The third semester of the model was developed in difficult circumstances for the program. Student numbers unexpectedly had dropped, meaning fewer teachers were engaged to teach in the semester. This had the effect of fragmenting the action research team, with only a core of 14 teachers remaining of the 26 that had been involved in the first semester. This also meant the level of collaborative evaluative dialogue during the semester – which was already limited in previous semesters – all but disappeared in this semester. Added to this, the reduced number of students meant the responses to the student feedback questionnaire halved from the levels of the first semester, significantly reducing the breadth and depth of student input. It was clear even from the early stages of the semester that the momentum behind the model and its developmental intent was to be defied by the contraction occurring in the program. Discussions with the
remaining academics during the semester reflected a growing unease about the future of the program, meaning that thinking was more centred on survival than on the
improvement imperatives that dominated previous semesters. Moreover, given the reduced numbers of participating teachers, the continuity of the action research cycle was clear disrupted to a point where it seemed to have effectively reached an end.
Nevertheless, a further Evaluation and Course Development Reportwas produced for this semester for the remaining action researchers to consider in an end-of-semester forum. The qualitative student data generated (with this more limited sample than previous semester) suggested there were further indications that the program was continuing to mature and that student engagement was improving. Indeed, in this third qualitative assessment by students it was conspicuous that the efforts of teachers was increasingly regarded, with a large number of students singling out teachers for acclaim. How much of this reflected the value of several semesters of action research and
situated academic development was difficult to assess, but it was a conspicuous feature of this semester’s student response. Similarly, a significant majority of students thought that many of the core online elements of the program were working in a highly effective
way to enhance learning. This represented a significant turn-around from the initial semester of the action research model.
Several specific elements of the program developed as a result of the action research were considered by students as highly effective contributing to their learning: most notably the more effective integration of face-to-face intensives and online sessions, the better aligning of teaching and assessment strategies (centred on a mock ‘client file’) and better facilitated discussion forums. In addition, compared to previous evaluations, there was far less concerns expressed about the value, credibility or relevance of exams and oral presentations as a form of assessment, which suggests scaffolding developed in response to previous evaluations was proving effective. Similarly, the time limitations on subjects that were a source of considerable anxiety and frustration for students in
previous evaluations were not a significant feature in this data (with the earlier distribution of course materials).
However, several issues remained problematic: there were inconsistencies emerging in the levels and timeliness of assessment feedback provided by different teachers
(seemingly reflecting differing levels of engagement with rubrics and feedback
guidelines). Some new frustration also emerged from students around inequitable levels of participation in discussion forums, with a significant minority of students decidedly unhappy that some students seemed to exercise disproportionate effort (suggesting some continuing issues with either forum design or facilitation approaches). From these outcomes, a series of course development questions for the remaining action researchers to consider. In this semester, these questions needed to be devised in the context of several new factors, including the:
primarily instrumental focus of the action research in previous semesters, despite some limited evidence of maturing of the model
limited number of remaining participating teachers and
reality that the program was itself focussing on its immediate survival (and was generally in a pedagogically sound state).
In this context, more modest development questions were therefore formed as:
a) How can approaches to feedback been made more consistent to ensure students feel this is equitable across subjects?
b) How can more equitable participation in discussion forums be generated?
c) How can the online learning technologies used in the subjects be more effectively harnessed to enhance the student learning experience?
In considering the Evaluation and Course Development Report, the remaining members of the action research team were largely focussed on broader strategies to enhance student recruitment to the program, as this was the most pressing need felt by participants. This rendered matters of course development largely secondary. This resulted in the action research component of the end-of-semester workshop being reduced to little more than a half day (after being conducted over two days in the first two semesters). Despite this limitation, several improvements were defined for implementation in the following semester including:
further professional development on rubrics and feedback
greater access to ‘model’ feedback that had been well received by students enhanced quality assurance of the quality of feedback to student assessment by
sampling of responses by the convenor
sharing and mentoring of effective online facilitation techniques between program teachers
continuing work already commenced on improving the design of online elements used in the program.