3.
1 Research Design
This study employs an Action Research (AR) design, which is a participatory and cyclical
process intended to improve classroom practice. Unlike traditional research that seeks to
generalize findings, this AR design focuses on solving a specific pedagogical problem in the
NaRM department. The study follows the Action Research Spiral (Norton, 2019), consisting of
four distinct phases: Planning, Acting, Observing, and Reflecting. This design is selected
because it allows the researchers, as HDP candidates, to intervene in the learning process and
immediately evaluate the effectiveness of continuous feedback and reflection.
3.2 Research Setting and Participants
The study was conducted at Wolaita Sodo University, specifically within the Department of
Natural Resource Management (NaRM). The participants (sample units) consist of [Year, e.g.,
2nd Year] undergraduate students. This group was selected using purposive sampling because
the researchers are directly involved in their instruction, allowing for a seamless integration of
the intervention into the existing curriculum.
3.3 Data Collection Instruments
To ensure the triangulation of data, the following three instruments were utilized:
Questionnaire: A structured 15-item Likert-scale survey was used to assess baseline
perceptions of feedback (Objective 1).
Correction Logs: Students were completed a structured template where they categorize
their errors and propose solutions. These logs serve as primary evidence of the
"Reflection" process (Objective 2).
Pre-test and Post-test (Parallel Tasks): Two similar assessment tasks were
administered. Task A (Pre-test) establishes the baseline, and Task B (Post-test),
administered after the feedback-reflection loop, measures the students' ability to self-
correct (Objective 3).
3.4 Procedure of the Study (The AR Spiral)
The research was executed in one intensive cycle following these steps:
1. Planning Phase: The researchers identify the "feedback vacuum" and design the
questionnaire and correction log templates.
2. Action Phase: The instructor administers the Pre-test (Task A). Following this, the
instructor provides Continuous Feedback (specific, qualitative comments) rather than
just a grade. Students then complete their Correction Logs.
3. Observation Phase: The instructor administers the Post-test (Task B). During this
phase, the questionnaire is also distributed to collect data on the students' experiences
with the loop.
4. Reflection Phase: The researchers analyze the score differences and the depth of student
comments in the logs to determine if the intervention "enhanced" academic performance.
3.5 Methods of Data Analysis
The study utilizes a Mixed Methods Approach for data analysis:
Quantitative Analysis: Descriptive statistics, including frequencies, percentages, and
means, will be used to analyze the questionnaire and compare pre-test and post-test
scores.
Qualitative Analysis: Thematic analysis will be applied to the open-ended sections of
the questionnaire and the content of the Correction Logs to identify recurring barriers and
learning gains.
3.6 Ethical Considerations
Before data collection, students will be informed about the purpose of the research. Participation
is voluntary, and all responses will remain confidential. The researchers ensure that the
intervention does not disadvantage any student but rather aims to improve the overall quality of
instruction in the NaRM department.
Final Research Checklist for Chapter Three
Requirement Action
Purposive Sample Clearly name the specific NaRM class you are teaching.
Evidence Attach your Correction Log as an Appendix.
The "Before/After" Ensure you have the scores for both Task A and Task B.