Cycle Two: Modifying the Reflection on Values Task

At the end of Cycle One, Jacinta recognised a noticeable improvement in writing competency, for example, in sentence structure from the draft to the final versions and some improvement in the essays. Therefore, despite the challenges in Cycle One, the Reflection on Values assessment was re-used in the same form in Cycle Two with only minor changes:

• The expectation that a full draft should be submitted was clarified

• The mark-sheet was adapted to make the examples more relevant to the Planning context by using examples from previous students’ Reflection on Values tasks and essays

• Feedback on content was still provided through peer discussion, but the purpose of the discussion was clarified.

Modifications to the task helped clarify the purpose and supported students with their reflective learning. Students recognised the dual purpose of the assessment, i.e. to improve writing and to understand the values other students have:

To understand our own values and how these can influence decision making, and to also understand others values/experiences so have consideration of different cultures, views, impacts from many view-points without being biased (SSV/1-2/C2/D).

I suppose it had quite a few different viewpoints, because, on one hand, it was the writing, you know the way you write. Then there was the way of understanding other people's values, and how you would make decisions based on that paper, you know, with authority and that based on other people's values and knowledge and culture and … sort of understanding other people quite a bit as well (SFG/1-2/C2/D).

Students also appreciated the early support with writing:

I personally found it was really good, because it sort of just pointed out how you write sentencing and paragraphs, and it defined those things. I suppose a lot of tutors will mark an assignment, and they will just put a cross or they'll fix an error or something, but sometimes they won't do anything. I thought that was a really good way of learning how you were writing. I suppose the assignment writing's a bit like riding a bike; you don't remember the first time, but after about 10 assignments you'll start picking up on these things and start writing better (SFG/1-2/C2/D).

Students identified the benefits of the group discussions in sharing values and seeing how other students wrote the task, and recognised the social value of learning from people in groups:

I found that really useful for understanding the diversity of values and cultures and how these impact how we understand the environment and planning (SJN/1-2/C2/D).

Cool to hear the backgrounds of the people that we're going to be around for the next 4 years. Really cool insight into different worlds. Felt kinda closer to the other people too. (ewww sappy ) (SJN/1-2/C2/D).

Others valued the marking and indicated it helped them improve their writing, but they also recognised that improving writing is a process that takes time and effort:

I found this very useful to understand my writing style and how one can improve. I see this as a process that would improve over time and knowing (SSV/1-2/C2/D).

Very useful. It made me think of how I was writing. The more I think about it, the more difficult it becomes, but the more I understand, the more likely I will improve, especially with practise. A second version of feedback would be great to see if I did actually make correct adjustment (SSV/1-2/C2/D).

Despite these positives, some challenges with the task remained. Some students disliked the narrative style of writing and questioned its impact on supporting their academic writing development. They struggled with the broad scope of the task and questioned how investigating personal views and relating to fellow learners through sharing experiences impacted on learning:

One thing I noticed was that it depended on which topic of values one may relate to and how open they may be. For example, one person based their values on the environment and others more personal. It can be quite broad depending on what has been their focus: personal, cultural, societal, national, experiences, beliefs, environmental etc. Just a thought that if we all wrote a hundred words for five or six sections, we would all be focusing on the same topic but could distinguish the similarities and differences more easily (SJN/1-2/C2/D).

The challenge around providing effective feedback without spending excessive time marking remained problematic for this task. As with Cycle One, students who had minimal comments on their writing indicated that they would have appreciated feedback on content because they felt they didn’t get appropriate feedback through the group discussions:

In the first values draft, I got all smiley faces feedback, you know, ‘just change this one sentence, bit of a run-on. So, I changed it and went through and did some punctuation, but I didn't get the grade that I believed that I would get after getting such [comments], you know, 'your writing style is amazing' 'you're great, you're awesome - just fix this one sentence’ (SFG/1-2/C2/D).

I found it was, I don't know whether people were just too scared to say things … I think because it's your peers, you don't want to put someone down by saying 'what about this or this bit?' But none of that really happened in our group, and it was sort of a bit of a waste of time really. We ended up just sitting there talking (SFG/1-2/C2/D).

Comments suggested that students were challenged by having to take responsibility for their own learning and rely on feedback from peers. The value of peer-supported learning may not have been apparent to the students, and could account for the concerns connected to the absence of Jacinta’s feedback on content.

A key strength of the action research process is that, although the data collection had technically finished, the conversation was on-going and Jacinta amended the task for the 2012 semester. Following Cycle Two feedback on lack of content support, Jacinta decided a short comment on content would be useful to indicate if more depth is needed, but without going into specific detail of what exactly needs focusing on. She also decided to trial adding an additional paragraph to the task, asking students to reflect on the group discussion and what they learned about their own values in relation to the values of others, so she could immediately see if any of the formerly identified writing errors remained.