In literature, co-teaching is mostly defined as an instrumental and pedagogical means delivered by collaborating special and regular teachers, from which students with and without special educational needs benefit in regular schools. The importance of a shared vision on the part of members of co-teaching teams as to what they consider as good education for students is not mentioned in definitions of co-teaching. The authors argue that sense-making by reflection about what can be considered as good education – good teaching and good learning – is essential when co-teachers want to understand or change their practice or relationship with their partner. We reviewed 17 articles about co-teaching teams’ professional development and identified that challenges to co-teachers’ professionalisation mostly were directed to interpersonal and normative aspects of development in co-teaching teams. We elaborate on five distinguished movements that can bring about change in teacher professionalism. These movements correspond to the challenges retrieved from the literature review and can be used to contribute to move toward a new perspective on professionalism of co-teachers. A contemporary definition of co-teaching is proposed because former definitions do not suffice to express the value of constructing a shared vision on good teaching and learning. We argue that team-reflection is the missing link in terms of enhancing normative professionalism of co-teaching teams and recommend that further research should be conducted to value team-reflection as a means to overcome challenges of co-teaching teams.
LINK
Introduction: The implementation of oncology care pathways that standardize organizational procedures has improved cancer care in recent years. However, the involvement of “authentic” patients and caregivers in quality improvement of these predetermined pathways is in its infancy, especially the scholarly reflection on this process. We, therefore, aim to explore the multidisciplinary challenges both in practice, when cancer patients, their caregivers, and a multidisciplinary team of professionals work together on quality improvement, as well as in our research team, in which a social scientist, health care professionals, health care researchers, and experience experts design a research project together. Methods and design: Experience-based co-design will be used to involve cancer patients and their caregivers in a qualitative research design. In-depth open discovery interviews with 12 colorectal cancer patients, 12 breast cancer patients, and seven patients with cancer-associated thrombosis and their caregivers, and focus group discussions with professionals from various disciplines will be conducted. During the subsequent prioritization events and various co-design quality improvement meetings, observational field notes will be made on the multidisciplinary challenges these participants face in the process of co-design, and evaluation interviews will be done afterwards. Similar data will be collected during the monthly meetings of our multidisciplinary research team. The data will be analyzed according to the constant comparative method. Discussion: This study may facilitate quality improvement programs in oncologic care pathways, by increasing our real-world knowledge about the challenges of involving “experience experts” together with a team of multidisciplinary professionals in the implementation process of quality improvement. Such co-creation might be challenging due to the traditional paternalistic relationship, actual disease-/treatment-related constraints, and a lack of shared language and culture between patients, caregivers, and professionals and between professionals from various disciplines. These challenges have to be met in order to establish equality, respect, team spirit, and eventual meaningful participation.
DOCUMENT
There is increasing interest in the use of experiential knowledge and the development of experiential expertise in mental health. Yet, little is known about how best to use this expertise in the role of a psychiatrist. This study aims to gain insight into the concerns of psychiatrists using their lived experiences with mental health distress as a source of knowledge for patients, colleagues and themselves. Eighteen psychiatrists with lived experience as patients in mental health care were interviewed with a semi-structured questionnaire. The interviews were analyzed using qualitative narrative thematic analysis. The majority of the respondents use their lived experience implicitly in the contact with patients, which makes the contact more equal and strengthens the treatment relationship. When explicitly using experiential knowledge in the contact with patients, thought should be given at forehand to its purpose, timing and dosage. Recommendations are that the psychiatrist should be able to reflect on his/her lived experience from a sufficient distance and should take patient factors into account. When working in a team, it is advisable to discuss the use of experiential knowledge in advance with the team. An open organizational culture facilitates the use of experiential knowledge and safety and stability in the team are vital. Current professional codes do not always offer the space to be open. Organizational interests play a role, in the degree of self-disclosure as it can lead to conflict situations and job loss. Respondents unanimously indicated that the use of experiential knowledge in the role of a psychiatrist is a personal decision. Self-reflection and peer supervision with colleagues can be helpful to reflect on different considerations with regard to the use of experiential knowledge. Having personal lived experiences with a mental disorder affects the way psychiatrists think about and performs the profession. The perception of psychopathology becomes more nuanced and there seems to be an increased understanding of the suffering. Even though harnessing experiential knowledge makes the doctor-patient relationship more horizontal it remains unequal because of the difference in roles. However, if adequately used, experiential knowledge can enhance the treatment relationship.
MULTIFILE
Background: Acquiring the theoretical and practical knowhow of conducting patient and public involvement (PPI) in research is not part of the traditional curriculum of researchers. Zuyd University of Applied Sciences and Huis voor de Zorg, a regional umbrella patient organization, therefore started a 1.5-year coaching programme. Objective: To establish a community of practice by developing a PPI coaching programme for senior and junior health services researchers of Zuyd University. The context consisted of research projects conducted by the participants. Methods: A participatory action research methodology. Data were collected from reports of thematic group meetings and individual sessions with participants, field notes and regular reflection meetings with the project team. Data were analysed by reflexive deliberation. Findings: The programme comprised a kick-off meeting (52 attendees), followed by 7 group meetings with 11 junior and 9 senior researchers. The project team constructed a serious game based on the concept of the participation ladder. Questions and concerns differed for junior and senior researchers, and separate tailored meetings were organized for both groups. Between group meetings, participants received individual assignments. Group meetings were accompanied by individual coaching sessions to provide tailor-made feedback. The programme concluded with a combined meeting with all stakeholders. Conclusion: Building a community of PPI practice through action research facilitates the development of a coaching programme that fosters social learning, empowerment and the development of a shared identity concerning PPI. The role and responsibilities of senior researchers should be distinguished from those of junior researchers.
DOCUMENT
This is the ‘Developing a reflection tool’ manual. The manual provides points of reference for the development of a reflection tool for interventions and more general approaches in children’s services. A team can use the fmanual to get to work itself on creating a tool to give each other feedback on the quality of the implementation of the intervention or approach. This is important, as we know that the quality of the care provided is directly related to the outcomes for clients and that learning from one another contributes to that quality.
DOCUMENT
Purpose In postgraduate medical education, guided group reflection is often applied to support professional identity formation. However, little is known about how guided group reflection is shaped and how it works. Our scoping review synthesizes existing evidence about various approaches for guided group reflection, their aims, components and potential working mechanisms. Methods We conducted a scoping review using JBI (Joanna Briggs Institute) guidelines for conducting scoping reviews. We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE and ERIC databases for all research articles published in English or Dutch in an iterative team approach. The articles were extracted and summarized quantitatively and qualitatively. Results We included 71 papers (45 primary research papers and 26 non-empirical papers including program descriptions, theoretical concepts and personal experiences). We identified a diversity of approaches for guided group reflection (e.g. Balint groups, supervised collaborative reflection and exchange of experiences), applied in a variety of didactic formats and aims. We distilled potential working mechanisms relating to engagement in reflection, group learning and the supervisor’s role. Conclusions There are significant knowledge gaps about the aims and underlying mechanisms of guided group reflection. Future systematic research on these topics is needed to understand the effectiveness of educational methods, that can help facilitate learning conditions to best shape professional identity formation (PIF) in educational curricula.
LINK
We all work towards an inclusive Inholland. What can you contribute to this? We would like to invite you to occasionally reflect on the question: Who is included and who is being left out? For example, in your teaching, research, management, or events. And to discuss this with others (e.g. colleagues within your team). Use the questions on our reflection card for inspiration. Would you like more information or actively join us as a reflection partner? Send an email to marieke.slootman@inholland.nl In collaboration with: the Diversity Research Group and Inholland Taskforce on Diversity & Inclusion Inclusion Design: Studio idiotēs, Sverre Koster
DOCUMENT
An interview-study of 18 senior professionals in the Netherlands and the UK exploring how professionals in senior positions perceive (team) collaboration in the public sector and how they manage collaboration in a fast evolving, post-pandemic world of digital transformation. Framed by team theory and theory on organisational logic, the key findings from the study highlight a number of variables important for effective collaboration between professionals in the digital era, such as trust, shared norms, shared goals, and the importance of leadership. Rapid digitisation creates many upsides for efficiency and communication possibilities but also threatens meaningful relationships, work-life balance and time for reflection in teams.
DOCUMENT
The model of the Best Practice Unit (BPU) is a specific form of practice based research. It is a variation of the Community of Practice (CoP) as developed by Wenger, McDermott and Snyder (2002) with the specific aim to innovate a professional practice by combining learning, development and research. We have applied the model over the past 10 years in the domain of care and social welfare in the Netherlands. Characteristics of the model are: the interaction between individual and collective learning processes, the development of (new or better) working methods, and the implementation of these methods in daily practice. Multiple knowledge sources are being used: experiential knowledge, professional knowledge and scientific knowledge. Research is serving diverse purposes: articulating tacit knowledge, documenting the learning and innovation process, systematically describing the revealed or developed ways of working, and evaluating the efficacy of new methods. An analysis of 10 different research projects shows that the BPU is an effective model.
DOCUMENT
When it comes to hard to solve problems, the significance of situational knowledge construction and network coordination must not be underrated. Professional deliberation is directed toward understanding, acting and analysis. We need smart and flexible ways to direct systems information from practice to network reflection, and to guide results from network consultation to practice. This article presents a case study proposal, as follow-up to a recent dissertation about online simulation gaming for youth care network exchange (Van Haaster, 2014).
DOCUMENT
