| Summary: | Reflective practice is the central tenet of occupational therapy professional practice. As a result, reflection is something that occupational therapy students are taught and assessed on before they qualify as practitioners. However, research shows that there are some issues relating to how reflection is being taught, assessed, and learned in institutions. Dialogic reflection, a process where students engage in reflective conversations with their peers about their experience, was suggested as a possible alternative, albeit the theories about it are rather scarce. This research explored the suitability of dialogic reflection in promoting professional development in the occupational therapy curriculum. Fourteen post-graduate diploma occupational therapy students and I formed two action research groups for this enquiry. We developed our understanding of dialogic reflection through iterative cycles of participating in dialogic reflections and reflecting on our experiences of them. Reflection and thematic analysis were used to make sense of the data we generated. In this thesis, I argued that issues relating to reflection and dialogic reflection stem from fundamental differences in the many perspectives of reflection. Therefore, dialogic reflection should be conceptualised as something beyond a skill for practice, a tool for learning or a method of demonstrating professional development. In our theory of dialogic reflection, we argued that it is a co-operative way of understanding ourselves through an emotionally charged and morally driven exploration of our interactions with the world. My original contribution is this perspective of dialogic reflection as an epistemology, and I assert that it should be treated as so in education and professional practice. Hence, I maintain that it is something that can be taught but cannot be assessed. Dialogic reflection can promote professional development and it is important in occupational therapy practice as it encourages the practitioner to explore himself or herself as a practitioner and a person.
|
|---|
