This study used an action research case study approach to gather information about psychological skills training [PST] program in the high school setting, in this case the University of Jyväskylä Teacher Training School. The Teacher Training School (Norssi) is part of the University of Jyväskylä’s Faculty of Education. It is a university practice school that provides basic education and general upper secondary education. Norssi’s aim is to provide students who are undergoing teacher training with the supervised teaching practice required for a broad-based teacher qualification (www.norssi.jyu.fi). The school prepares its students for a modern information society and it is an active member of Finnish teacher training schools’ network (www.enorssi.fi).
Action research [AR] is a cognitive framework for practitioner research where thinking together in dialogue is valued and innovation and coordinated action is thereby generated (Mckenna & Dunstan-Lewis, 2004; Patterson et al., 2010;
Stringer, 2014). An action research is a holistic approach that integrates reflection and action (Kemmis, McTaggart & Nixon, 2014).
Adopting an AR approach can be justified on many grounds; it is actual doing and it is done with the participants. According to Reason and Bradbury (2008), an action research has certain characteristics: it is grounded in real life experience, developed in partnership, it addresses significant needs, develops new ways of seeing/interpreting the world, works with (rather than simply studying) people, uses methods that are appropriate to the participants at hand, and develops needed structures to follow so that the work may have a lasting, positive impact.
During this intervention study I worked as a teacher-researcher, being an active part of the course. Metsämuuronen (2000) claims that when working as a teacher-researcher one can either be more in a part of a teacher-researcher (observer as a participant) or in a part of a teacher (participant as an observer). In this particular study both perspectives were used. The observations the teacher-researcher did during the action were crucial part of action research. The purpose of the participatory observation was to understand the subject of research and that way to influence actions of the group in process (Heikkinen, Rovio & Syrjälä, 2008).
3.2.1 Look, think, act
Patterson et al. (2010, 8-9) refer to Stringer’s studies who described the practitioner inquiry process as a “Look, Think, and Act”- cycle, [LTA] (figure 1: Look, think, act). The action research protocol is iterative, or cyclical, in nature (Heikkinen et al., 2008; Kindon, Pain & Kesby, 2007; Stringer, 2014). The protocol is intended to foster deeper understanding of a given situation, starting with conceptualizing and particularizing the problem and moving through several interventions and evaluations. The core concern for action research in this case was to develop practical as well as conceptual contributions by doing research with, rather than on, people. “It seeks to reconnect action and reflection, theory and practice, in
participation with others, in the pursuit of practical solutions to issues of pressing concern to people.” (Reason & Bradbury, 2008, 4).
The LTA protocol guided the planning of the course as we all as teacher preparation and instruction. The "Look" step or phase (acquiring the information) refers to a data collection and analysis scheme in the first phase (November-December 2014).
The "Think" step refers to a reflecting on the information (analyzing and evaluating that happened along the way), and the "Act" cycle focused on using of the outcomes of reflection and analysis (planning, implementing, and evaluating student learning). The act cycle also focused on action steps related to academic skills or on actions beyond the classroom; the teaching and learning process so to say. The act phase often involved framing new questions that led to further inquiry.
Figure 1: Look, Think. Act action research cycle, Stringer, 2009.
The essentials of an action research design are planning, implementation and evaluation (Hopkins, 2008; Kemmis et al., 2014; Stringer, 2009; 2014). At first in this study, in early November 2014, an understanding of a problem was developed and plans were made for some form of interventional strategy (planning or “look”).
After this the intervention was carried out (the action in AR, the “act”), from January till March, 2015. During and around the time of the intervention, observations were collected in various forms (monitoring the implementation by observation). And lastly, the new interventional strategies were applied, and the
cyclic process repeated (evaluation, reflection and revision, the “think”).
Evaluation was actually made during the whole process, from November 2014 till March 2015, in each phase, before and after each classroom session.
AR took place in a person-task environment (Schack & Hackfort, 2007); in this case the University of Jyväskylä Teacher Training School. It was a process designed to empower all participants in the educational process (students, instructors and other parties) with the means of improving the practices conducted within the educational experience (Reason & Bradbury, 2008). Additionally, there was a different relative emphasis on the importance of action and its relationship to conceptual insight; the course was planned to follow the rules of learning by doing. Hopkins (2008, 1) argues that “classroom research is an act undertaken by teachers, to enhance their own or a colleague’s teaching, to test the assumptions of educational theory in practice, or as a means of evaluating and implementing whole school priorities.” Planning, acting, observing, and then reflecting on one’s actions, or simplified, look, think, act formulates a cyclical AR study.
Stringer (2014) argues that an action research [AR] does not use a single method.
It uses multiple ways to gather information and many actions and reflective processes to face problems and issues (Heikkinen et al., 2008). This action research study approached the participants with group session intervention, and used interviews, observations, learning logs, questionnaires and researcher diaries as methods of data collection.