To evaluate the entire process of my Action Research Project (ARP), I will use Gibbs’ Reflective Cycle (1988) to explore my experiences, evaluate decisions, and consider future actions. The project aimed to address barriers to student participation in Year Lead and Unit tutorials within the BA Fashion Buying and Merchandising program. This reflection includes insights into the literature review, the decision to use a thematic analysis approach, the survey design, and the overall research journey.
(Source: Glow Scotland, 2015)
1. Description:
The ARP sought to understand and address participation barriers in tutorials by engaging both students and staff through surveys. I collected 39 student responses and 9 staff responses, achieving response rates of 50% from staff and approximately 82.5% from Year 2 students. The process involved multiple iterations to refine the methodology and data collection approach:
- Literature Review: I grounded the research in studies on participation, inclusivity, and dialogue-building, referencing works by Freire (2000), hooks (1994, 2003), and Braun & Clarke (2006).
- Survey Design: Using insights from Cohen, Manion, and Morrison (2018), I designed surveys with a mix of closed and open-ended questions to allow for both quantitative and qualitative analysis.
- Data Collection: Initial responses to the student survey were minimal when distributed via a PowerPoint slide at the end of a lecture and added to the “Week Ahead” email. Responses improved significantly when I introduced the survey during a face-to-face session, emphasising its importance and giving students time to complete it in class.
- Analysis: I used Braun & Clarke’s (2022) thematic analysis approach to analyse open-ended responses and quantitative methods for closed-ended data. Findings were triangulated to identify barriers and actionable recommendations.
2. Feelings:
The process brought many emotions, combining frustration, learning, and eventual satisfaction. Initially, I felt disheartened by the low student engagement from passive distribution methods like email and PowerPoint slides, particularly as it made me question whether my research had relevance or impact. However, the shift to face-to-face engagement was transformative—it not only increased response rates but also reaffirmed the value of personal, real-time communication in educational research. Explaining the research context directly to students created a sense of shared purpose, and their curiosity and willingness to contribute were both encouraging and validating.
When engaging staff, I initially felt optimistic because team meetings and direct emails provided a professional context to explain the project. However, the 50% response rate dampened my enthusiasm, revealing complexities I hadn’t fully anticipated, such as staff workloads, conflicting schedules, and identifying which staff members actively led student-facing tutorials. It highlighted the challenges of balancing the theoretical potential of collaboration with the realities of competing priorities in a higher education setting.
As the thematic analysis process unfolded, I was struck by its complexity and found moments of deep reflection when trying to synthesise seemingly disparate responses into cohesive themes. It forced me to confront the limitations of my initial approach while offering opportunities to rethink my strategies for future projects. I feel it pushed me to become a more nuanced and thoughtful researcher.
3. Evaluation:
Positive Aspects:
- Rich Theoretical Foundation: The literature review anchored my project in critical educational theories, particularly around social justice, inclusivity, and participatory practices. Drawing from Freire (2000) and hooks (1994), I felt confident that my work had both academic rigor and practical relevance.
- Survey Reach: Surveys allowed me to efficiently collect diverse perspectives from both students and staff, enabling me to capture a broad range of barriers and strategies in a short timeframe.
- Adaptability in Data Collection: Shifting to in-class survey completion demonstrated my ability to adapt in response to low engagement. This practical adjustment significantly improved participation, highlighting the importance of responsiveness in research design.
Negative Aspects:
- Passive Distribution Shortcomings: The reliance on passive communication methods (email, PowerPoint slides) in the early stages hindered student engagement. This approach underestimated the competing demands on students’ attention and the need for immediate context.
- Staff Participation Challenges: While staff engagement was productive, the 50% response rate underscored the difficulty of securing broad participation, particularly from those with minimal tutorial responsibilities. A more targeted approach, such as focus groups, could have enabled deeper insights and a more collaborative exploration of barriers.
- Complexity of Thematic Analysis: The sheer volume of data and the need to synthesise diverse perspectives into unified themes proved time-consuming and intellectually challenging. While this process was rewarding, it also highlighted areas where my preparation for data analysis could have been more robust.
4. Analysis:
The low student response rate to passive distribution methods illuminated the disconnect between digital communication and student priorities. This experience reinforced Freire’s (2000) emphasis on the importance of dialogue and active engagement in developing meaningful participation. By presenting the survey face-to-face and linking it to the students’ lived experiences, I created an immediate sense of relevance that dramatically increased their willingness to engage. This outcome suggests that research participation can benefit from the same dialogic principles as effective teaching practices.
For staff, the limited response rate likely stemmed from competing institutional priorities and time constraints, as highlighted by Cohen, Manion, and Morrison (2018). The process also revealed a need for more nuanced research tools to address specific barriers—such as focus groups or interviews, which could have allowed for deeper exploration of themes like inclusivity and tutorial value. Reflecting on the challenges of thematic analysis, I realised that more preparation and familiarity with the coding process might have streamlined the synthesis of data. The task of uniting student and staff insights into cohesive themes required me to constantly reassess my assumptions and adjust my approach, developing critical self-awareness as a researcher.
Future Considerations:
Moving forward, I would prioritise methods that emphasise immediacy and depth—such as combining surveys with interviews or focus groups. I also see the potential to implement strategies like pre-intervention discussions with staff to secure greater buy-in and participation. Finally, the insights gained from the complexity of the thematic analysis process will inform how I structure future data collection tools, ensuring they better align with my analytical capacity and project goals.
5. Conclusion:
The survey provided valuable insights into barriers to participation and actionable recommendations, but additional methods could have improved the data and strengthened the project’s overall impact. Below, I reflect on critical aspects of the ARP and its broader significance:
Critical Awareness of the Research Context
The ARP effectively demonstrated a critical understanding of barriers to participation in the BA Fashion Buying and Merchandising program. By grounding the project in literature (e.g., Freire, 2000; hooks, 1994) and practical observations, I identified key challenges such as timing conflicts, social anxiety, and unclear expectations. These findings contextualised participation barriers within the systemic issues of inclusivity and equity in higher education, offering clear, targeted interventions to address these concerns.
However, additional methodologies could have deepened this critical awareness. For example, observational studies might have enriched the findings by capturing real-time participation dynamics in tutorials (Cohen et al., 2018). Observations would have allowed for cross-validation of survey results and provided richer insights into nuanced behaviours, such as non-verbal cues or interactions that influence engagement.
Actionable Change within UAL
The research has already prompted institutional change, with mandatory tutorials being introduced from February. This intervention directly addresses low attendance and perceived tutorial value, reflecting the project’s actionable contribution to UAL’s equity and inclusivity goals. Moving forward, combining this institutional step with additional strategies, such as hybrid tutorial formats or anonymous feedback mechanisms, could further enhance participation.
Future iterations could also incorporate focus groups or reflective journaling to build on the survey data. For instance, focus groups with students and staff could develop collaborative problem-solving by exploring different experiences in more depth. These discussions could refine shared strategies for inclusivity and engagement while creating a dialogue that reinforces UAL’s commitment to equitable learning environments.
Broader Significance for Similar Programs
The findings of this project extend beyond the immediate context of the BA Fashion Buying and Merchandising program. The strategies outlined—such as hybrid tutorial formats, cultural competency training, and enhanced communication practices—are scalable to other large-cohort, multicultural programs at UAL and similar institutions. Implementing these solutions across programs could help address systemic barriers and develop inclusive environments for diverse student populations.
Additionally, incorporating reflective journals into tutorials, as recommended by Braun and Clarke (2022), could offer longitudinal insights into participation dynamics. These insights could inspire similar practices in other programs, helping educators track engagement over time and identify evolving barriers.
Mixed-Methods Approach for Future Research
Future research should adopt a mixed-methods approach, combining surveys with complementary methods like focus groups or interviews. As Bryman (2016) suggests, integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches provides deeper exploration of key themes and a more holistic understanding of participation barriers. For instance, follow-up interviews could probe the underlying reasons behind survey responses, while focus groups could encourage collaborative exploration of solutions.
By expanding the methodological scope, future projects could generate richer data and stronger evidence to support recommendations, ultimately leading to more impactful and sustainable change.
6. Action Plan:
Engagement Strategies:
- For future research, I will prioritise face-to-face or synchronous digital engagement for surveys and include incentives, such as sharing anonymised results, participation prizes. Additionally, incorporating focus groups or interviews as complementary data collection methods could address challenges related to response rates and data alignment. These methods would allow for deeper exploration of participation barriers and preferences while ensuring consistency in questioning across both students and staff. A mixed-methods approach combining surveys and discussions could provide richer insights, creating a more comprehensive understanding of tutorial participation challenges.
Alternative Methods:
- Incorporate focus groups and observational studies to complement survey data and provide richer insights.
Continuous Improvement in Teaching Practice:
- Use findings to implement structural changes in tutorials, such as offering hybrid formats, diverse content, and culturally responsive teaching practices.
- Establish regular feedback loops to monitor the effectiveness of changes and iterate based on student and staff input.
Advocacy for Institutional Support:
- Advocate for further targeted training in cultural competency and inclusivity for all staff, as emphasised by hooks (2003), to ensure that tutorials provide safe and welcoming spaces for all students.
Final Reflection
The ARP process has been transformative, reinforcing the importance of adaptability, dialogue, and inclusivity in educational research and practice. It has deepened my understanding of barriers to participation and equipped me with actionable strategies to address them. By grounding my approach in the literature and reflecting on challenges and successes, I have developed a clearer vision for developing equitable and engaging learning environments. This project not only contributes to my teaching practice but also aligns with broader institutional goals of equity and social justice in education.
References
- Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
- Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic analysis: A practical guide to understanding and doing. Sage.
- Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
- Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge.
- Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Bloomsbury.
- hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. Routledge.
- hooks, b. (2003). Teaching community: A pedagogy of hope. Routledge.
- Kember, D., & Ginns, P. (2011). Evaluating teaching and learning: A practical handbook for colleges, universities and the scholarship of teaching. Routledge.