This article was downloaded by: [University of Guelph]On: 04 May 2013, At: 12:58Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Reflective Practice: International andMultidisciplinary PerspectivesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/crep20

Heutagogy: spirals of reflection toempower learners in higher educationNatalie Canning a & Sue Callan aa The Open University, Department of Education – Early Years,Stuart Hall Building, Level 2, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK76AA, UKPublished online: 29 Jan 2010.

To cite this article: Natalie Canning & Sue Callan (2010): Heutagogy: spirals of reflection toempower learners in higher education, Reflective Practice: International and MultidisciplinaryPerspectives, 11:1, 71-82

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14623940903500069

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Reflective PracticeVol. 11, No. 1, February 2010, 71–82

ISSN 1462-3943 print/ISSN 1470-1103 online© 2010 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/14623940903500069http://www.informaworld.com

Heutagogy: spirals of reflection to empower learners in higher education

Natalie Canning* and Sue Callan

The Open University, Department of Education – Early Years, Stuart Hall Building, Level 2, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, UKTaylor and FrancisCREP_A_450424.sgm(Received 26 May 2009; final version received 20 November 2009)10.1080/14623940903500069Reflective Practice1462-3943 (print)/1470-1103 (online)Original Article2010Taylor & Francis111000000February 2010Miss NatalieCanningn.canning@open.ac.uk

This paper is informed by narrative research undertaken as part of continuousreflection on our individual practice. It is based on student responses to experienceof study and professional development as part of collaborative reviews anddiscussion forums. This is informal research, based on qualitative approaches. Thepaper considers how students are facilitated to take control of their own learningand engage in reflective practice through a paradigm of heutagogy, which exploresthe processes involved as student’s start to engage in self-directed study. As courseprogramme leaders it is necessary alongside this that we enable course teams tobecome conscious of the processes of reflection and to be critical of their ownpractice, values and attitudes towards learners. This collaborative paper thereforerepresents a spiral of reflection on our experiences, as we explore theimplementation of theory and practice – in terms of reflection on learning andteaching.

Keywords: heutagogy; spirals of reflection; early years practice; transformativelearning; emotional literacy; foundation degrees

Introduction

This paper is informed by research undertaken in three UK Higher Education Institu-tions with students enrolled on foundation degrees in Early Years. These programmescombine academic study and early years practice, providing a vocational route todegree status which focuses upon theory in practice. This informal research, based ona narrative methodology, is designed to consider how students are not only facilitatedto take control of their own learning, but how engaging in collaborative reflectionthrough face-to-face and online discussion forums support professional developmentand identity. Alongside this we are conscious of the role of course teams to supportstudent’s critical reflection on their own practice values and attitudes. This papertherefore represents a spiral of reflection on our experiences, as we explore the imple-mentation of theory and practice – in terms of reflection on learning and teaching.

Our collaboration began when we met as co-tutors and found that we shared acommitment to reflecting on our own practice, each engaging the other in a sharedconversation which, over the years has evolved into an ongoing dialogue betweencritical friends. We found that our natural shared critical reflection did not translate soeasily to the students we worked with so we wanted to explore ways in which to

*Corresponding author. Email: n.canning@open.ac.uk

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 12:

58 0

4 M

ay 2

013

72 N. Canning and S. Callan

support student reflection through courses we were leading. We knew through discus-sion that we had a commitment to:

● facilitate learner autonomy through a progression of concepts of knowledge;● find ways to represent and scaffold reflective thinking as student’s assumes

personal control over their learning experience; and● develop a critical approach to theories of teaching and learning in the design and

delivery of course programmes in early years practice, as part of a symbioticrelationship to the reflections of our student and colleagues.

These commitments encompass the following themes which became the focus for ournarrative research with students on foundation degree programmes in early years.These themes form the basis for the subsequent analysis in this paper.

● Exploring teaching and learning strategies to support established practitioners incontinuing professional development and finding freedom to explore andexpress their own ‘voice’.

● Learner identity and how this translates into emotional literacy through studentsconsidering their values for engaging with children and articulating how thisimpacts on their practice.

● Examining the transformative power of ‘learning’ when this is grounded inreflection on experience, responses to experience and seeking action for change.Change, both personal and professional is required if students are to success-fully become leaders of practice.

Setting the context

Our research is based upon experience of working with English students in theUnited Kingdom, specifically with students who are supporting the implementationof the Early Years Foundation Stage (DCSF, 2008), the statutory framework foranyone working with children aged 0–5 years and the National Curriculum inprimary schools within the English regulatory framework. We believe that the broadthemes examined are relevant in an international context as the philosophies andconcepts underpinning international models of work with young children and fami-lies have found common ground in the recognition that practitioners need skills ofreflection, particularly for engaging in dialogue and listening to children, familiesand colleagues. Whilst this is linked specifically to continuous quality improvementin England, other approaches such as Te Whariki in New Zealand (Pound, 2005)and Reggio Emilia in a region of Italy (Rinaldi, 2005) show that reflective practicealso informs community development as it engages with all adults participating innurturing the child. As we detail our own strategies for encouraging reflectivedialogue in a British context, we hope that colleagues will perceive relevance totheir own experience.

UK legislation such as Every Child Matters (DCSF, 2004), the Common Core ofKnowledge and Skills (DCSF, 2005) and more recently the Functional Map(Children’s Workforce Network, 2009) have been significant drivers for change indeveloping early years practice. Foundation degree programmes provide learningexperiences for students, enabling them to emerge as ‘agents of change’, to be effec-tive in their own context but also to be confident in contributing towards a regional

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 12:

58 0

4 M

ay 2

013

Reflective Practice 73

and national early years agenda. In addition, course teams are required to recognisethe complex needs of potential students in responding to these forces – by developingprogrammes that are flexible, yet maintain academic integrity as well as relevance fora diverse range of early childhood contexts. All participants in this relationship arefaced with the challenge of relentless policy development and change in the sector,which require the ability to respond to and anticipate external forces on personalexperience of practice. The research discussed here captures the emotional process ofthe student in order to explore how individual learning experiences emerge and howthe programme facilitates a sophisticated reflection on reflection, described byAppleby (2009) as meta-reflection.

This is a significant concept that requires some discussion. Meta-reflection is partof a process of dialogue, listening and inquiry on a continuum that involves feelingand thinking about experiences, exploring ideas and values, critical/creative thinkingin and on action (Schon, 1983, 1987) and reflexivity which consciously informs one’sown actions. It may also involve modes of reflection such as writing or creativeexpression through representation. In any event, meta-reflection represents an appre-ciation of ‘contextual knowing’ a concept that has evolved through the philosophy ofenlightenment, sociology of education and theories of teaching and learning possiblyoriginating with Bloom’s Taxonomy (1956) now represented by theorists such asBernstein and Solomon (1999) and Schwab (1962, 1978). This is acknowledged byClandinin and Connelly (2000) as part of a contemporary continuum from Dewey’swork on the significance of interaction to understanding experience and shapingidentity, in particular the use of narrative and personal stories to generate reflectivethinking also represented in the work of Rogoff (1991).

It is also important to recognise that this process of reflection on reflectiongenerates a criticality, its purpose is change, through the recognition that individualidentities are culturally formed and may be revealed by standing outside ourselves toexplore with others alternate ways of reasoning and acting. Schwab (1962, p. 5)describes this as ‘enquiry into enquiry’. He was troubled by the notion of literal truthsand sought a more fluid process which ‘… rests on conceptual innovation, proceedsthrough uncertainty and failure, and eventuates in knowledge which is contingent,dubitable and hard to come by’. Our students would recognise this as the learningcurve in transition to becoming reflective practitioners.

As part of the research students were asked to articulate what was happening tothem in their personal development as a result of their study and how that had ormight influence their practice. As mature student groups, they were asked to besceptical about the process that they were undertaking and identify aspects of emerg-ing heutagogy, i.e. the struggles of engaging with a process to understand their indi-vidual learning needs and how they could develop strategies towards self-directedstudy. At the same time, continuous reflection on the professional practice of ourcourse teams was necessary if responses to the student experience were to be mean-ingful. Course design was centred on the questions: how can there be alignmentbetween the needs of learners, pedagogical values/beliefs of academic staff, HEsector requirements and workforce improvement drivers? More significantly, howmight we use this to inform work with all students in Higher Education in awidening participation context? In particular, how do these dynamics impact on therole of the HE teacher? Maxine Greene (1995), for example, tells us that only thosewho have learned the importance of thinking about their own thinking are in aposition to teach others.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 12:

58 0

4 M

ay 2

013

74 N. Canning and S. Callan

Towards a paradigm of heutagogy

As course leaders we encouraged both students and course team tutors to facilitate aspace where reflective thinking, questioning theory and being critical of practice couldtake place to explore students’ values and attitudes and to develop a process ofstudents engaging with the concept of heutagogy. Hase and Kenyon (2000) defineheutagogy as an opportunity to take responsibility to direct personal learning, result-ing in empowered learners, engaged in knowledge creation and sustainability. Inworking towards this, it was hoped that students would discover their own strategiesfor learning, develop confidence through active participation and begin to share theirknowledge and understanding of key concepts. On this journey, students were encour-aged to explore their emotional and behavioural responses to individual experienceand started with their attitude towards learning. Hase and Kenyon (2000) placeresponsibility of heutagogy with the student where they are able not only to engage ina process of knowledge creation, but also have the opportunity to determine theirlearning experience from the influence of their professional practice. As course lead-ers we realised that we needed to weave capacity for heutagogy into the foundationsof our study programmes so that they promoted knowledge sharing rather thanknowledge hoarding (Wenger, 2002). Through linking this with experiences andreflection on practice new understanding developed between us as colleagues but alsointo the course team tutors we were supporting. Ashton and Elliot (2007) promotelearning as dependent upon a range of life experiences where tutors can only guide theformation of ideas and not ‘force feed’ the ideas of others. For example, in theresearch the online forums generated a sharing of knowledge and experience frompractice where students were able to engage in self-reflection which triggered otherswithin the learning community to respond and add to the co construction of learningtaking place. In this extract a student reflects on this aspect of the course:

The most valuable part has been sharing my values and beliefs about practice within acommunity which I know understands the struggles I have had in coming to termswith new concepts. They know how I feel because they have been there too, strugglingwith me and celebrating when it has finally made sense! (Childminder and FdA EarlyYears student)

Singh (2003) recognises that although flexible heutagogy can encourage the produc-tion and collaborative flow of knowledge, it also appears in distributed formal andinformal networks created through tutors and student learning interactions. Heutagogypromotes the processes and strategies that student’s engage with to further their under-standing, not only of the subject of early years but also of themselves as learners. Inthis way heutagogy becomes more than a route to self-directed study, but an under-standing of the stimulus they need to learn. As researchers we realised the impact ofthis through transcripts of student’s reflections. In this extract a student explains howtheir emotions influence their learning.

It’s a bit like being on a trampoline. When I read something that really inspires me, Ihave the motivation – the bounce to fly up into the sky as far as I can and explore thatconcept from lots of different angles and I really enjoy it. When I let my own fears takeover, like “I can’t do this” I have no bounce and then I don’t even want to try. (Children’scentre deputy manager and FdA Early Years student)

A significant part of heutagogy encourages a space where collaborative reflection cantake place. In developing an identity, as reflective practitioner students discovered,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 12:

58 0

4 M

ay 2

013

Reflective Practice 75

the importance of discussion about their learning journey, how articulating what theydid, their learning preferences and how they interpreted it helped them to discovertheir heutagogic tendencies. They became involved in reflecting on how they wantedto learn, what inspired them to think about their practice and the impact for youngchildren. Like Greene, Usher, Bryant and Johnson (2002) suggest that learning is aprocess where knowledge and understanding is not only created but extended throughthe transformation of experience. Subsequently, although students responded posi-tively to learning environments, the research highlighted that it was also important tooffer a mix of modes of learning, recognising individual learning attitudes wheresome ‘came alive’ when using online forums whereas others preferred more intimateface-to-face group work. Students reflected that their perception of their ability tolearn was intertwined with their prior learning experiences as they were a significantfactor in their perpetuating anxieties and confidence levels when we comparedstudent experiences within the programmes. Students recognised how they revertedback to a ‘comfort zone’ of learning patterns depending on those prior experiences.Their level of autonomy and feelings of empowerment within the learning processdetermined an individual learning journey in relation to personal intellectual andconfidence growth. They identified that ultimately they had control of this regardlessof the strategies employed by teaching teams – they had control over their personalheutagogy. The research found that the level of engagement students choose tosubmerge themselves in was intrinsically linked to the web of emotions learningprovoked.

I wanted to say that I am enjoying the course so far. I found the session on ‘Theory ofself esteem’ particularly interesting this week – as my 16 year old son, now at college,whom I always thought of as quite a shy type not wanting to draw too much attention tohimself came home on Sunday evening sporting a home done ‘mohican’ hair do!! Ithought a few minutes before I reacted and put it all into perspective then very calmlysaid “well its your hair – if that’s the haircut you want that’s fine”. He obviously is find-ing his own personality and is much more confident about himself than I gave him creditfor. (Nursery worker and early years student)

This extract exemplifies ways in which transformative learning has been introducedinto students thinking where there is a gradual shift in a persons’ frame of reference(Mezirow, 1978). Transformative learning centres upon the ability to develop criticalreflection in learners; consequently central to our programmes was the immediatechallenge of expanding existing understanding to create an individual’s disposition tocreate capacity towards learning (Gunnlaugson, 2007).

To summarise this first theme of our discussion, we offer heutagogy as a way inwhich to facilitate a spiral of revisiting learning experiences and emotions to under-stand how approaches to teaching and learning suit the requirements of the earlyyears sector. The collaboration and reflection required in order to achieve heutagogyin the ‘classroom’, generates the strengths expected of practitioners in the work-place. At the same time it quite fundamentally affects the traditional role of theHigher Education teacher as ‘expert’ in a body of absolute knowledge. Heutagogy isachieved through shared meaning making in a relational, facilitative approach toreflection. Through a spiral of reflection the course tutors alongside the studentsreflected on their learning and practice and how these supported the children theywork with. We argue below that in the additional context of ‘communities of prac-tice’ theory, the student is a far more equal partner and that the teachers will, as

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 12:

58 0

4 M

ay 2

013

76 N. Canning and S. Callan

Greene (1995) suggests use exploration of their own lives and knowledge aselements within the curriculum.

Pre-requisites for heutagogy: learner identity and emotional literacy

The ability of students to acknowledge past learning experiences, reflect on theirimpact and be aware of how they may influence current and future learning requiresa considerable degree of emotional literacy. To begin to engage in a reflective processit is important to recognise and deal with initial fears of students. These are commonfor most mature learners and particularly for early years students who:

● lack confidence in ability across a range of study skills;● have had little encouragement to have high academic or career expectations;● mature students often torn between competing priorities for study and family

life;● feel unsupported by peers in the workplace;● have a negative personal self-image which is reinforced by lack of status, pay

and recognition in the workforce.

A real concern is that the combination of these characteristics leads to feelings ofhelplessness that must be overcome in order to facilitate reflective practice in theirown process of heutagogy and personal development. For such students, reflectivepractice is a totally new dimension to learning and requires explanation and support.Previous experiences of learning encouraged an ‘absolute’ approach to knowledge assomething finite, with assessment based on finding ‘right’ answers – resulting independency on academic staff. Reflective practice and heutagogy is the means bywhich student’s can formulate their own ideas once they have navigated the emotionalturmoil that results in this process. The process of coming to terms with this wasfacilitated by course teams in asking students to participate in group presentations,where the process of discussing the issues was more important than the final outcomeof the presentation.

We wanted to know that we were doing the presentation ‘right’. I knew there was noright or wrong answer, but I wanted [the tutor] to tell me that it was right. I also knewthat having no right or wrong answer was part of the process of developing our knowl-edge and working together as a group, but it didn’t help at the time. Now that it is overI realise the importance of the process and I have made some really strong links withpeople that I may not have got to know otherwise, but it didn’t make it any easier at thetime – I was so stressed! (Pre school manager and FdA Early Years student)

It was important that students felt able to find their ‘voice’ and through presentationsthat required groundwork in exploring values and beliefs about play, students were notonly building their personal heutagogy, but also listening to others’ stories and makingconnections between their spirals of reflection which stimulated discussions andprovided a rich experience for both students and tutors. Rogers (2002) stresses theimportance of active learners as their actions create and maintain the learning situa-tion. The ability student’s developed through this process to reflect upon their experi-ences of learning and how that experience linked to their everyday practice wasimportant to sustain their motivation, make connections with others and to continuallydemonstrate and reflect on the relevance of the programme to their practice.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 12:

58 0

4 M

ay 2

013

Reflective Practice 77

Emotional literacy through four lenses

Figure 1 is used to demonstrate to students the key elements of ‘reflection’ in processand provides a rationale for all course activities. The flower motif (based on Brook-field’s (1995) construct of four critical lenses for reflection) has proved a useful imageto assist students to identify features of their own course experience and promotecontinuity and transition with teaching approaches for Honours level study.Figure 1. The flower diagramOur strategies for support emerged from the scaffolded exploration of studentstrengths and needs as they developed concepts of professionalism and constructs ofknowledge based upon exploration of:

● the lens focusing on their own emotions and responses;● the lens of work-based investigation into the experiences of children and fami-

lies in their setting;● the lens of shared discussion with others – students, colleagues, mentors and

professional critical friends;● the lens of theory, literature and ‘expert opinion’.

Perhaps the most significant of these in terms of the role of the practitioner as a profes-sional leading practice is the lens focusing on the child’s experience in the setting.This is the second theme of our discussion.

Figure 1. The flower diagram.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 12:

58 0

4 M

ay 2

013

78 N. Canning and S. Callan

Engaging with the experience of the child through reflection

In early childhood a central philosophy is to celebrate children as individualsdeveloping their confidence and sense of self (Kalliala, 2006). Reflective practicewithin the programmes aimed to do the same thing. Through supporting a reflectivedialogue between students and tutors, heutagogic tendencies in students started toemerge, such as confidence to voice opinions and share learning experiences. A spiralof reflection could also be identified where students made links between their learningexperience and those that they provide for the children they work with. The studentapplying her learning to her perception of her son’s emerging self-identity is a strongexample of this ability of the adult to hold the child in mind. She is reflecting on howher actions may influence the child’s self-esteem. Another student reflects on this in adifferent way:

Now I have reached the end of the first term I can really see how my thinking haschanged in relation to my practice. I am now questioning everything and actually feelingquite dissatisfied with my settings approach to children with additional needs. I am notsure yet how to challenge this or whether I am strong enough to do so, but it has certainlymade a big impact on my thinking. (Private day nursery worker and FdA Early Yearsstudent)

Our programmes consciously provided a combination of learning and teachingapproaches to enable widening participation and to foster a culture of inclusive andsupportive relationships. This provided a foundation for student’s confidence and asense of empowerment to emerge, building a pathway for reflection and the ability forstudents to recognise the relevance and importance of learning to their practice(Knowles, 1984). Course discussion and reflective conversations included explorationof significant practice experience from work with children and families, curriculumphilosophies and relevant pedagogical theory. In the democratic environment ofstudent-led delivery this allowed practitioners to realise that they knew more than theythought (noted by Claxton, 1997, in the explanation of learning by osmosis). It alsoallowed those who were moving forward in their awareness of the contextual natureof knowledge, to independently investigate the theories of reflective practice conven-tionally introduced at degree Honours level. This enabled students to engage in aricher dialogue with theory and practice and from this, their ability to become ‘agentsof change’ developed. The process also supported students reaching their own level ofcritical and reflective thinking where they could review their understanding withothers and make meaning from their own practice experience in relation to the conceptbeing presented. The academic team was instrumental in introducing to studentstheories and principles, politics and cultural perspectives about which they were lessexperienced – the focus of the ‘expert’ lens. This is the driver towards enablingcritical reflective – or reflexive – practice, which is distinguished by its outcome forchange and providing ‘freedom’ to learn at all levels.

Constructing reflective practice: spirals of reflection

To date, foundation degree cohorts are characterised by a wealth of practical experi-ence. Early years students typically start from volunteer positions and work throughdifferent job roles with different aged children and undertake many CPD shortcourses. These experienced practitioners already engage at an intuitive level insophisticated reflection. The priority for course programmes is that students graduate

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 12:

58 0

4 M

ay 2

013

Reflective Practice 79

as consciously reflective, in touch with their own emotions and behavioural responses,within the principles and theoretical basis for work with children and families. It isimportant that students be encouraged to acknowledge these existing strengths fromthe outset. Many operate at the cutting edge of local developments before enrolling onthe course, and have much to contribute to the community of inquiry and practice.Students with little self-belief must be enabled to become conscious of, develop anduse their reflective voices so that they can recognise their professional qualities earlyin the course and build on this through a spiral of reflection. Claxton’s (1997) workon ‘contextual knowing’ explores the psychological processes involved in thedevelopment represented by this example and has prompted us to identify features ofour practice which represent this process.

Crucially, academic staff must recognise forms of reflection and re-enforce this, asstudents need the type of scaffolding that points out what they are able to do and offerstrategies for moving on. Students acknowledged the roles of academic tutors, profes-sional critical friends (mentors) and other course participants in giving and receivingfeedback, which also provided a route for heutagogy and a process which challengedacademic staff to articulate, discuss and negotiate a rationale for their own practice indialogue with the student group. As tutors, our practice in enabling, supporting andsustaining this process is grounded in a non-hierarchical approach and democraticpractice in the ‘classroom’. It links directly to contemporary pedagogical principlesnoted in our contextual introduction. The Reggio Emilia philosophy (Malaguzzi,1998) is based, for example, on the concept of a community of inquiry also found inGreene (1995) and replicated here in the course community of practice, as representedby Wenger’s model of social learning and the construction of meaning and identity.We are working within Wenger’s (1998, p. 4) proposal that such communities facili-tate social learning, not only in the technical functions of what we do but the layers ofinterpretation concerning who we are and how this position impacts on the qualitiesof professional practice. Within this model of community, there is a deliberate attemptto share power and expertise in the ‘classroom’. The ‘democratic classroom’ and anenvironment to enable the personal growth of course participants is also underpinnedby a relational approach to teaching and learning.

Transitions in reflection: transformative learning

We apply these models to Brookfield’s (1995) lenses for developing critical reflectivepractice through use of activities concerned with self-expression, personal empower-ment and the type of consciousness raising that can lead to transformations of individ-uals, relationships and social structures. Shared meaning making is a key part of ourapproach to work with students and this may also involve representational workthrough art and sensory materials; it is Maxine Greene (1995) who identifies that useof the humanities enables both teachers and students to explore and reflect deeply tomake sense of their experience in the social and cultural context. We recognise thesignificance of our own reflection on lives and experience to the strategies we sharewith students. In particular, the alignment of the personal and political aspects of ourprofessional roles which we take care to demonstrate in our work with students andcolleagues, believing that:

To be oriented as researchers or theorists means that we do not separate theory from life,the public from the private. We are not simply being pedagogues here and researchers

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 12:

58 0

4 M

ay 2

013

80 N. Canning and S. Callan

there – we are researchers oriented to the world in a pedagogic way. (van Manen, 1997,p. 51)

We hope that our students observe that it is reflection that drives our teaching, ratherthan an absolute body of knowledge. Students are similarly, encouraged to adopt athinking process which will eventually move them beyond a reflective discourse,informed by their past experiences to ‘presencing’, a contemplative practice whichinvolves learning from attention to what is emerging – knowledge that is sensed butnot yet embodied in experience (Gunnalugson, 2007). Scharmer (2001) suggests thatself-transcending knowledge also emerges as students build capacity for presencing.A multi-layered approach of blended and flexible learning and approach to heutagogyprovides a foundation for emerging shared meaning. This is enabled through support-ing creative possibilities for unfolding new knowledge from a range of ways ofknowing rather than purely relying on discursive reasoning.

Mezirow (2003) and Schugurensky (2002) acknowledge that to create such a learn-ing community, open to transformative learning, critical reflection needs to supportunexamined assumptions and expectations that students and tutors hold. Therefore theprocess of transformative learning has to also support a spoken discourse in whichstudents can reflect on their actions and uncover insights from the meanings, experi-ences and opinions expressed by others (Gunnlaugson, 2007). Wenger (2002, p. 173)identifies that when students start to build connections with others they not onlyprogress their learning capacity but also begin to develop personal identity as a learner.He states that ‘learning from interactions with other practices is not just an intellectualmatter of translation, but of opening up identities to others ways of being in the world’.

Thus, at the end of the programme students demonstrate readiness to progress inCPD. They are on their way to demonstrating heutagogy through:

● being self-aware;● being able to articulate feelings, experiences and ideas;● engaging in shared discussion with others;● investigating appropriate academic sources in developing their own ‘theories’/

knowledge;● being confident in their study skills and able to access the facilities of the HEI.

These qualities provide resilience in the transition to further CPD beyond their degreeand provide them with a personal heutagogy in which to revisit and continue to build.In this respect, for all of us the reflective cycle is not a circle that closes but a spiralof expanding knowledge and awareness. Participation and engagement in shared reflec-tion within our courses drives a continuing commitment in the teaching team to opennessin modelling and discussing our professional values and qualities as well as early yearsdiscourses. Constructing this paper has itself provided a vehicle for ongoing explorationof our values and beliefs concerning teaching, learning and practice in settings. Thisstrategy drives our CPD and ensures that the programmes for which we have respon-sibility reach beyond a set of external requirements – be it a Common Core or perfor-mance standards. Reflective practice in this sense is a journey – never a destination.

Notes on contributorsNatalie Canning is a lecturer at The Open University. Her background is in playwork and socialwork, particularly supporting children to explore their personal, social, and emotional issues

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 12:

58 0

4 M

ay 2

013

Reflective Practice 81

through play. She has published a number of articles relating to professional development inthe Early Years and has presented at National and European conferences. Her main research isin the area of children’s empowerment in play and is currently involved in research on devel-oping children as autonomous learners. She has previously worked at the University CollegePlymouth, St Mark and St John as the programme leader for the Foundation Degree in EarlyYears (Child Development) and at the University of Worcester. She has taught across a varietyof Early Childhood undergraduate and postgraduate programmes.

Sue Callan is a former senior lecturer in the Centre for Early Childhood at the University ofWorcester, where she worked with students on Sector Endorsed Foundation Degrees in EarlyYears, BA (Hons) Early Childhood Studies and those seeking Early Years Professional Status.She co-ordinated the delivery of courses with partner institutions, including a local authoritychildren’s service. Sue is currently an associate lecturer of The Open University, supportingstudents through similar programmes. Sue’s background is in community pre-schools and play-work, with considerable experience of delivering vocational courses. She is a contributor to‘Mentoring in the Early Years’ and ‘Reflective Practice in the Early Years’ and co-editor of‘Managing Early Years Settings – Leading and Supporting Teams’ all published by Sage.

ReferencesAppleby, K. (2009). Reflective thinking; reflective practice. In M. Reed & N. Canning (Eds.),

Reflective practice in the early years (pp. 7–23). London: Sage.Ashton, J., & Elliott, R. (2007). Juggling the balls – study, work, family and play: Student

perspectives on flexible and blended heutagogy. European Early Childhood EducationResearch Journal, 15(2), 167–181.

Bernstein, B., & Solomon, J. (1999). Pedagogy, identity and the construction of a theory ofsymbolic control: Basil Bernstein questioned by Joseph Solomon. British Journal ofSociology of Education, 20(2), 265–279.

Bloom, B.S. (1956). (Ed.) Taxonomy of educational objectives, the classification ofeducational goals – Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay.

Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Children’s Workforce Network. (2009). Functional map of the children’s and young people’s

framework in England. Leeds: Children’s Workforce Development Council.Clandinin, D.J., & Connelly, M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative

research. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.Claxton, G. (1997). Hare brained and tortoise mind. London: Fourth Estate.DCSF (Department for Children, Schools and Families). (2004). Every child matters: Change

for children. Nottingham: DCSF.DCSF. (2005). Common core of skills and knowledge for the children’s workforce. Notting-

ham: DCSF.DCSF. (2008). Statutory framework for the early years foundation stage. Nottingham: DCSF.Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination: Essay; on education, the arts and social

change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Gunnlaugson, O. (2007). Shedding light on the underlying forms of transformative learning

theory: Introducing three distinct categories of consciousness. Journal of TransformativeEducation, 5(2), 134–151.

Hase, S., & Kenyon, C. (2000). From andragogy to heutagogy. Retrieved April 1, 2008 fromhttp://ultibase.rmit.edu.au/Articles/dec00/hase2.htm.

Kalliala, M. (2006). Play culture in a changing world. Buckingham: Open University Press.Knowles, M. (1984). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy.

New York: Cambridge Books.Malaguzzi, L. (1998). History, ideas and basic philosophy: An interview with Lella Gandini.

In C. Edwards, L. Gandini, & G. Forman (Eds.) The hundred languages of children: TheReggio Emilia approach – advance reflections (pp. 49–98). London: JAI Press.

Mezirow, J. (1978). Perspective transformation. Adult Education Quarterly, 28, 100–110.Mezirow, J. (2003). Transformative learning as discourse. Journal of Transformative Education,

1, 58–63.Pound, L. (2005). How children learn. Leamington Spa: Step Forward.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 12:

58 0

4 M

ay 2

013

82 N. Canning and S. Callan

Rinaldi, C. (2005). In dialogue with Reggio Emilia: Listening, researching and learning.London: Routledge.

Rogers, C. (2002). The interpersonal relationship in the facilitation of learning. In R. Harri-son, F. Reeve, A. Harrison, & J. Clarke (Eds.), Supporting lifelong learning. Volume 1:Perspectives on learning (pp. 25–39). London: Routledge and Open University Press.

Rogoff, B. (1991). Social Interaction as apprenticeship in thinking; Guided participation inspatial planning. In L. Resnick, J. Levine, & S. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on sociallyshared cognition (pp. 1–103). Washington: APA.

Scharmer, C. (2001). Self transcending knowledge: Organising around emerging realities. In:I. Nonaka & D. Teece (Eds.), Managing industrial knowledge: Creation, transfer and util-isation (pp. 68–90). London: Sage.

Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York:Basic Books.

Schon, D. (1987). Educating the professional practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Schugurensky, D. (2002). Transformative learning and transformative politics: The pedagogi-

cal dimension of participatory democracy and social action: Essays on theory and praxis.In: E. O’Sullivan, A. Morrell, & M.A. O’Connor (Eds.), Expanding the boundaries oftransformative learning (pp. 59–76). New York: Palgrave.

Schwab, J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. In: J. Schwab & P. Brandwein, (Eds.),The teaching of science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Schwab, J. (1978). Knowledge and the structure of the disciplines. In I. Westbury & N.J.Wilkof (Eds.), Science, curriculum and liberal education. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.

Singh, H. (2003). Building effective blended learning programmes. Issues of EducationalTechnology, 43(6), 51–54.

Usher, R., Bryant, I., & Johnson, R. (2002). Self and experience in adult learning. In R. Harrison,F. Reeve, A. Harrison, & J. Clarke (Eds.), Supporting lifelong learning. Volume 1: Perspec-tives on learning (pp. 78–90). London: Routledge and Open University Press.

Van Manen, M. (1997). Researching lived experience. Human science for an action sensitivepedagogy. Ontario: The Althouse Press.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. CambridgeUniversity Press.

Wenger, E. (2002). Communities of practice and social learning systems. In F. Reeve, M.Cartwright, & R. Edwards (Eds.), Supporting lifelong learning. Volume 2: Organisinglearning (pp. 160–179). London: Routledge and Open University Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 12:

58 0

4 M

ay 2

013