4.2 The Role of Theory
4.2.1 Action Research Cycles
The pragmatist-critical realist approach for understanding how the world is understood and how it works (Heeks et al., 2019) was operationalised through four action research cycles:
ARC1, ARC2, ARC3, and ARC4 between 2016 and 2018, with different respondents for each cycle. The project started with the view that students are not “getting it” in a business process management course (Garbutt & Seymour, 2015) which is a familiar complaint amongst educators (Braun & Clarke, 2019, p. 592). The project ended with a set of proposed mechanisms. The cycles differed regarding the respondents' reflective practices and a change of lecturing staff in the last cycle. The action research cycles were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis followed by partial least squares based structural equation modelling over the consolidated data. After exiting the action research cycles, a further review of the data was undertaken to provide insights into the most significant influencer of learning outcomes.
The sections below describe the research process. An overview of the research process is provided in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1. The research process.
Step Heeks, Ospina
& Wall (2019)
ARC1 ARC2 ARC3 ARC4 Consolidation Practical
Outcome
1 Plan
- 1a Clarify the problem
Not learning.
Students were
“not getting it”.
Reflection after the event and too late to translate into action
Reflection is still too late to make meaningful changes to action
The same educators for ARC1, ARC2 and ARC3
- 1b
Identify the purpose of an intervention (identify demi- regularities)
Reflective Practice– After Experience
Reflection – During Experience
Reflection – TEUQ, Reflection Before Experience
Reflection – TEUQ, Lecturers
- 1c
Propose mechanisms for the
Abduction – Reflective Practice
Retrodiction – Reflective Practice
Retrodiction – Reflective Practice, TEUQ
Abduction – Reflective Practice
111
Step Heeks, Ospina
& Wall (2019)
ARC1 ARC2 ARC3 ARC4 Consolidation Practical
Outcome intervention
(abduction)
Abduction - TEUQ
Retrodiction - TEUQ - 1d
Design an intervention and methods
Reflection on action
Reflection in action
Reflection for action
Educators changed 2 Act The project was undertaken with intervention applied
3 Observe Reflexive Thematic Analysis (RTA) PLS-SEM RTA Refining
4
Reflect (retroduction or retrodiction)
Retroduction – Inductive - TEUQ Retrodiction – Deductive – Reflective Practice
Retroduction – Inductive - TEUQ Retrodiction – Deductive – Reflective Practice
Retrodiction – Deductive - TEUQ Reflective Practice
Retrodiction – Deductive – TEUQ Retroduction – Inductive – Reflective Practice
Retrodiction – Deductive - TEUQ
Retroduction – Inductive - Effort
Legend: TEUQ – Task, Effort, Understanding, Quality themes initially identified in ARC1. PLS-SEM – partial least squares structural equation modelling. RTA – Reflexive Thematic Analysis.
The action research cycles followed the canonical structure of Susman and Evered (1978), which was refined to align with pragmatist-critical realism described by Heeks et al. (2019).
The only methodological differences between cycles occurred during the application of the abductive approaches. In each cycle, there were four steps where abduction was applied:
Step 1(b) - Identify the purpose of an intervention where demi-regularities identify the purpose of an intervention; Step 1(c) - Propose mechanisms for the intervention where potential generative mechanisms were proposed; Step 1(d) - Design the intervention and methods where potential generative mechanisms were tested; and Step 4 – Reflect where, through thematic analysis and reflexivity, student reflections were combined with that of the researcher. The reflexive nature of the researcher’s reflections was subjective as experienced personally (“I”) but objective as to how the reflections of respondents led to personal learning (me or beyond I) and improved learning in others (them) (Burkitt, 2012; van Zyl, 2015).
Step 1 - Plan
The planning step was the equivalent of diagnosis by Susman and Evered (1978). Heeks et al.
(2019) expand planning to clarify the problem, identify the purpose of an intervention, propose mechanisms for an intervention, and design the intervention and methods.
Step 1a - Clarify the Problem
Each action research cycle identified the problem from the outset, and each reflection step was described in broad terms (Heeks et al., 2019). In this study, students in higher education
112 business process management and enterprise systems courses were not “getting it”. Limited learning in the classroom was carried through into real-world experiential learning projects.
On the other hand, real-world experiences were not significantly carried back to learning in the classroom.
Step 1b - Identify a Specific Problem and Purpose of an Intervention
In this step, a specific problem was specified to be addressed. The study's overall problem was the apparent lack of learning transferred between the classroom and real-world situations. The study's departure point was that the level of education was suitable and required no change in practice, and, secondly, experiential learning was effective. The experiential learning theories of Kolb (2015) and Dewey (1938) provided three demi- regularities - experience, reflection and improved learning outcomes. The only factor that was not regulated in the courses was the reflection on experiences. This led to the intended purpose of exploring student reflections, leading to improved learning based on experiential learning theory.
Step 1c - Propose Mechanisms for the Intervention
The primary mechanism proposed for the study was reflection which leads to improved learning outcomes. For the first two cycles, Schön (1983) provided two reflection–on–action and reflection–in–action forms. Reflection-on-action and reflection-in-action are comparable to content reflection and process reflection (Mezirow, 1990). The third form of reflection proposed by Mezirow (1990) was critical reflection considered in this study as a depth of reflection rather than a different reflection type. Van Manen (1992) provided a third form of reflection – reflection-for-action – included in the third and fourth cycles. In the fourth cycle, a teaching mechanism that considers educator influence on learning was hypothesised.
Step 1d - Design an Intervention and Methods
Interventions and methods were planned from the proposed mechanisms. In the first cycle, marks were increased to encourage reflection-on-action. In the second cycle, students were tasked to maintain reflective journals for reflection-in-action. In the third cycle, students had to reflect on how they were going to approach the project. In the final cycle, lecturers were substituted. No other significant changes were made in each cycle.
113 Step 2 - Act
In step two, the proposed interventions were implemented and monitored. In each of the cycles, the researcher provided input through lectures and discussions regarding reflective practices. Beyond marking the reflections submitted by the students, little input was required for the first three cycles. In the final cycle, the researcher assisted with lecturing and monitoring and assessing the experiential learning projects.
Step 3 - Observe
Observations provided the data for the research. In each of the cycles, the primary data came from the written reflections of the students. In each cycle, the student reflections and the reflective method applied were evaluated. Thus, both the research and the action components were evaluated (Heeks et al., 2019). The student reflections were evaluated using reflexive thematic analysis and combined with student marks in a quantitative analysis using partial least squares based structural equation modelling.
The student reflection documents were imported into Atlas.ti version 7 to analyse the students’ reflections. Each document was read multiple times. The first reading was for grading, which provided an overview of each reflection individually and a high-level view of the reflections from a group perspective. These actions supported the initial familiarisation with the data phase (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Following the data familiarisation, initial codes were identified for each case. In the first two cycles, the analysis was performed on a grounded basis with no preconceived concepts except for acknowledging the potential for existing knowledge to influence the process (Charmaz, 2016). Findings for the first two cycles provided similar codes combined into a codebook and applied to the second set of action research cycle analyses. The third phase of the thematic analysis process combined relevant codes into potential themes reviewed in phase four. Before preparing the current report, the final phase was to refine the themes and confirm that the identified data features were applicable to each theme.
Step 4 – Reflect
A reflective abductive approach was used throughout the study to evaluate the mechanisms based on the observed data. The action research cycles used an inductive method to analyse the data, revealing potential generative learning mechanisms confirmed in the literature.
114 The cycles incorporated the two forms of theory, focal theory and instrumental theory, as Davison et al. (2012) proposed. Both forms of theories were applied to the action research phases of planning (diagnosis and action planning), observing (evaluation) and reflecting (reflection). Focal theories provided the intellectual basis for the acting phase (intervention).
Instrumental theories were used to explain phenomena, including supporting the focal theories. In the current study, focal theories included the reflective practices of Schön (1983) and Van Manen (1992). Instrumental theory (TEUQ) was inductively generated from the research data in the action research cycles. TEUQ is the acronym for undertaking tasks, applying effort, increasing understanding and pursuing quality mechanisms generated from the thematic analysis process.