scholarly journals Provocations and possibilities in professional practice, education, and learning

2021 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 277-279
Author(s):  
Nick Hopwood ◽  
Ann Reich ◽  
Donna Rooney ◽  
Jacqui McManus
2018 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 239-241
Author(s):  
Madeleine Abrandt Dahlgren ◽  
Maria Gustavsson ◽  
Andreas Fejes

Author(s):  
Roel Kuiper

Present discontents and concerns about schooling and learning call for critical reflection about education as a practice. Education is not to be degraded to instrumentalism. The profession is about the formation of pupils in a process of interaction to bring them to “human flourishing.” Learning implies mastery and self-responsibility, guided by the “right desire” to do what is ultimately good. This “right desire” in the Aristotelian and Christian tradition precedes the work of any professional or practitioner. The normative practice approach serves as a valuable help for the reflection that is needed. It presents a given set of norms that are appropriate to understand a professional practice. Reflection on the “right desire” in schooling, learning, and teaching helps to redirect education in our time of discontent.


2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 187-205
Author(s):  
J. Stephen Byrne ◽  
Caleb W. Lack ◽  
Kara J. Taylor

Abstract This study explores the experiences of non-religious clients in psychotherapy, specifically with regard to unwanted religious interventions. Because individuals who identify as non-religious often experience negative judgments of various kinds, they need a safe and accepting therapeutic environment. In the present study, clients expressed that 36 % of therapists reportedly engaged in either unwanted or unhelpful religious discussion, with 29 % explicitly suggesting a religious intervention for their non-religious clients, such as prayer or attendance at church services. For a small percentage of clients, these suggestions led to premature termination. Implications for professional practice, education, and public policy are suggested.


2003 ◽  
Vol 7 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 203-207
Author(s):  
Noam Raz

One of the most neglected and urgent issues facing architecture – the substantial fracture between thinking about architecture and engaging in professional practice – was addressed at a two day conference in Cambridge this March (2004). Organized by RIBA East/University of Cambridge CPD for Architects, in association with the University's Department of Architecture and Centre for Research in the Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities, it attracted a sizeable audience of practising architects, senior academics and students. This mix reflected the organizers' ambition to bring together professional and academic perspectives in this interdisciplinary area. The proceedings will be published by Spon during 2005.


Author(s):  
Virginia L. Dubasik ◽  
Dubravka Svetina Valdivia

Purpose The purpose of this study was to ascertain the extent to which school-based speech-language pathologists' (SLPs) assessment practices with individual English learners (ELs) align with federal legislation and professional practice guidelines. Specifically, we were interested in examining SLPs' use of multiple tools during individual EL assessments, as well as relationships between practices and number of types of training experiences. Method School-based SLPs in a Midwestern state were recruited in person or via e-mail to complete an online survey pertaining to assessment. Of the 562 respondents who completed the survey, 222 (39.5%) indicated past or present experience with ELs, and thus, their data were included in the analyses. The questionnaire solicited information about respondent's demographics, caseload composition, perceived knowledge and skills and training experiences pertaining to working with ELs (e.g., graduate school, self-teaching, professional conferences), and assessment practices used in schools. Results The majority of respondents reported using multiple tools rather than a single tool with each EL they assess. Case history and observation were tools used often or always by the largest number of participants. SLPs who used multiple tools reported using both direct (e.g., standardized tests, dynamic assessment) and indirect tools (e.g., case history, interviews). Analyses revealed low to moderate positive associations between tools, as well as the use of speech-language samples and number of types of training experiences. Conclusions School-based SLPs in the current study reported using EL assessment practices that comply with federal legislation and professional practice guidelines for EL assessment. These results enhance our understanding of school-based SLPs' assessment practices with ELs and may be indicative of a positive shift toward evidence-based practice.


ASHA Leader ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 13 (16) ◽  
pp. 26-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate Gottfred

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document