Evaluation of the study

The present study advances our understanding of video-based reflective practice in the primary school teacher education programme. The research process raised a wide discussion in the primary school teacher education programme at the University of Lapland in terms of the approaches to and the aims and theoretical background of supervision. To my knowledge, the discussion has been very welcoming because before the video application VEO was introduced to the faculty, there was no common understanding of how student teachers should be guided. Every supervisor seemed to have their own style of guiding student teachers.

To evaluate the trustworthiness of the research and its findings, I now delve into the concepts of credibility, dependability and transferability, which have been used in the context of qualitative research. Credibility addresses the question of how well the study has focused on the issues under study. Dependability considers the degree to which the data have changed over time, and transferability refers to the extent to which the results can be transferred to other settings or groups (see, e.g. Lincoln &

Guba, 1997). Moreover, I use three tests that have been applied to judge the quality of the research design, which are especially suitable for case study design: construct validity, external validity and reliability. Construct validity means defining specific

concepts and identifying operational measures that match these concepts; external validity refers to the generalisation of the study’s findings; reliability demonstrates the repeatability of the study, i.e. whether future investigators will arrive at the same findings and conclusions (Yin, 2018).

This study applied four kinds of triangulation: theoretical, methodological, data and researcher, which strengthened its credibility and construct validity (Denzin, 1978). The study is based on earlier writings of reflective practice, educational theories and a large number of previous studies, all of which increased my understanding of the phenomenon under study. All three sub-studies were qualitative in nature.

This was because I found the qualitative approach to be the only way to get close to the participants and construct an understanding of the issue under study (cf.

Creswell, 2013). Moreover, the number of student teachers and supervisors in each Advanced Practicum was quite small, so it was not possible to get a large number of participants. I could have used statistical measures for many purposes, such as to test how video-based reflection affected student teachers’ perceptions of their reflection skills. However, this would have required a different kind of research design. Moreover, I did not want to assign extra assignments to the student teachers, which determined my choice of methods.

I collected different kinds of qualitative data and used multiple sources of evidence: portfolio writings, interviews, video diaries and supervisory discussions, through which I was able to investigate different issues according to the aims of each sub-study. One limitation was that, with the exception for the supervisory discussions, the data can be regarded as self-reporting, which implies a danger of misinterpretation (Kember, 1997). Conducting the research in the context of teacher education and as part of teacher education studies may have affected what the participants reported during the process. I believe that the atmosphere in the focus group and individual interviews with the student teachers and supervisors was positive, open and reflective. In the group discussions, every participant had a chance to say something and raise concerns. Therefore, the data were not distorted by threatening or unpleasant moods or an over-emphasis on a single participant (cf. Vaughn et al., 1996). Finally, I did not test the interview questions before using them. However, I had discussed my research with colleagues and the supervisors who guided my dissertation, which helped me formulate relevant interview questions that addressed the intended focus. After the first interviews, I was able to modify my questions for future interviews.

I analysed all the material using the qualitative thematic analysis method. In Sub-studies II and III, I also applied principles of phenomenographic analysis to get a better picture of the data (see, e.g. Graneheim & Lundman, 2004; Mayring, 2014).

To enhance the credibility and reliability of the study, I kept a research diary and aimed to describe the research process and the process of data collection and analysis in great detail. This ensured that the procedures were made explicit so that readers

could follow my thinking. Moreover, to confirm my interpretations, I produced representative quotations from the transcribed text.

For all the sub-studies, I analysed the raw data myself. However, my co-authors and other faculty members contributed to the analysis process through discussions and shared insights. I believe that co-operation with others increased my understanding of the data and helped me distance myself from my findings and interpret and look at them from a new perspective. This contributed positively to the accuracy of the results and reporting and, therefore, the reliability of the study.

All three sub-studies have been published or are in press in peer-reviewed research journals. Therefore, they have undergone a rigorous review process before acceptance and publication. Third-party reviews have confirmed the findings of the sub-studies as relevant and of high quality. Moreover, I have received feedback on my study from teachers and supervisors in the Faculty of Education, other doctoral candidates, conference audiences and other researchers whom I met during the process. This communication with others has given me new insights, impacting the overall quality of the study.

The data collected in the different phases of the research process were quite similar. The data changed somewhat between the two VEO trials because, during the process, my understanding of the phenomenon increased, and therefore, I wanted to use different methods to acquire a wider data set.

This study was conducted with a small number of participants in a specific context. One of the limitations of the case study approach is that the results cannot be generalised. This limitation was mitigated through two sub-studies on the same issue (cf. Gray, 2004). The findings of this study resonate with those of many previous studies, which indicates good external validity, and therefore, I believe that the results can be partly generalised to other teacher education programmes and that similar results could be achieved in different settings. However, transferability and reliability were not the aim of this study. Instead, other researchers and practitioners can learn from this study while thinking about future research options or developing new ways of promoting reflective practice in the social sciences.

As I have conducted case study research, I see the relevance of evaluating myself against the desired skills and values of a case study investigator presented by Yin (2018). These include the abilities to ask good questions, be a good ‘listener’, remain adaptive, have a firm grasp of the issues being studied and conduct research ethically. The researcher should be able to pose and ask questions during the entire research process. I have asked new questions while planning the study, collecting and analysing the data, and writing articles and, finally, this summary. These questions have led me to focus more on certain aspects of the phenomenon, further deepening the study.

The researcher should be a good ‘listener’ so that he or she could receive information through multiple modalities, such as emotions, the mood and other

contextual factors. As my research is closely connected to a certain context, I have paid special attention to contextual factors during the study. The ability to remain adaptive means that the researcher is ready to change research plans or design a completely new study if needed. While my study remained the same, my research plan grew more focused through the formulation of research questions, which is typical in qualitative research.

Moreover, the researcher has to keep the purpose of the case study in mind to be able to interpret the data. I tried to conduct my study by keeping the purpose in my mind at all times. Finally, the researcher has to follow ethical guidelines when conducting research, including being open to contrary evidence and aware of preconceptions. I followed the necessary ethical principles and reflected on my preconceptions during the study. I also learnt that the phenomenon of video-based reflective practice is much more complex than I had expected, leading me to modify my way of thinking.