Activity 7.2 - Clegg review - types of cpd

Source

Clegg, Sue, Tan, Jon and Saeidi , Saiedeh (2002) ‘Reflecting or Acting? Reflective Practice and Continuing Professional Development in Higher Education - Reflective Practice’, Reflective Practice , 3(1), pp. 131-146, [online] Available from: http://pdfserve.informaworld.com.libezproxy.open.ac.uk/44605_751304133_713693219.pdf (Accessed 3 December 2008).

My take on the Clegg article?
There is no "one" way or method to realize effective cpd through reflection. In some cases, the argument is made that written reflection may in fact be counter productive - people either approach it as an exercise to meet the expectations of others or do quite alright without it entirely. However written reflection still seems to be used as a means to evidence pd.

Clegg suggests that there are essentially 4 general types of professional development strategies involving reflection and these have come about from research on people engaged in CPD. Key factors that determine selection?

• experience - the person needs to have a degree of experience before they have something to reflect upon
• time pressures - availability to carry out the task properly
• priority - judging when and how frequently such reflective work is required
• thinking styles - ie. one's whole thinking process was difficult to capture via written reflection (writing didn't crystalize ideas but undermined them)

Those 4 types?

• immediate action
• immediate reflection
• deferred action
• deferred reflection
  

This challenged my first interpretation of the chart where I thought that there might be a progression (i.e. encouraging someone to move from A through to D, that the quality and depth of one's reflection improved accordingly). Where did that come from? My assumption that the most meaningful and purposeful reflection would come out of deferment? Apparently not so.

Which perspective do I favour?

I actually favour the Dealtry version... because I believe in the need for some sort of macro view - a continuum for professional development to be purposeful and meaningful - thus most effective. The Clegg article is more of a micro look - important for opening my eyes to how cpd can be realized in any number of ways dependent on a variety of factors. I'm also conscious of how I might be inclined to accept as equally viable all four perspectives in my own professional development now .. when before I would have favoured D as being the most desirable.

In respect to TMA 2 .. ?

The readings point out to me that the road to professional development can take on a variety of different paths - dependent on one's macro view - Dealtry - where I am in my "learning how to learn" / my "incremental learning" .. and dependent on one's micro view - Clegg - where a variety of factors may determine my choice of action and reflection (and evidence of my development). Both perspectives, one explicitly and the other implicitly, promote the notion that such cpd requires our ownership to be most meaningful and purposeful.

Activity 7.1 - reflections on professional values - where do they come from?

I'm sensing that the work of developing a code of ethics or principles for each profession as something that took time.. that it's really a profession's response to ensuring the public good is protected. The need is to meet minimum public expectations of a profession so that as a profession (and as a professional) they gain / maintain the trust and confidence of the public. They bolster their credibility and respect in the eyes of the public.

Keywords - trust / confidence
leading to
Keywords - credibility / respect

A little bit of speculation here but I don't imagine that such trust and confidence for current professions came over night. I imagine a series of occasions / events / even misfortunes where such trust or confidence may have been tested .. and the profession addressed these through the further refinement of their guiding principles and ethics. This was done as a means to protecting the "profession". In other words, defining the public good that each profession seeks to address is key to winning the trust and confidence of the public it seeks to serve. This becomes the means to defining these principles and ethics for each profession.

That may be easier to identify for an engineer or doctor, perhaps more challenging for an educator but I sense much more difficult for an elearning practitioner.. especially when there isn't much of a history to the "profession".

New questions emerge out of this...

What public interest or service is being addressed by elearning "professionals" that the public deems to be important .. that the public needs to be confident in leaving to elearning professionals to address?

• Perhaps efficient, effective, judicious use of technology in realizing learning outcomes .. cause for reflection.

What about defining the public? Is that public broadly defined or more focussed / specialized / specific?

• The public served may be educators, administrators, managers. What expertise are they seeking? .. cause for more reflection.