Analysis of data

The data I have analysed has been in two forms. First, the quantitative data from my analysis of the number of schemes, students attending, and responses to the questionnaires to peer facilitators, students offered peer learning and teachers. The analysis of this data was comparatively straightforward. Second, there was the qualitative data from the SI support meetings, PSer Journals, the interview with the PSers and the IMs. This data was in a textual form.

As I explained in my Research Design (see Section 3.5.2) I have extracted quotations from various types of textual data. These quotations were selected on the basis of exemplifying themes I had identified in the whole of the particular source of data. However, it could be argued that the identification o f these themes involved a rationalisation of changes in the implementation of peer learning after the changes had taken place. This would imply that themes were selected that were convenient to producing a coherent picture of the development of the implementation of peer learning rather than reflecting real changes in the implementation of peer learning.

There are two responses to this. First, all research involves the identification of themes that change over the time that the research is conducted. Part o f the researcher’s task is to tell a coherent story that relates the data that is presented rather than simple the presenting all o f the data. Thus to some extent rationalisation in the writing up process is inevitable because as, Lomax and Parker (1995) argue, all researchers must make decisions about how to represent their research. Thus, the

writing up of this chapter does reflect my changed understanding of the implementation of peer learning.

Second, I have used my extracts from my Progress reports to my PhD Supervisor to guard against the mis-identification of changes in this process. In using extracts from my progress reports I have shown the way that I was thinking about peer learning at the time I was implementing it (see Section 1.3.2 for a fuller examination o f how my understanding of peer learning has changed over time). This process could have been improved by using an independent researcher to check on my identification of themes but, as I showed in Section 3.5.2, there were not the resources to allow for this.

I have shown the analysis of data in this chapter was sound. The analysis of the quantitative data was straightforward. In analysing the textual data I employed several techniques to prevent the selection of extracts that were convenient to the argument presented in this chapter.

4.7.2 Interpretation of data

Using an action research approach to analysing and interpreting data raises the question of how much the changes demonstrated by this data were due to my change in understanding of peer learning and how much to the change in my practice in implementing peer learning. These two changes are clearly linked but I show that the way I have analysed my data shows that the outcomes in this chapter are largely due to the changes in my implementation strategy.

The data I analysed was drawn from the different stages of the action research cycle that I went through in developing the implementation of peer learning. This approach linked my practice and research in a mutually developing process; as my understanding o f my practice developed, so the data I collected changed and as I examined this data so my understanding of my practice developed. This meant that the analysis of data did not involve a clear comparison between the two implementation strategies. This raises the question of how much the differences in the

outcomes of the two implementation strategies were due to the differences between the two strategies and how much to my changed understanding of the implementation of peer learning. If it was due largely to changes in my understanding of peer learning then it is possible that the SI implementation would have given the same results as the Peer Support implementation strategy.

There are several responses to this. First, it is very difficult to separate changes in my understanding o f peer learning and changes in my implementation strategy. My changed understanding led to changes in implementation strategy. All implementation strategies are altered by the implementers’ understandings of their environment and their innovation. In adopting an action research approach to the implementation o f peer learning I have attempted to make this process explicit rather than separating the research and development o f the implementation strategy. Second, the interviews with the IMs involved these managers in reflecting of how they understood the implementation of peer learning to have developed. Whilst they did not all agree with the changes they did all appear to understand the changes in the implementation in the way they are presented in this chapter. Finally, some o f the changes that have been shown in this chapter would have not been possible under the SI implementation strategy. For example, under the SI implementation strategy a single peer learning scheme was used and so it was not possible for students and staff to design their own peer learning schemes.

I have shown that, whilst the action research approach does involve changes in both understanding and action, in this chapter I have demonstrated real changes in the approach taken the implementation of peer learning