How, why and why not – the reflective practice of teaching staff at a Scottish university

IF 1.6 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Reflective Practice Pub Date : 2022-06-22 DOI:10.1080/14623943.2022.2090325
R. Bray, H. Fotheringham
{"title":"How, why and why not – the reflective practice of teaching staff at a Scottish university","authors":"R. Bray, H. Fotheringham","doi":"10.1080/14623943.2022.2090325","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This two-stage study was conducted to examine the awareness of policy and underlying pedagogy as well as the use of reflective practice by teaching staff (faculty) within a Scottish university. In the first stage, teaching staff completed a questionnaire; of these 14 then took part in stage two, semi-structured interviews. Interview transcripts were subject to thematic analysis and three main themes emerged: (1) The methods and processes of reflection (‘How’); (2) The personal and organisational drivers for employing reflective practices (‘Why’); and (3) The barriers to reflection (‘Why not’). Significant findings included the dominance of traditional (paper-based as opposed to computer mediated) reflective writing in teaching staff’s own reflection, and the importance of both formal and informal group reflection in methods and process. Reasons for reflection focused on the importance of both organisational drivers such as professional standards and awarding bodies, and personal drivers such as personal growth, identity, and psychological wellbeing. Barriers to reflection included both the concrete such as insufficient time and lack of opportunities to share resources, as well as the attitudinal and cultural. Possible ways of tacking these barriers also emerged. Implications for organisational and individual practice are discussed.","PeriodicalId":51594,"journal":{"name":"Reflective Practice","volume":"23 1","pages":"578 - 592"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reflective Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2022.2090325","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT This two-stage study was conducted to examine the awareness of policy and underlying pedagogy as well as the use of reflective practice by teaching staff (faculty) within a Scottish university. In the first stage, teaching staff completed a questionnaire; of these 14 then took part in stage two, semi-structured interviews. Interview transcripts were subject to thematic analysis and three main themes emerged: (1) The methods and processes of reflection (‘How’); (2) The personal and organisational drivers for employing reflective practices (‘Why’); and (3) The barriers to reflection (‘Why not’). Significant findings included the dominance of traditional (paper-based as opposed to computer mediated) reflective writing in teaching staff’s own reflection, and the importance of both formal and informal group reflection in methods and process. Reasons for reflection focused on the importance of both organisational drivers such as professional standards and awarding bodies, and personal drivers such as personal growth, identity, and psychological wellbeing. Barriers to reflection included both the concrete such as insufficient time and lack of opportunities to share resources, as well as the attitudinal and cultural. Possible ways of tacking these barriers also emerged. Implications for organisational and individual practice are discussed.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
苏格兰一所大学教师的反思性实践是如何进行的,为什么进行,为什么不进行
本研究分为两个阶段,旨在研究苏格兰一所大学的教学人员(教师)对政策和基础教学法的认识,以及对反思性实践的使用。第一阶段,教师完成问卷调查;其中14人参加了第二阶段的半结构化面试。对采访记录进行专题分析,出现了三个主要主题:(1)反思的方法和过程(“如何”);(2)采用反思实践的个人和组织驱动因素(“为什么”);(3)反思的障碍(“为什么不”)。重要的发现包括传统的反思性写作在教师自身反思中的主导地位(基于纸张而不是计算机媒介),以及正式和非正式的小组反思在方法和过程中的重要性。反思的原因集中在组织驱动因素(如专业标准和奖励机构)和个人驱动因素(如个人成长、身份和心理健康)的重要性上。反思的障碍既包括时间不足和缺乏分享资源的机会等具体障碍,也包括态度和文化障碍。解决这些障碍的可能方法也出现了。讨论了对组织和个人实践的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Reflective Practice
Reflective Practice EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
16.70%
发文量
38
期刊最新文献
Doing cross-cultural interviews from Vietnamese students’ experience and reflective practice: lessons on intercultural communicative competence Reflection tools – support for patient learning in group education What does inclusion look like within an experiential teaching and assessing reflective learning model? Utilising authentic assessment to foster shared social membership Investigating the development of peer-led asynchronous digitally mediated feedback in higher education: three case studies On the journey from cognizance toward thriving: Iranian EFL teachers’ engagement in reflective practice and professional development: the mediating effect of teacher mindfulness
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1