Hi Elspeth

Thanks for posting your paper, I enjoyed reading as far as I got, but time constraints mean I'm not going past Cycle One. My responses as I read are below. I suspect I have been a bit too thorough, but your paper encouraged me to engage.

I would STRONGLY recommend that you upload the appendices into a separate document. I was almost too deterred by reading that there were 16000+ words, to even start the task! But half of it, at least, is appendices. This may be why you've not received other responses yet. The EJOLTS editors should be able to advise you how to separate out the appendices and load them separately. You also need to do some careful editing when you get to the final version as there is a range of typos etc. in the document.

“The focus of my research is underpinned by my values of empathy and scaffolding.”

Can you call ‘scaffolding’ a value? I suspect you mean ‘supporting student learning by scaffolding’.

“...my role as a professional development co-ordinator made me question my right to ascribe to any educational values, as I do not directly educate others” .

An intriguing thought; I don’t easily see HOW anybody can practise in education without holding educational values, whether or not they ‘directly educate others’ . If you don't articulate your values, you risk inflicting them on others in ways that may be inappropriate, especially if the others come from contexts that differ from yours.

“When previously studying mathematics, geography and information technology my values and ontological viewpoint did not enter the equation” .

I would absolutely debate this. I would argue that your values and ontological viewpoint were totally involved in your educational pursuits even though you may not then have articulated them. However, this may just be the way you are expressing yourself.

“ Action research is about the researcher constructing knowledge by critically reflecting on and engaging with her own opinions and assumptions in collaboration with the participants in the study throughout the action cycles.”

I think you need to expand this definition. It’s not just about opinions and assumptions – it’s about reflection on evidence gathered through systematic inquiry as well. Opinions and assumptions have a place, and need to be examined, but this statement doesn’t acknowledge the hard evidence that action researchers seek when striving to improve their practice. I always encourage my action researchers to triangulate their data by seeking such evidence from a range of stakeholders as well as from their own reflections. [NOTE: it later became clear through your processes that you WERE seeking and reflecting on 'hard evidence'.]

“The choice of participants in this study was based on judgemental or purposive sampling. The criterion used to select the participants was based on their capacity to inform the research. Overall ten participants took part.”

I think you need some explanatory sentences in here. You have chosen to use an action research approach, and unless you explain notions such as ‘technical, practical and emancipatory action research’ (e.g., Kemmis & McTaggart, 1986) you run the risk of people arguing that your choice of participants suggests a rather more technical approach than many action researchers are comfortable with. It sounds as though ‘the researcher’ (who is not, per se, one of the group as this reads) selects ‘chosen participants’ who will take part. Therefore, it doesn’t read like an inquiry of collaborators, which action research usually is. This may not be what you are proposing, but it’s what hits me at first encounter.

“Yelinek et al (2008) had recommended that tutorials be broken down into even smaller segments that learners can access at will. I considered adding a table of contents so that experienced learners could navigate directly to an area that interested them as recommended by Yelinek et al (2008), thus giving more control to high prior knowledge learners as recommended by Shapiro (2008, p.34).”

It’s good to provide literature that supports your action; however I’m finding at this point that the way you’re citing the literature is interfering somewhat with the flow of the writing. Perhaps consider just citing the work without feeling you need to reiterate what it’s about?

“Six participants acted as a pilot group to view and evaluate the web-based tutorial once it was complete. Five of the participants, Sandra, Jean, Patricia, Joan and Catherine are colleagues of mine”

A question that occurs to me is whether this pilot group is similar to the students you will be teaching. If not, then their feedback is likely to reflect issues that may not be those that a student pilot group would pick up.

“The feedback told me that while I had analysed the difficulties that previous online learners had experienced, I had overlooked issues that could confuse and concern first time users. I had also overlooked guidance in the literature, highlighted by Yelinek et al (2008), for accommodating high prior knowledge learners and those with advanced IT skills by not including a table of contents.”

I really like the honest of this reflection, Elspeth. It highlights issues that might concern others wishing to implement such methods in their own work, and comes across as very non-defensive.

You're doing a great job of making your processes clear - how and why you did what you did.

Good luck with your ongoing work on this paper, and I hope my comments come across as supportive of this work rather than excessively critical. It IS important that we as educators examine our own beliefs and processes in order to improve and clarify these, and for sure the online environment, being (comparatively) recent is a fertile field for such endeavours.

Warm regards

Pip

Dear Elspeth,

Thank you for sharing your paper, which I’ve read with great interest. I offer my review in the spirit of encouragement, and with the intention of supporting you to help your ‘educative voice’ emerge with even greater strength.

Having read the body of the paper first I was struck by the voice you use with which to express yourself – practical, informed and analytical. You are clear in describing the two cycles of action research and throughout appear to be open to the questions that continue to arise. I hear your value of ‘empathy’ clearly explained as you take note of your participants’ feedback, but I already want to encourage you to find more ways in which to evidence how you embody it. Analysis and explanation are a great beginning but I would like you to find a way in which you can help your readers share the experience itself. I am however less clear when you introduce your value of ‘scaffolding’, and wonder how it can be embodied as a value and would like to hear more. You describe it clearly as a process at this stage and I’m left as a reader wondering how I should discern it as evidenced through your practice.    

It is only when I then read Appendix A that I am able to truly feel connected to your text. Here I find a voice that is expressive, that is live in the moment of reading, and which now convinces me that you do in fact embody your values. And rather than these being values of empathy and scaffolding I have a much deeper sense of  the values that might indicate your educative influence: accessibility, inclusivity and collaboration. As I particularly read page 5 I become fully aware of your presence in the text – this is a wonderful expression of your values.      

So, I am curious. My response to your main paper is to feel somewhat distanced, to be put in observer mode. My response to Appendix A by contrast is to find myself connected and able to come alongside you. The contrast reminds me of my own experiences of ‘distance’ learning, and I am struck by the parallel feelings of being distanced and somewhat disconnected. I wonder whether this is your intention, and whether you might find a more powerful way in which to evidence your ‘I’ in the research by integrating the two? If this is not your intention then I would ask that you offer the reader some signposting to indicate in which way they should access this contrast and difference.

There are other cases where I would find more framing useful, and especially where you refer to the work of others. For example, in the section headed ‘The Origins of the Notion of Scaffolding’ I’m not altogether clear how a theory on the development of children is relevant to your professional practice, and would appreciate some evidence of how maybe you’ve taken this a starting-point for developing your own theory of practice. On page 8 as you begin to take the reader through the ‘Act’ you refer to the importance of having a vision for technology and I find myself wanting to encourage you to take this opportunity to share your own such vision, fully grounded in your educational values.

More generally, I would encourage you to look with a critical eye at the meaning you would like your readers to take from your referencing. 

I offer my review as an encouragement to express yourself more fully, to reflect on the voice you would like your readers to hear. I have no doubts about the strength of your intent to develop your professional practice as an expression of your learning values and am sure that by paying attention to the balance and signposting of your paper it can be published.  With best wishes, Jacqui