Action research establishes a specific way of collecting, organizing, analysing, and reporting the data findings. Data analysis in action research is not a discrete component but often works as a stimulus for formative reflection in addition to summative interpretation and evaluation (Burns, 2003; Gilles, Wilson, & Elias, 2010; Marlow, Spratt, & Reilly, 2008; McDonough, 2006). As in any other research approach, data analysis in action research requires a systematic process of data analysis whereby “…a rational understanding of practice can only be gained through systematic reflection on action by the actor involved” (Carr &
Kemmis, 1986, p. 189).
Bradley, Curry, and Devers (2007) argue that there is no single appropriate way of conducting qualitative data analysis but they do agree that analysis should be on-going throughout the research. Dawson (2009) also claims that in qualitative analysis, “…the researcher might analyse as the research progresses, continually refining and reorganizing in the light of the emerging results” (p. 115).
Choosing the appropriate approach for analysing data needs to be properly addressed and usually is influenced by the different methodological standpoints
123
(Corbin, 2009; Dawson, 2009). In this particular research, I adopted both deductive and inductive approaches to analysing the qualitative data.
3.5.1 Thematic analysis of qualitative data
In generating findings from the qualitative data collected in Phase 1 of the study, thematic analysis was used as a technique for data analysis. This was done deductively by having research questions as the key determinants to determine the patterns or categories, developing themes, and sub-themes from the coding process (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Yardley and Marks (2003) suggest that
“…thematic analysis is similar to content analysis, but pays greater attention to the qualitative aspects of the material analysed” (p. 56). Thematic analysis allows researchers to look at the “frequency of codes with analysis of their meaning in context” (Yardley & Marks, 2003, p. 56). The analysis method used in this research involved content coding of the interview transcripts by highlighting sections of texts relevant to the research objectives and research questions. The preliminary findings from this process were then used to guide the researcher for the development of formative writing intervention (see Section 4.2.1) and the next phase of action research.
3.5.2 Grounded analysis approach
In analysing the data gathered in Phase 2, I employed an inductive grounded analysis approach in order to see the way patterns emerged from the data. This involved several processes of reviewing the data and coding them manually, by which is meant “…the analytic processes through which data are fractured, conceptualized, and integrated to form theory” (Bjørn, 2005, p. 3). I used this
124
approach to analyse the data coming from Phase 2 of my study, specifically the students’ written work.
In the first instance, I gathered the students’ essay marks given by their respective class teachers through the formative assessment of the students’ essays at the end of Cycle 1. I then arranged the marks in descending order. This gave me a table of students’ essay writing performance. From this tabulated data, I then chose three top scores and three bottom scores of essays. This was my starting point to develop my conceptual analysis – essays written by top performers and essays written by low performers. Based on the scores, I then visited the written essays, from six student writers in total. Continuing the analysis under the grounded analysis approach, I went through the selected work: consisted of two sets of essay writing which comprised two first drafts, two peer-review checklists, and two final drafts for each student. I looked at each student’s work, twelve pieces of writing at a time, constantly making comparisons of the written works. As I discovered that not much could be gathered from the brainstorming and outlining ideas, comparisons were made between the first draft and the final draft and the peer-review checklists to identify the patterns in the students’ writing development. This was done back and forth to identify categories from these data and to make notes of what I observed from this process. Charmaz (2006) points out that in the stage of early coding, some basic questions need to be asked to help in understanding the data. While making the comparisons, I asked questions such as: What can I gather from these writing outcomes? What can I tell from the first draft? What can I tell from the final draft? What are the similarities and differences between first draft and final draft for each essay?. I then wrote the answers to my basic questions in my reflection notes. The reflection notes were
125
made based on my understanding from reading and comparing the essays and peer review checklists of each student several times without having pre-conceived categories and without being concerned with the research questions.
Following the line coding suggested by Charmaz (2006), I read through my reflection notes for each set of essays and started to categorize the codes. For example, some of the codes developed were: practice, feedback, views, attitudes, writing procedures, etc. This process also allowed me to think of what further data was needed or could be looked for. This process also led to recognizing patterns from the coding process and gave cues to moving on. Based on the categories developed such as beliefs about teaching, pedagogical practice in ESL writing, development of learning, and views and practices of writing assessment, a further analysis was made to merge or group similar categories. Based on the newly merged categories, connections between categories were made and themes were developed.
3.5.3 Analysis of survey data
The analysis of the data gathered using the questionnaires was carried out at a later stage, when the two action research cycles had been completed. Descriptive statistics were used to show the percentages of each item response (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002). The survey data could further support the findings based on the qualitative data, specifically on the students’ responses related to the integration of the formative writing assessment intervention (see Table 4.6) particularly on the inclusion of peer review activity into the ESL writing classroom.
126