'Reflecting On Reflection': An Exploration Of Trainers’ Perceptions Of Reflective Practice In Kazakhstan

Author(s):

Simon Brownhill(presenting / submitting)

Conference:

ECER 2014

Network:

01. Continuing Professional Development: Learning for Individuals, Leaders, and Organisations

Format:

Paper

Session Information

01 SES 08 C, Reflective Practice

Paper Session

Time:

2014-09-04

09:00-10:30

Room:

B035 Anfiteatro

Chair:

Simon Brownhill

Contribution

The calling for reflective practitioners remains ever present with the persistent demand for quality provision in education (UNESCO, 2014). Reflective practice is widely recognised as an essential tool for supporting the initial and continuing professional development of those in education, helping to both inform change and improve practice and competencies in the workplace (Dewey, 1933; Schön, 1983; Moon, 2004). The arguments for its use are well rehearsed in academic and professional arenas, both at a national and international level (Pedro, 2005; Benson et al. 2001). However, whilst there have been efforts made to establish a shared consensus about what ‘reflective practice’ is (Brownhill, 2014), its value at both a personal and professional level, and the ways in which reflective practice can be effectively promoted, these all fail to fully recognise the complexities of this as a concept (Beauchamp, 2006; Finlay, 2008).

This paper offers a unique exploration of perceptions of reflective practice offered by the ‘rarely heard’ views of education trainers in Kazakhstan. These perceptions were gathered in 2013 during the delivery of in-service training led by members of the Faculty of Education at the University of Cambridge for trainers on the national Centre of Excellence (CoE) teacher development programme in Kazakhstan. Originally set up by the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan in 2011 under the auspices of the Autonomous Education Organisation (AEO) ‘Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools’ (NIS), the primary aim of the CoE programme is to equip teachers in Kazakhstan with the skills to develop citizens of the 21st century. One of the outcomes of the programme emphasises the ‘develop[ment of] teachers’ abilities to…reflect on their practice’ (NIS, 2012: 224). However, personal observations of CoE trainers engaging in reflective practice during their training suggested that this was not an activity which many found easy, nor one that they seemed particularly comfortable with; many appeared to struggle to ‘make sense’ of their reflections of their practice and the implications that these reflections had for future practice.

The research sought to explore the perceptions of CoE trainers from across Kazakhstan in an effort to gain an understanding of what they believed reflective practice to be, and what purpose it served in the development of educational provision and practice. The research also sought to explore ways in which trainers had actively engaged in reflective practice during the course of their training, critically examining evidence produced as a result of their reflective endeavours which demonstrated their developing ability to reflect.

Method

The research embraced a mixed method approach (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2003), utilising a staged approach to data collection (Clough and Nutbrown, 2007). Over a two month period three different research methods were used to collect the data: Stage One: Structured questionnaires (n26; 100% return) inviting respondents to share their perceptions of reflective practice in an effort to establish a pre-existing baseline of knowledge and understanding. Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement in response to a series of statements about reflective practice using a Likert scale; they also identified qualities that they thought trainers and teachers needed to effectively engage in reflective practice, whilst rank ordering five activities from a selection of thirteen which they personally felt were the most important in helping them as trainers to be reflective of their practice. Data generated from these questionnaires was analysed using descriptive statistics (Wilson, 2013). Stage Two: Small group semi-structured interviews (n2) to explore perceived ways in which trainers had actively engaged in reflective practice during the two months of training. Interviews allowed participants (n5 in total – one group of 2 participants and one group of 3) to consider ways in which they had engaged in reflective practice during the training, what it was like engaging with activities that promoted reflection, and how their perceptions of reflective practice had changed during the course of the training. Data generated from the interviews was analysed using summative content analysis (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005). Stage Three: Documentary evidence of the trainers’ active engagement with reflective practice. This evidence came in the form of reflective accounts completed by 3 different trainers relating to the delivery of coaching (n2) and mentoring (n1) sessions. Completed training plans (n2) relating to the two coaching sessions were also collected. This documentary evidence was analysed using conventional content analysis (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005).

Expected Outcomes

Findings suggest that trainers recognise the importance of reflective practice and are of aware of various theoretical perspectives that are associated with it. Difficulties, however, lie in the willingness of some trainers to actively ‘apply the theory to the practice’ and engage in reflective practice due to it being perceived as “boring” or unhelpful. Many of the trainers value reflective practice but issues relating to time (“It’s time consuming!”; “When am I supposed to do it?”) and the need for them to be ‘honest’ and ‘open’ when they reflect challenge the existing practices of many trainers who only focus on ‘the positives’, ‘hiding’ those areas that need to be addressed or improved. Findings also suggest that trainers, by and large, lack confidence in their reflective capabilities, fearing that they will “not know the answers” and will “get it wrong”. This results in trainers being heavily reliant on University of Cambridge trainers to offer them explicit guidance, support and reflective structures (in the form of reflective cycles and prompts) so that they can reflect. Trainers recognise a range of different activities which encourage them to be reflective; these include reading, creating posters and presentations, and observing others. However, there is strong support for activities which encourage trainers to talk, for example group work, verbal discussions and debates. Not only does this facilitate opportunities for the sharing of ideas and thinking, but it allows trainers to compare, analyse and synthesis whilst “satisfying [their] love of talk!”

References

Beauchamp, C. (2006) Understanding reflection in teaching: A framework for analysing the literature. Montreal, Quebec, Canada: Unpublished doctoral thesis, McGill University. Benson, R., Hardy, L. and Maxfield, J. (2001) The International Classroom: Using Reflective Practice to improve Teaching and Learning. [Online]. Available at: http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne01/pdf/papers/bensonr.pdf (Accessed: 27 January 2014). Brownhill, S. (2014) Work-based Reflective Practice. In: Brownhill, S. (ed.) Empowering the Children's and Young People's Workforce. London: Routledge. pp.157-173. Clough, P. and Nutbrown, C. (2007) A Students´ Guide to Methodology: Justifying Enquiry. 2nd edn. London: Sage. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Boston: D.C. Heath. Finlay, L. (2008) Reflecting on ‘Reflective practice’. Open University PBPL Paper 52, January. [Online]. Available at: http://www.open.ac.uk/cetl-workspace/cetlcontent/documents/4bf2b48887459.pdf (Accessed: 27 January 2014). Hsieh, H-F. and Shannon, S. E. (2005) Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288. Moon, J. (2004) A Handbook of Reflective and Experiential Learning: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge. Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools (2012) Handbook for Teacher. Third (Basic) Level. Methodological Council of Center of Excellence AEO “Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools”. Pedro, J. (2005) Reflection in teacher education: exploring pre‐service teachers’ meanings of reflective practice. Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 6(1), 49-66. Schön, D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. USA: Basic Books, Inc. Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (2003) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage. UNESCO (2014) Teaching and learning: Achieving quality for all. The 2013/4 Education for All Global Monitoring Report. [Online]. Available at: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/leading-the-international-agenda/efareport/reports/2013/ (Accessed: 29 January 2014). Wilson, E. (ed.) (2013) School-based Research: A Guide for Education Students. 2nd edn. London: Sage.

Author Information

Simon Brownhill (presenting / submitting)

University of Cambridge

Education

Derby

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 you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.