Competence development and reflective practice 48

Eraut (1998) reminds us that competence is a term used differently, by different stakeholders, according to their perspective.

Those who like a tidy world will be disappointed to find that the usage of the term ‘competence’ is no less diverse than the usage of such familiar terms as ‘knowledge’, ‘skills’ and ‘ability’. (Eraut, 1998, p.127)

A full discussion on this topic is outside the scope of this review, however for the purposes of this research I adopt the definition used by the European Commission (EU, 2004). My reasoning is that this represents a wide consensus amongst policymakers in Europe on the definition to be used in school education and was derived after considerable debate amongst representatives of national education ministries (EU, 2002). It is now used throughout the EU by education policymakers and teachers, guiding their understanding of the term.

‘Competence’ is considered to refer to a combination of skills, knowledge, aptitudes and attitudes, and to include the disposition to learn in addition to know-how. (EU, 2004, p.3)

For many years teachers’ competence development was based on the deficit model of CPD (Day and Sachs, 2004), discussed earlier, with approaches such as competency based training (CBT) being popular. These were problematic, however, as they atomised teaching into a predictable, distinct set of competencies and failed to take account of the personalised, tailored and emotional aspects of teaching (Eraut, 1994). Schön (1987) has largely been attributed with turning attention away from the prevailing ‘technical rationality’ view of professional development and its positivist epistemology (Eraut, 1994; Griffiths, 2000), towards a new epistemology of practice. As well as valuing reflection-after-action, in which experience of the past influences future action, Schön (1987, p.26) emphasises the importance of reflection-in-action where ‘thinking serves to reshape what we are doing while we are doing it’. This corresponds to what Garrison (1991) describes as cognitive dissonance leading to critical thinking, generating knowledge-in-practice (Cochran-Smith and Lytle, 1999). However, Schön’s work has since been criticised (Eraut, 1995) and reinterpreted as primarily emphasising the value of metacognition, which Martinez (2006, p.696) describes as ‘thinking about thinking’ and the constant ‘monitoring and controlling of thought’. Inherent in the process of metacognition is the need to constantly evaluate ideas for their quality in the context of the bigger picture, to have ‘an understanding of one’s own knowledge state’ (2006, p.697) and to modify one’s own learning process accordingly (Akyol and Garrison, 2011). Critical thinking and metacognition are more likely to influence attitudes, prepare the teacher for ill-defined problems of the future and lead to changes in teaching practice (Boyle et al., 2004; Eraut, 1994). They are an

essential feature of CPD aimed at competence development, as opposed to simply improving technical skills – an important distinction in the context of this research. Reflection is now an integral part of teachers’ CPD and is, for example, associated with preparing pre-service teachers to “think like a teacher” (Jay and Johnson, 2002). Zwozdiak-Myers (2008, cited in Capel et al., 2009) identifies nine dimensions of teachers’ reflective practice that represent a cycle of personal action research and professional improvement. Through reflective practice, teachers are encouraged to try out new strategies and ideas in their own practice and to see the impact on their pupils’ learning before finally reflecting on the implications for their own teaching practice. This learning-by-doing and reflection-in-practice is essentially what is being encouraged and supported in the eTwinning LEs.

Boud and Walker (1998) caution against an instrumental, rule-based use of reflection in professional development. Griffiths (2000) notes ironically that reflection is often carried out in a way which is both uncritical and unreflective, and Akbari (2007) laments the lack of empirical evidence of the benefits of teachers reflecting on their practice. Boud and Walker (1998) provide compelling arguments for considering the ethics of reflection and the need to ensure that the context is supportive of learners divulging their weaknesses, free from possible reprisals from managers, peers and indeed trainers whose job it is to assess them. They refer to a ‘micro-context’ for appropriate reflection, set within the context of practice and with the clear possibility for practitioners to act upon their reflections.

Before leaving this topic, it is worth noting that the competence that teachers need is influenced significantly by the subject matter they teach and the way in which they teach. To this end, ICT is seen as having a considerable impact on the competence that teachers need, both in terms of ICT skills and the appropriate pedagogy for its use in learning (Ala-Mutka et al., 2008). Web 2.0 and social computing has the potential to radically change the way that pupils use technology to learn (Redecker et al., 2009). A recent peer review of the use of ICT in education and training (EU, 2010, p.32) called for more teacher training in ‘advanced digital competence’, on teaching pupils to use ICT critically and creatively, and on using ICT to help transform learning. The report asserted that ‘teacher education has to be research based’. The competence that teachers need includes the ability to effectively organise and facilitate an online learning community of students, as described earlier in section 2.1.

Research has suggested that teachers will only employ in their teaching practice that which they believe will have a positive impact on student learning (Guskey, 2002) and this includes technology (Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al., 2010). Hence, CPD that allows teachers to experience for themselves the strengths and weaknesses of ICT and online learning is more likely to lead to their considering its use in their own teaching practice and taking appropriate decisions (Macdonald and Poniatowska, 2011).