Ball, E and Regan, PJ 2013, '“How, when, why” – a comparison of two action research methods to examine the hidden tones in annotation feedback' , Canadian Journal of Action Research, 14 (2) , pp. 39-50.
- Published Version
Restricted to Repository staff only
Download (576kB) | Request a copy
This paper broadly confirms earlier conclusions in which action research findings identified that feedback on student assignments through annotation carried an unfavourable lecturer tone and failed to motivate the student as a learner. It was important to examine the action research process to show how a negative tone is so easily manifested in annotation. By subverting the feedback process, annotation was read as marginalia in temporary isolation of the assignment and tone was easily identified. Two different action research (AR) studies were carried out by two lecturers studying for a post graduate qualification in teaching and learning to examine annotation. One study examined annotation using participatory action research (PAR) (Marshall et al. 2011), while the other study included semi-structured questionnaires (McNiff et al 2003). This paper demonstrates how the chosen methodology can either support or restrict action research if the methods are considered ill-matched to the study. Both studies sought to answer the same question and so are in fact comparable. Therefore, the paper is as much about methodological process as it is about findings relating to annotation.
|Schools:||Schools > School of Nursing, Midwifery, Social Work & Social Sciences|
|Journal or Publication Title:||Canadian Journal of Action Research|
|Funders:||Non funded research|
|Depositing User:||Dr Elaine Ball|
|Date Deposited:||30 Sep 2016 10:45|
|Last Modified:||30 Sep 2016 10:45|
Actions (login required)
|Edit record (repository staff only)|