Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
Reflection on the Academic Research Writing Intervention
In writing this reflection, I have allowed my mind to go back to the beginning where my concern about the preparedness of students began. As a teachers‟ training college graduate, I entered the teaching profession being prepared for teaching at primary school level. It was only after many years of teaching that I began the process of upgrading my qualifications which ultimately led me to this doctoral research. However, even though I am a first language English speaker, I found the late transition into higher education extremely difficult and as the first degree was completed through distance learning, no support or scaffolding was done with reading and writing in preparation for study at this level.
However, it was once I had registered for a master‟s degree, that I was introduced to a writing centre specifically developed for education students. For the first time, I was exposed to having someone read my work and comment, giving critical feedback which would inform the revision process and most importantly, discussion on how to move my writing to a more academic level, but there had not been any input, advice or guidelines given prior to writing. During the course of these studies, I was invited to work as a peer tutor in the writing centre, and this became the focus of my master‟s research (see Nel, 2006 and Dowse & van Rensburg, 2011). Working as a peer tutor reinforced the fact that the education system had let us down by not fully preparing us for continued study in higher education – the students with whom I came into contact had trained in various teacher training institutions in a previous political era and then worked as teachers for many years. With a change in the education system and a call to lifelong learning, they were being given the opportunity to upgrade their qualifications at universities having first worked through the Advanced Certificate in Education (ACE) levels, then honours and finally, master‟s. It was with the master‟s students that I was particularly involved and it was here that I first realised just how much scaffolding they needed with assistance in developing reading and writing, even with developing critical thinking, encouragement at all levels and constant mentoring and monitoring of their writing until they felt secure enough to continue independently.
This work with students then was the motivation for putting something in place that would provide them with the necessary scaffolding to assist during the process of their studies particularly as the programme was by dissertation only. I felt that an intervention, which takes the students through the first phase of their studies in a systematic developmental way and which incorporates the concept of academic research writing, was called for and would give them the necessary foundation to allow them to move with assurance and selfreliance into the following stages of their research.
For further re-conceptualisation, modifications to the process of the design and development of the intervention need to be made. Firstly, as this became such a broad intervention that perhaps tried to cover too much under the banner of academic research writing, greater participation and involvement from the supervision team and the main supervisor should occur as it would enhance the design. This would mean that the master‟s programme should ensure that aspects such as discipline-specific content knowledge and research methodology content knowledge are developed but are inextricably linked with the development of academic research writing.
Secondly, expert review should occur once each stage of the conceptualisation, design and development has been done prior to implementation, a step which should be undertaken in every phase (see Mafumiko, 2006 Figure 4.6). This would mean that the design principles emerging from each stage would firstly be critiqued and then, once considered, would inform and underpin the development of the next prototype.
Apart from expert evaluations and my own reflection, empirical evidence of student performance is now offered in the following section to ascertain the effectiveness of the intervention.
Re-test of TALPS
On completion of the academic research writing intervention and the successful defence of their proposals, students were once again requested to sit the TALPS as a postintervention measure of the students‟ academic literacy competency. The procedures followed were the same as the pre-test with the same facilitator administrating the test, which was then scored by Unit for Academic Literacy at the University. Although the numbers of the cohort had by this time decreased significantly from 10 to seven participants (but with P5 writing neither the pre nor post-intervention test), the test results show that just over half of the students (three out of six) are still at high risk (Code 2) which could compromise their academic potential. One student, Participant 3, is also considered at risk; however, two of the six participants tested were assigned Codes 4 and 5 respectively, meaning that they were at low risk or no risk at all. The results of the retest are tabled in Table 8.2, and are also compared with the pre-test.
CHAPTER 1: THE OVERVIEW
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1.2 INTRODUCING THE PROBLEM AND THE RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY
1.3 THE PRIMARY RESEARCH QUESTION AND OVERALL AIMS OF THE STUDY
1.4 AN OVERVIEW OF THE RESEARCH DESIGN
1.5 THE ORGANISATION OF THE THESIS
CHAPTER 2: GENERAL SOUTH AFRICAN EDUCATION CONTEXT
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.2 EDUCATION IN SOUTH AFRICA POST 1948
2.3 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 3: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.2 ACADEMIC WRITING AT POSTGRADUATE LEVEL
3.3 LANGUAGE, LITERACY AND DISCOURSE
3.4 DEVELOPMENTS IN SOUTH AFRICAN HIGHER EDUCATION
3.5 THE NEW LITERACY STUDIES AND THE TEACHING OF ACADEMIC WRITING
3.6 THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
3.7 CONCLUSION
RESEARCH DES CHAPTER 4: IGN AND METHODS
4.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE RESEARCH DESIGN
4.2 DESIGN RESEARCH AS A RESEARCH DESIGN
4.3 RESEARCH PARADIGM
4.4 THE OVERALL DESIGN OF THIS STUDY
4.5 PARTICIPANTS IN THE SAMPLE
4.6 DATA COLLECTION
4.7 DATA ANALYSIS
4.8 ADDRESSING METHODOLOGICAL NORMS
4.9 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
4.10 MY ROLE IN THIS RESEARCH
4.11 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 5: PHASE 1 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND NEEDS ANALYSIS
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5.2 PHASE 1: PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND NEEDS ANALYSIS
5.3 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 6: PHASE 2 DESIGN, DEVELOPMENT, IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION OF PROTOTYPE 1
6.1 INTRODUCTION
6.2 CYCLE 3: CONCEPTUALISING, DESIGNING AND DEVELOPING THE INTERVENTION
6.3 CYCLE 4: IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION OF PROTOTYPE 1: SEMESTER 11
6.4 ASSESSMENT OF INITIAL PROPOSALS
6.5 EVALUATION OF PROTOTYPE 1
6.6 CONCLUSION
PHASE 2 DESIGN,
CHAPTER 7: DEVELOPMENT, IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION OF PROTOTYPE 2
7.1 INTRODUCTION
7.2 CYCLE 5: RE-CONCEPTUALISING, DESIGNING AND DEVELOPING
7.3 CYCLE 6: IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION OF PROTOTYPE 2: SEMEMSTER 2
7.4 EVALUATION OF AND REFLECTION ON PROTOTYPE 2
7.5 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 8: PHASE 3 CYCLE 7 EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT OF INTERVENTION
8.1 INTRODUCTION
8.2 CYCLE 7: EVALUATION
8.3 EVALUATION OF THE INTERVENTION: EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE
8.4 OVERALL EVALUATION OF THE INTERVENTION: THE STUDENT PERSPECTIVE
8.5 ASSESSMENT OF THE ACADEMIC RESEARCH WRITING OF THE FINAL RESEARCH PROPOSALS
8.6 A SUMMARY OF ACADEMIC RECORD, RESULTS OF STUDENT ASSESSMENTS,
EVALUATIONS AND PROGRESS
8.7 CONCLUSION
PHASE 3 CYCLE 8
CHAPTER 9: DESIGN PRINCIPLES OF AN ACADEMIC RESEARCH WRITING INTERVENTION
9.1 INTRODUCTION
9.2 DESIGN PRINCIPLES FOR A MODEL FOR THE TEACHING OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH WRITING
9.3 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 10: DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
10.1 INTRODUCTION
10.2 OVERVIEW OF THE RESEARCH
10.3 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF RESEARCH FINDINGS
10.4 REFLECTION AND DISCUSSION
10.5 CONCLUSIONS
10.6 RECOMMENDATIONS
10.7 A FINAL WORD
