refined through Wk 2 and Wk3 of project collaboratively. That aspect of the Evaluation sheet is discussed in C4.
It also features then in C5 as part of the Action Cycle 1 review- and how the process of peer tutoring helped each student is examined via the children's responses. Thus is is an interim data source in relation to the outcomes of peer tutoring in AC1 which helped inform the student-parent tutoring launched in Action Cycle 3. Analysis of the children;s responses will also feed into the overall analysis of the language project in C6.
Thus instead of a whole cycle by cycle approach- I seem to be veering down an alternative approach of identifying design features underpinned by PAR Activity in the classroom (C4) , followed by interim analysis of each Action Cycle to demonstrate how the next Action Cycle was informed and evolved (C5) , followed by an overall/collective analysis of the language project based on end-of-project data coupled with the interim analyses.
Any thoughts/ideas/ suggestions/ critical feedback most welcome!
Many thanks,
Jane.