📎 APPENDIX A: Field Logs (Participatory

Action Research Cycles)

Project Title: Development and Institutionalization of a Comprehensive School Counseling
Program (CSCP)
Methodology: Two-Cycle Participatory Action Research (PAR)
Purpose of Field Logs: To document participatory processes, interactions, reflections, and
contextual dynamics across Cycle 1 (Participatory Diagnosis & Co-Design) and Cycle 2
(Implementation, Reflection & Institutionalization).

🔵 Cycle 1: Participatory Diagnosis & Co-Design (6 Field

Logs)
(Aligned with: Planning → Action Stage 1 → Reflection Stage 1 → Action Stage 2 → Reflection
Stage 2 → Output: Draft CSCP)

Field Log 1 – Cycle 1 (Planning Phase)

Phase & Meeting: Planning Meeting with School Leadership

Date/Location: [Insert]
Participants: 2 school leaders, 1 counselor focal person
Matrix Alignment: Planning Phase (Cycle 1)

Topic of Discussion:
Planning of participatory diagnosis process and stakeholder engagement strategy.

Use of Local Language:

Nepali used predominantly; technical terms such as “FGD,” “ethics,” and “consent” were
explained in simple Nepali.

Group Seating Structure:

Round-table seating promoted shared decision-making.

Content of the Session:

Discussion focused on ethical approval procedures, consent forms for students and parents, and
identification of co-researcher groups (students, teachers, parents).
Participants’ Experiences:
School leaders shared previous unsuccessful attempts at psychosocial initiatives due to lack of
structured planning.

Feelings & Non-Verbal Cues:

Participants appeared cautiously optimistic; frequent nodding indicated agreement.

Feedback on Previous Meeting:

N/A (first planning meeting)

Tentative Next Meeting:

FGD orientation session with teachers.

Professional Development Needs:

Leaders requested orientation on ethical research and confidentiality.

Researcher’s Reflexive Note:

Power dynamics were evident; intentional facilitation was needed to ensure shared ownership.

Field Log 2 – Cycle 1 (Action Stage 1: Participatory Diagnosis – Students)

Participants: 8 students
Matrix Alignment: Action Phase – Stage 1

Students described academic stress, peer teasing, and lack of emotional support. Non-verbal cues
(lowered gaze, silence) indicated vulnerability. This log directly informed Data Generated in
Cycle 1 Matrix (academic stress, bullying, emotional distress).

Field Log 3 – Cycle 1 (Action Stage 1: Participatory Diagnosis – Teachers &

Parents)

Participants: 5 teachers, 4 parents

Matrix Alignment: Action Phase – Stage 1

Teachers expressed role ambiguity in psychosocial care. Parents acknowledged limited

awareness of children’s emotional needs. This aligns with Role ambiguity and lack of
counseling services in Cycle 1 matrix.

Field Log 4 – Cycle 1 (Reflection Stage 1: Thematic Validation Meeting)

Participants: Mixed stakeholder group
Matrix Alignment: Reflection Stage – Stage 1

Themes (stress, bullying, lack of counseling structure) were validated and prioritized. This log
supports Thematic Analysis & Stakeholder Validation in Cycle 1 matrix.

Field Log 5 – Cycle 1 (Action Stage 2: Co-Design Workshop)

Participants: Students, teachers, school leader

Matrix Alignment: Action Phase – Stage 2

Participants co-designed Tier 1 (SEL), Tier 2 (group counseling), Tier 3 (individual counseling
& referral). Strong ownership emerged. Aligns with Framework Developed in Cycle 1 matrix.

Field Log 6 – Cycle 1 (Reflection Stage 2: Feasibility Review)

Participants: Teachers & school leader

Matrix Alignment: Reflection Phase – Stage 2

Discussions focused on cultural acceptability and resource constraints. This log directly supports
Feasibility discussion, cultural acceptability, resource assessment and the Outcome of Cycle
1: Draft CSCP Framework.

🔵 Cycle 2: Implementation, Reflection & Institutionalization

(6 Field Logs)
(Aligned with: Planning → Action (Pilot) → Observation → Reflection → Refinement →
Institutional Outputs)

Field Log 7 – Cycle 2 (Planning Phase: Pilot Design)

Participants: Teachers, counselor focal person

Matrix Alignment: Planning Phase (Cycle 2)

Selection of pilot classes, scheduling SEL sessions, and teacher orientation planning.
Field Log 8 – Cycle 2 (Action Phase: SEL Classroom Sessions)

Matrix Alignment: Action Phase – Pilot Implementation

Observed increased student participation and emotional vocabulary. Aligns with Observed
Changes (emotional awareness).

Field Log 9 – Cycle 2 (Action Phase: Group Counseling Session)

Matrix Alignment: Action Phase – Pilot Implementation

Students discussed exam stress and bullying. Non-verbal cues indicated trust and engagement.

Field Log 10 – Cycle 2 (Observation Phase: Reflective Journals Review)

Matrix Alignment: Data Collection Methods

Teachers’ journals indicated reduced classroom conflict and improved student openness.

Field Log 11 – Cycle 2 (Reflection Phase: Review Meeting)

Matrix Alignment: Reflection Phase

Barriers (time constraints, lack of space) and successes were identified. Sustainability discussed
with school leadership.

Field Log 12 – Cycle 2 (Refinement & Institutionalization Meeting)

Matrix Alignment: Refinement Process & Institutional Outputs

CSCP model revised, counselor TOR clarified, monitoring mechanism drafted. This log supports
Final CSCP Model Document & Policy Draft.
📊 Alignment Summary Table (Appendix B)
Field Log PAR Cycle PAR Phase Matrix Component
1 Cycle 1 Planning Ethical prep, co-researcher identification
2–3 Cycle 1 Action Stage 1 Participatory diagnosis
4 Cycle 1 Reflection Stage 1 Thematic analysis & validation
5 Cycle 1 Action Stage 2 Co-design workshops
6 Cycle 1 Reflection Stage 2 Feasibility & cultural fit
7 Cycle 2 Planning Pilot preparation
8–9 Cycle 2 Action SEL & group counseling
10 Cycle 2 Observation Journals & feedback
11 Cycle 2 Reflection What worked/barriers
12 Cycle 2 Refinement CSCP revision & policy

✍️Chapter 4: Field Notes Analysis (Ready-to-

Insert Subsection)
4.X Field Notes Analysis

Field notes served as a primary qualitative data source documenting the evolving participatory
dynamics, contextual realities, and reflexive learning across the two-cycle Participatory Action
Research (PAR) process. A total of twelve field logs were maintained—six during Cycle One
(Participatory Diagnosis and Co-Design) and six during Cycle Two (Implementation, Reflection,
and Institutionalization). The field logs captured multiple dimensions, including topic of
discussion, use of local language, group seating structure, session content, participants’
experiences, non-verbal cues, feedback on previous sessions, professional development needs,
and the researcher’s reflexive observations.

Analysis of Cycle One field notes revealed that participatory diagnosis facilitated the surfacing
of shared psychosocial challenges such as academic stress, bullying, emotional distress, and the
absence of structured counseling mechanisms. The use of local language enabled deeper
emotional expression and cultural resonance, strengthening the authenticity of data. Reflexive
entries highlighted the gradual emergence of stakeholder ownership, particularly during co-
design workshops where participants collaboratively constructed the tier-based CSCP
framework. Reflection meetings further ensured feasibility, cultural acceptability, and contextual
grounding of the draft model.

Cycle Two field notes demonstrated observable shifts in classroom climate and stakeholder
engagement during pilot implementation. Teachers reported increased emotional awareness
among students, reduced peer conflict, and greater openness to help-seeking behaviors.
Reflection meetings identified both facilitators (teacher motivation, student responsiveness) and
barriers (time constraints, limited private space), informing iterative refinement of CSCP
components. Institutional meetings documented the translation of reflective learning into
structural outputs, including clarification of counselor roles, development of monitoring
mechanisms, and drafting of school-endorsed counseling policy.

Overall, the field notes analysis illustrates how iterative reflection embedded within PAR cycles
strengthened contextual responsiveness, stakeholder ownership, and the institutional integration
of the CSCP model. The systematic documentation of process and reflexivity enhanced
methodological rigor and transparency of the research