Locating the Preliminary Study

In Chapter 2, it was established that the bulk of feedback studies had been carried out through questionnaire survey and focus group procedures, but neither of these

methods are necessarily suited to collecting data on how attitudes and responses to feedback may change over time and how feedback can influence writing

development. A research design taking just one feedback event and exploring this in depth would reveal little about the development of CAW over time. Table 4.1 below, shows how I adopted a longitudinal design for the preliminary study, collecting data

110

from a number of feedback events in order to investigate the relationship between feedback and writing.

Table 4:1 Preliminary study data collection procedures

Preliminary study

Dates Participants Activity

Preparation Pilot August September 2008 1 student (Education) 1 tutor (Education) 30 minute interviews, Transcription /analysis for suitability of interview method

Gaining consent October 2008 Term 1:Week 0 Students on Master’s programmes (9) in Dept. Archaeology

Presentation and invitation to participate; e-mail follow up for volunteers; letter detailing study

Baseline interviews Term 1: week 2 Term 1: weeks 3 / 4 3 Students who volunteered for study

4 Tutors teaching on Conservation Heritage Management (CHM)* programme

Establishing prior experience and biographical details

Establishing prior experience and perspectives on role of feedback and L2 writing issues

Formative interviews Feedback collected Term 1: week 7 Term 2: week 7 Students Students

Establishing student engagement / understanding of feedback Summative interviews Term 2: week 5 Term 3: week 6 Students Students

Establishing student engagement/ understanding of feedback -reflection on taught experience of feedback on writing in taught programme

Second interviews

Term 3: weeks (6- 8)

Tutors (x 3) Reflection on individual student progress in relation to feedback and writing Transcribing Analysis Case reports Oct 2008-June 2009 December 2009- March 2010

Preliminary analysis as data was collected, thematic analysis

Analysis of feedback reports, case study write up (Peter)

(*Conservation and Heritage Management is a programme for students from a range of disciplines such as Architecture, Archaeology and History).

The pilot interviews will be discussed in Section 4.6 below. They were an attempt to gauge whether a thirty minute semi-structured interview was appropriate for capturing an international Master’s student’s reflections on feedback. The tutor pilot gave guidance on the number of questions suitable for a thirty-minute interview

111

and the type of data I might expect. Originally, I had only intended to interview the principal tutors involved in giving students feedback on their MA programme, but Peter’s participation in the project gave me the possibility of adding some additional data relating to his performance and progress on his pre-sessional programme. This was possible because his main pre-sessional tutor was still at Bradfield. I also made a short additional recording with another participant in term two, to capture a post- interview discussion of difficulties with quotations. These additions were in the spirit of the flexible design adopted and using opportunities for data collection as they presented themselves.

During the initial data collection and preliminary analysis, I realised that the supervisor-student relationship at the dissertation stage would involve feedback drafts and a very different type of feedback context to that experienced on the taught programme. In my full time role as Programme Manager for pre-sessional courses at Bradfield, I also recognised that I would have limited time available to collect data from participants during the summer, my busiest time of the year. The unpredictable nature of the dissertation write up process in terms of the number and timing of feedback events was also likely to create logistical difficulties for data collection.

This research on international students was clearly constrained in the first instance by the number of departments at the University of Bradfield that had sufficient numbers of overseas and international students on taught Master’s programmes. A study of this nature also meant that only programmes that required regular submission of formative and summative writing tasks would be suitable as a location for the research. Given the sensitive nature of a study that examined tutor practice, and the necessary intrusion into the work of staff, personal contacts within departments were also important for ensuring the collaboration necessary for a successful study.

Decisions regarding methods and procedures to be used in any research project often relate to what is practical and feasible (Robson, 2002). In this respect, my position in 2008 within the Department of Education at the University of Bradfield offered certain opportunities that would not have been available to other researchers. As a tutor in a department with large numbers of international students, I

112

had relatively easy access to the type of student that my study targets. My experience of teaching and overseeing English language support in departments such as

Archaeology, Education and Management also provided valuable contacts and credibility in terms of access to such departments. As a member of staff, I was also able to approach other members of staff to enlist their cooperation as participants, something that may have been difficult for a younger inexperienced graduate

student. In order to gather data on the usability of feedback I was in an ideal position to provide an insider view25, which could give access to the perspectives of students and tutors alike.

At the outset, a small number of departments at Bradfield seemed to offer a suitable location for this research, based firstly on their having established taught Master’s programmes involving international students and secondly on their use of assessment through substantive written assignments. My social science background to some extent steered me away from science disciplines, but the fact that such disciplines were unlikely to involve assessment based on an essayist style of writing, was also a key factor in excluding them. The study envisaged required an assessment regime based on longer written assignments and corresponding feedback events.

The Department of Economics at Bradfield, for example, had run taught masters programmes with high numbers of international students for many years, but often their programmes involved assessment via examinations, and did not require substantial writing tasks. The Bradfield Management School was already running a number of taught Master’s courses in 2008, with a substantial number of students required to complete a pre-sessional course with the ELU. I gained permission from the Management School in June 2008 to carry out a study of students and staff on taught Master’s programmes, but it gradually became clear that it might not be the ideal location for this study. An interview with the Director of postgraduate programmes at that time revealed that these programmes were experiencing rapid

25 _{Dunster (2010) refers to her position as an “insider in both camps” (p.55). As a member of the} ELU’s language support team, I also held a position of ‘empathy’ towards the students, with less of a gap to’ bridge’ than if I had been one of their tutors.

113

expansion of numbers26 putting staff-student ratios and resources under greater and greater pressure. I also discovered that a number of modules were assessed through examinations, which implied an uneven or limited amount of written feedback on long assignments.

As I had organised and taught in language support courses in the Department of Archaeology for some years, I realised that it could provide a suitable location for a study of this nature. Although international student numbers fluctuated year on year, a number of established masters programmes were running in the Department of Archaeology in 2008. The nature of the writing required in Archaeology was also relevant to the concerns of this research, as ‘essay style’ tasks seemed to be

predominantly the mode of assessment. These took the form of argument essays or long assignments in the form of what has been termed ‘documented essays’

(Alexander et. al., 2008 p, 182). This type of assignment is characterised by the way the work is presented, based on researching recognised authorities in the field. My experience in tutoring students in Archaeology had shown me that feedback was often detailed and regularly given on both formative and summative tasks.

In the summer of 2008, I gained permission from the Head of Department and then leader of the graduate school to carry out a study with the 2008-9 taught Master’s cohort on taught Master’s programmes. I gave assurances that the data collection would not be disruptive for staff or students, and that I would be sensitive to time factors and workloads. My role in providing writing support in the

Department a few years previously provided credibility for my proposal. Three student participants agreed to participate in my study and several tutors within the department also agreed to be interviewed. The three students were taking the

Conservation and Heritage Management Master’s (CHM) programme, a programme for students from a range of disciplines such as Architecture, Archaeology and History.

26 _{Numbers on Management Master’s programmes had moved beyond cohort sizes of 150 students by} 2008.

114