The paper is based on results of academic research, focused on experience treflections of students involved in special pedagogy in their practical studies at university.RESEARCH QUESTION: How do the students construct their professional "I" in higher education? Does the reflection stipulate the deeper meaning of this constructing?OBJECTIVE: Constructing the professional "I" in higher education.PURPOSE: To reveal the experience of students - special pedagogues in their practical studies at higher education, by highlighting the assumptions of reflexive studying and expressed characteristics. VALUE: Research data revealed the experience of students in practical activity context, what allowed to distinguish the assumptions, disturbances and limits of reflexive learning at higher education: ? the contents of interaction with self ("I"), chosen profession, practice; counsellors and clients (children) as well as the expression of students experiences during the practice is revealed; ? the main needs of higher education students and expectations in their practical studies are identified; ? demand of practice; counselor's preparation, development of competencies and demand for specific competence development in formal educational process by participants was proved; ? the main factors (limits and disturbances) possibly determining reflexive/non-reflexive students learning in their further studies, were identified.THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK consists of constructionism and theoretical conceptions of learning of adults in higher education (e.g., Ramsden, 1992; Brookfield, 1995; Barnett, 1996; Biggs, 2003; Jarvis, Holford, Griffin, 2004). The essential aim in the educational process is oriented to the skill of students to learn constantly through a skill to reflect experience. The main principles of reflective learning (teaching) and reflective practice theories (e.g., Shön, 1991; Loughran, 1996; Cowan, 1998; Moon, 1999; Brockbank, McGill, 2003; Osterman, Kottkamp, 2004; Boud, Keough, Walker, 2005), where the main aim in higher education is training to learn constantly analyzing one's experience and creation of conditions for reflection. DATA COLLECTION: unstructured written reflection 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 I sought to identify and formulate 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) and etc.RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS: 65 first year students of Special Pedagogy (UNIVERSITY LEVEL).Possible experience is associated with successful adaptation through personal transformation: from disgust till adjustment, from guilt till understanding, from compassion till self-identification. Development of "very self" is revealed through subjects of self-cognition, professional identity, self confidence, successful relationships with children, reevaluation of personal attitudes and conceiving of life completeness. Uncertainty, which was faced by the students during practice, is an assumption for a personal alternation through self cognition: new behavior types, identification and appeasement of children's self training are found.The main limits and disturbances for students to learn from their own experience are feeling of negative emotions in relations with children, practice advisers and self. During practice in relation to children students experience fear, despair, confusion, shame and compassion, also lack of personal empathy is felt. Pain is felt while observing children's disability, their hopelessness, efforts and lack of motivation for help. Experiences of hopelessness and lack of self-confidence are dominating due the lack of practical experience and information, possible negative evaluation of teachers and possible negative behavior of children. The limits of interaction during practice are associated with negative experience and feelings in relation to teachers (practice advisers) due their social incompetence, behavior with children and exploitation: sneering, repulse, "coldness", indifference, cruelty and children discrimination, disrespect and negative attitudes in relation to children and their profession.The expression peculiarities of emotions experienced by the students and their contents are diagnosed. Emotions play the most important role in teaching process, they are also a drive of reflexive learning, though often dynamic and intense feelings obstruct effective learning from their own experience. Received results revealed that the respondents had experienced rather many negative feelings during their practice, which did not create assumptions for a successful learning from their own experience. A demand for students' consultation, information, psychological aid, perfection of self-reflection skills, supervision in their further practical and theoretical studies is proved. 1. Barnett, R. (1996). The Limits of Competence: knowledge, higher education, and society. Buckingham: Open University.2. Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for Quality Learning at University: what the student does. Buckingham: Open University.3. Boud, D., Keough, R., Walker, D. (2005). Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning. London: Kogan Page. 4. Brookfield, S.D. (1995). Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.5. Cowan, J. (1998). On Becoming an Innovative University Teacher. Buckingham: Open University. 6. Dewey, J. (1933). How We Think. New York: D. C. Heath. 7. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience in Education. New York: Collier Books. 8. Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. 9. Knowles, M. (1988). The Modern Practice of Adult Education. From Pedagogy to Andragogy. London: Kogan Page.10. Loughran, J.J. (1996). Developing Reflective Practice: Learning about Teaching and Learning Through Modelling. London: Falmer Press. 11. McGill, I., Brockbank, A. (1998). Facilitating reflective learning in higher education. Buckingham: Open University. 12. Mezirow, J. (1990). Fostering Critical Reflection in Adulthood. A Guide to Transformative and Emancipatory Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.13. Moon, J. A. (1999). Reflection in Learning and Professional Development. Theory and Practice. London: Kogan Page. 14. Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge.15. Jarvis, P. (1999). The Practitioner - Researcher. Developing Theory from Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.16. Jarvis, P., Holford, J., Griffin, C. (2004). The Theory and Practice of Learning. London: RoutledgeFalmer. 17. Osterman, K.F., Kottkamp, R.B. (2004). Reflective Practice for Educators. Professional Development to Improve Student Learning. California: Corwin Press. 18. Shön, D.A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books, Inc. 19. Shön, D. 1987. Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass