The Meaning of Professional Self-Development of University Students Through Reflection in Practical Settings
Author(s):
Remigijus Bubnys
Conference:
ECER 2008
Network:
21. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Format:
Paper

Session Information

PRE_F1, Preconference; Paper Session F1

Paper Session

Time:
2008-09-09
08:30-10:00
Room:
C E11
Chair:
Meinert Arnd Meyer

Contribution

The paper is based on results of academic (PhD) research, focused on experience reflections of students involved in special pedagogy in their practical studies at university. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the educational and psychosocial aspects determining the decision of the student to study and deeper meaning of the professional self-development in practical settings through reflection? RESEARCH FOCUS: The meaning of professional self-development through reflection. PURPOSE: To highlight the meaning of professional self-development of students in their practical settings at higher education. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK consists of constructionism theory in education (e.g., Hacking, 1999; Berger, Lucmann, 1999; Jérôme, 2006; Bostock, 1998; Rust, O’Donovan, Price, 2005; Gijbels, Van De Watering, Dochy, Van Den Bossche, 2006; Adams, 2006; Loyens, Rikers, Schmidt, 2007) and theoretical conceptions of learning of adults in higher education (e.g., Brookfield, 1995; Knowles, 1988; Ramsden, 2000; Nicholls, G., 2001; Biggs, 2003; Jarvis, Holford, Griffin, 2004; Jarvis, 1999; 2006). The essential aim in the educational process is oriented towards the means of how individuals learn to construct and deconstruct their own experience and create new meanings. It is fundamental to develop the skill of students to learn constantly through a skill to reflect experience throughout education process. The main principles of students professional self-development through reflective practice in learning process (e.g., Boyd, Fales, 1983; Atkins, Murphy, 1993; Raines, Shadiow, 1995; Shön, 1987; 1991; Loughran, 1996; Cowan, 1998; Moon, 1999; 2004; Weiss, Weiss, 2001; Zydziunaite, 2001; Brockbank, McGill, 2003; Johns, 2004; Osterman, Kottkamp, 2004; Boud, Keough, Walker, 2005; Bubnys, 2007a, 2007b; Bubnys, Zydziunaite, 2007) where the main aim in higher education is to teach how to learn constantly analyzing one’s experience and creation of conditions for reflection. Involvement of students into reflective practice can be approached as a process of self-reflecion (process of self awareness and perception) where in the context of a chosen study course one gets not only the evaluation of execution of his/her own activities but also of his/her own (professional) self. Reflection in learning process enables to reveal the new perspectives and insights in such way enhancing both personal and professional development.

Method

DATA COLLECTION: unstructured written reflections and reflective diary. DATA ANALYSIS: The phenomenological hermeneutical method. The phenomenological hermeneutic analysis of the text involves phases, which constitute a dialectic movement between the whole and the parts between understanding and explanation (Lindseth, Norberg, 2004): 1) A naive reading is the first interpretation of the text as a whole, which provides direction for further analysis; 2) Structural analyses include various examinations of the parts of the text in order to explain what it says. In this phase have been formulated themes; 3) Comprehensive understanding includes the summarizing and reflecting on the main themes, themes and sub-themes in relation to the research question and the context of the study; 4) Formulating the results in a phenomenological hermeneutical way means that the results should be formulated in everyday language as close to lived experience as possible. The phenomenological hermeneutical as the very valued method in order to illuminate the lived experiences of respondents in the contexts of various phenomenon’s, e. g. Ekman et al (1993), Söderberg, Norberg & Gilje (1996), Söderberg, Gilje & Norberg (1997), Nilsson, Jansson & Norberg (1999), Rasmussen, Jansson & Norberg (2000), Sundin, Jansson & Norberg (2000), Ebbeskog & Ekman (2001), Götell, Brown & Ekman (2002), Zydziunaite (2005), Bubnys, Zydziunaite (2007) and etc. RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS: 65 first year students of Special Pedagogy (UNIVERSITY LEVEL).

Expected Outcomes

The results of written reflections of students reflect the formation of professional self-development and self-determination striving to become the specialist of a chosen studies together accepting the role of him/her as a future special pedagogue. The research results imply a proposition that written reflections enable students to perceive over their experiences gained during practice period of their studies, identifying and modifying personal assumptions regarding future role of being specialists, looking for alternative answers towards issues and enhancing professional realization and personal insights. Observational practice during the studies was the major factor allowing students to verify their expectations and prejudices as well as attitudes towards the chosen study fields. Devotion, love to children and the wish to help them are key factors supporting student‘s determination to become a special educator, continuing studies at the university, accepting and identifying the new role of a future specialist. During the practice where was experienced the mutual interaction with children the students recognized themselves as future representatives of the profession. Also they re-evaluated their abilities, personal characteristics that are needed while working with people with special needs. The important role of mentor (practice tutor) appears to be the determinant in the aspect of professional self determination and future activities of the student as future specialist. Lack of professional skills and innovations in professional environment determined the decision of students to choose this profession and replace of existing specialists giving services of higher quality. Willingness to gain knowledge and the need of personal perfection were the other factors that determined the decision to study the chosen profession. Clear future vision of professional activities enhanced the wish to become a special educator. Taking decision about the future occupation was influenced by previous experiences related to the disabled, ability to observe and help these people. Another reason that supported the decision was familiarity with the work and continuity from relatives (family members) already doing this job. Some part of the students did not have opportunities to reflect themselves as future specialists during the course of observational practice. Even though they had opportunity to get acquainted with the field of studies, there were no conditions or opportunities for them to decide if this was the right field they see themselves as specialists. Personal contradictions, hard, tiresome and dull work, lack of communication and cognition of children capabilities as well as absence of patience as one of the main characteristics needed for a special educator and disbelief in themselves were major factors that determined doubts and hesitation of their choice. Among the elements that hindered the decision to become a special educator were the nature of work, lack of personal skills and individual peculiarities of children with special needs. Students describe the work of special educator as tiring and hard, demanding much more effort than workings with children do not possess special needs. The demand for improving social (communicative) skills of students and reduction of feeling of personal fear working with children with special needs is apparent.

References

1. Adams, P. (2006). Exploring social constructivism: theories and practicalities. Education 3–13, 34 (3), 243 – 257. 2. Atkins, S., Murphy, K. (1993). Reflection: a review of the literature. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 18, 1188-1192. 3. Berger, P., Luckmann, Th. (1999). The Social Construction of Reality. A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Vilnius: Pradai. [Lithuanian language]. 4. Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. What the student does. The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press. 5. Bostock, S.J. (1998). Constructivism in mass higher education: a case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 29 (3), 225-240. 6. Boud, D., Keogh, R., Walker, D. (2005). Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning. London and New York: RoutledgeFalmer. 7. Boyd, E., Fales, A. (1983). Reflective Learning: Key to learning from experience. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 23 (2), 99-117. 8. Brockbank, A., McGill, I.(1998). Facilitating reflective learning in higher education. Buckingham: Open University. 9. Brookfield, S.D. (1995). Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 10. Bubnys, R. (2007a). Reflection in the Process of Learning of Students from Their Own Experience. Applied Research in Health and Social Sciences: Interface and Interaction, 3 (1), 71 – 78. [Lithuanian language]. 11. Bubnys, R. (2007b). Constructing the Professional "I" through Practical Experience and Reflecting on in Higher Education. EDUCATION–LINE, Available at: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/167147.htm 12. Bubnys, R., Zydziunaite, V. (2007). Experiences of Prospective Special Pedagogues in Practical Studies at a Higher School: Results of the Analysis of Written Reflections. Special Education, 2 (17), 40 – 50. [Lithuanian language]. 13. Cowan, J. (1998). On Becoming an Innovative University Teacher. Buckingham: Open University. 14. Gijbels, D., Van De Watering, G., Dochy, F., Van Den Bossche, P. (2006). New learning environments and constructivism: The students’ perspective. Instructional Science, 34, 213–226. 15. Hacking, I. (1999). The Social Construction of What? Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: Harvard University Press. 16. Jarvis, P. (1999). The Practitioner – Researcher. Developing Theory from Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 17. Jarvis, P. (2006). Towards a Comprehensive Theory of Human Learning. London and New York: Routledge. 18. Jarvis, P., Holford, J., Griffin, C. (2004). The Theory and Practice of Learning. London: RoutledgeFalmer. 19. Jérôme, P. (2006). Constructivism: A re-equilibration and clarification of the concepts, and some potential implications for teaching and pedagogy. Radical Pedagogy, 8 (1), Available at: http://radicalpedagogy.icaap.org/content/issue8_1/proulx.html (2008 01 09). 20. Johns, C. (2004). Becoming a Reflective Practitioner. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. 21. Knowles, M. (1988). The Modern Practice of Adult Education. From Pedagogy to Andragogy. London: Kogan Page. 22. Loughran, J. (1996). Developing Reflective Practice: Learning about Teaching and Learning through Modelling. London: Falmer Press. 23. Loyens, S., Rikers, R., Schmidt, H. (2007). Students conceptions of distinct constructivist assumptions. European Journal of Psychology of Education. XXII (2), 179-199. 24. Moon, J. (2004). A Handbook of Reflective and Experiential Learning. Theory and Practice. London and New York: RoutledgeFalmer. 25. Moon, J. A. (1999). Reflection in Learning and Professional Development. Theory and Practice. London: Kogan Page. 26. Nicholls, G. (2001). Professional Development in Higher Education. New Dimensions & Directions. London: Kogan Page. 27. Osterman, K.F., Kottkamp, R.B. (2004). Reflective Practice for Educators. Professional Development to Improve Student Learning. California: Corwin Press. 28. Raines, P., Shadiow, L. (1995). Reflection and Teaching: the Challenge of Thinking Beyond the Doing. The Clearing House, 68 (5), 271-279. 29. Ramsden, P. (2000). Learning to Teach in Higher Education. Vilnius: Aidai. [Lithuanian language]. 30. Rust, C., O’Donovan, B., Price, M. (2007). Putting a social-constructivist assessment process model into practice: building the feedback loop into the assessment process through peer review. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44 (2), 143–152. 31. Schön, D. (1991). The Reflective Practitionier. How professionals think in action. Great Britain, London: Maurice Temple Smith Ltd. 32. Shön, D. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.  33. Weiss, E., Weiss, S. (2001). Doing Reflective Supervision with Student Teachers in a Professional Development School Culture. Reflective Practice, 2 (2), 125-154. 34. Zydziunaite, V. (2001). How to Empower Students Pharmacy Assistants to Study with Motivation using Problem Solving and Reflections. A Study. Kaunas: Kaunas Medical School.

Author Information

Remigijus Bubnys
Siauliai university
Faculty of Social Welfare and Disability Studies
Siauliai
126

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

Search the ECER Programme

  • Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
  • Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
  • Search for authors and in the respective field.
  • For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.