See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/312124833

Video Observation of Self and Colleagues: Development of an emergent

framework for reflective practice

Thesis · January 2017

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.25882.24005

CITATIONS READS

0 1,158

1 author:

Andrew Dineen
Trinity College Dublin
8 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Post thesis developments; exploring the use of Video Observation of Self and Colleagues (VOoSC) as a tool to support reflective thinking and practice development in
pedagogues. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Andrew Dineen on 07 January 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Video Observation of Self
and Colleagues:
Development of an
emergent framework for
reflective practice

Andrew Dineen

Master in Education

University of Dublin, Trinity Dublin

Supervisor: Melanie Ní Dhuinn

Submitted to the University of Dublin, Trinity College,

November, 2016
Declaration

I hereby declare that this is entirely my own work and

that it has not been submitted as an exercise for the
award of a degree at this or any other University. I agree
that the Library may lend of copy this dissertation on
request.

______________________________________________

Name here:______________________

Date here:________________

i
Summary

The aim of this action research study was to develop and

test a Video Observation of Self and Colleague(s)
(VOoSC) intervention to support reflective thinking
development for early years’ pedagogues. This is the first
implementation of VOoSC and recommendations shall be
made at the end.

A mixed methods approach was taken that used video to

record two pedagogues at work and later present
vignettes back to them for video observation. There were
5 video recording sessions and 5 video observation
sessions. The video observation sessions were supported
by the facilitator/researcher using Mezirow’s ten phases of
transformative learning to guide the sessions.

The results of this research show that VOoSC is a

powerful instrument in supporting early year pedagogues
develop higher levels of reflective thinking; an exciting
prospect going forward in the development of early years’
education in Ireland.

ii
Acknowledgements

I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to the

following people, without whom this project would not
have been possible.

My supervisor, Assistant Professor Melanie Ní Dhuinn,

whose guidance was invaluable throughout and whose
words; “You’re nearly there now”, ultimately transformed
into truth.

To my family and loved ones; my dad George, mom Kay

and my brothers George and John, you continue to
support me in everything I do, thank you all.

And to Alannah, your support has been ineffable.

iii
Table of Contents

Declaration ..................................................................... i
Summary ....................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements ........................................................ iii
Table of Contents ........................................................... iv
Table of Tables ............................................................... v
Table of Figures ............................................................. vi
Glossary of Acronyms ....................................................viii
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................... 1
1.1 Overview .............................................................................................................. 1
Figure 1.1 Human brain development ................................................... 1
1.2 Background to the study ......................................................................... 2
1.3 How VOoSC was implemented ........................................................... 4
1.4 Rationale .............................................................................................................. 5
1.5 Research Statement ................................................................................... 6
1.6 Purpose of the study .................................................................................. 7
1.7 Research Objectives ................................................................................... 7
1.8 Limitations of the study ........................................................................... 8
1.9 Delimitations of the study ...................................................................... 8
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 9
Chapter 2: Literature review .......................................... 11
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 11
Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 33
Chapter 3: Methodology ................................................ 39
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 39
Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 63
Chapter 4: Research findings and discussion .................... 64
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 64
Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 94
Chapter 5: Conclusion and recommendations ................... 99
Bibliography ............................................................... 104

iv
Table of Tables

Table 2.1 Types of reflection .......................................... 21

Table 2.2 Levels of reflection .......................................... 25
Table 2.3 Influential theorists ......................................... 38
Table 3.1 Adabted form Driscoll ...................................... 56
Table 3.2 Adabted from Saldaña ..................................... 61
Table 4.1 Outline of VOoSC sessions ............................... 70

v
Table of Figures

Figure 1.1 Human brain development .............................. 10

vi
Appendices

Appendix A (Ethics approval)

Appendix B (Letter to the board)
Appendix C (Gatekeeper consent)
Appendix D (Research information for parents)
Appendix E (Parent/Guardian consent)
Appendix F (Parent information)
Appendix G (Researcher Bio for service)
Appendix H (Research Brief)
Appendix I (Initial Online Questionnaire)
Appendix J (Original Baseline Questionnaire - OBQ)
Appendix K (Retrospective Baseline Questionnaire -RBQ)
Appendix L (Post-VOoSC Questionnaire - PVQ)
Appendix M (OBQ and Larrivee comparison)

vii
Glossary of Acronyms

CEO Chief executive officer

CECDE Centre for early childhood development and education
CPD Continuous professional development
DCYA Department of children and youth affairs
ECE Early childhood education
ECCE Early childhood care and education
ECEC Early childhood education and care
EYP(s) Early year pedagogue(s)
FETAC Further education and training awards council
HEIs Higher Education Institutes
IOQ Initial online questionnaire
NCCA National council for curriculum and assessment
OBQ Original base line questionnaire
PVQ Post-VOoSC questionnaire
RBQ Retrospective baseline questionnaire
VOoSC Video observation of self and colleague(s)

viii
Chapter One: Introduction
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Overview
Early years’ education in Ireland is considered to be the
period from birth to six years of age (National Council for
Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA), 2009) and children’s
interactions with their environment, inclusive of others in
the environment, play a crucial role in brain development
(Tierney & Nelson, 2009) and holistic development
(Centre for Early Childhood Development and Education
(CECDE), 2006) during this stage of life. Through these
interactions, children can develop positive dispositions
that lay down the foundations for lifelong learning (NCCA,
2009).
The following figure 1.1 (adapted from Nelson, 2000, in
Shonkoff & Phillip, 2000, p. 188) presents human brain
development from pre-natal to 15 years of age:

Figure 1.1 Human brain development

As visible in the above figure 1.1, the highest proportion

of brain development happens during the early years of
life and in fact peaks by at the end of year 1. Neylon

1
(2012) reported that an overwhelming 96% of children
eligible (aged 3 years 3 months – 4 years 6 months on
the 1st September each year) to partake in the Free Pre-
School Year in Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE)
scheme did so. Outside of the home learning
environment, early year pedagogues (EYPs) are one of
the primary facilitators of these critical development
opportunities and the researcher sees striving towards the
delivery of higher quality services for children, families,
society and in turn the entire ecological system we are a
part of as being of the highest ethical responsibility.
Reflective practice has been identified as essential in
order for early years’ education to continue to develop on
a ‘quality’ trajectory (NCCA, 2009; Schonfeld, 2015;
CECDE, 2006; European Commission, Directorate-General
for Education and Culture, 2011; Hayes, 2013). Existing
studies have shown that video observation can have a
positive influence on pedagogical practices, especially in
relation to analysing, critiquing and changing or extending
interaction strategies (Mitchell & Cubey, 2003; Kernan,
n.d.). However, identifying what reflective practice looks
like and how to support pedagogues engage in reflective
practice is not clear (Rogers, 2002; Loughran, 2002;
Larrivee, 2008; Roth, Lawless and Masciotra, 2001).

1.2 Background to the study

Early years’ education in Ireland continues to progress
and the challenge now is the implementation of quality
directed policy (French, 2011). Hayes (2013) highlights
the importance of not only the initial training that an early
year pedagogue receives, but the continuous professional
development (CPD) supported by in-house attitudes that

2
encourage, support and value reflective practice at team
and individual level, as being essential for the
development of quality practice. Pedagogical reflective
practice in early years’ education is essentially adult
education, thus, the dominant influence on this study is
that of a highly respected theorist in adult education, Jack
Mezirow.
Mezirow’s (1991) theory of transformative learning, that
evolved from his (Mezirow, 1978) seminal work on
women’s re-entry to education, is one that has been
critiqued, tried, tested, revised and retested throughout
the past thirty eight years and is recognised and
respected as one of the most substantial theories on how
adults learn (Cranton, 1996, 2001; Cranton & Carusetta,
2004; Cranton & King, 2003; Cranton & Roy, 2003;
Taylor, 1997, 1998, 2000, as cited in Kitchenham, 2008).
The “...more researchers test the theory in other
disciplines, such as educational technology, the evidence
for the robustness and applicability of the theory will
grow” (K. P. King, 1997a, 1997b, 1998, 2000, 2002;
Kitchenham, 2006; Whitelaw, Sears, & Campbell, 2004,
as cited in Kitchenham, 2008).
The introduced “educational technology” in this piece of
research is the use of video recording and video
observation. Video Observation of Self and Colleague(s)
(VOoSC) in this research project was grounded primarily
in Mezirow’s (1991) ten phases of transformative learning
and supported in session delivery through Driscoll’s
(1994) “what, so what, now what”, model of reflection.
Larrivee’s (2008) levels of reflection guided analysis of
participants’ levels of reflection throughout the research.
Other theories that not only played a role in the

3
development of this work but continue to influence
learning theories worldwide are Vygotsky’s (1978) socio-
cultural theory, Dewey’s (1910) philosophy on thinking
and Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning model. The
maieutic style of questioning, or educating as described
by Dolci (1973), that elicits knowledge from participants
and allows for the development and generation of
intersubjective knowledge amongst participants, played
an influential role in the facilitation of the VOoSC
sessions.

1.3 How VOoSC was implemented

The two primary participants of this study were EYPs
working together in a preschool environment with children
who were 3 – 4 years of age. Their practice was video-
recorded and later they viewed vignettes from the
recorded practice together. During this viewing they were
supported by a facilitator, who is also the researcher on
this occasion, to explore their own thought processes,
both individually and jointly. These discourses were
mapped onto Mezirow’s (1991) ten phases of
transformative learning throughout the process.
Participants’ levels of reflective thinking were also
interpreted and tracked throughout the research using
both questionnaires and interpretative data from the five
VOoSC sessions. Changes in participants’ levels of
reflective thinking were used as indicators of the influence
VOoSC sessions, as a framework for reflective practice,
have on development of higher levels of reflective
thinking in EYPs.

4
1.4 Rationale
A combination of previously explored theory from the
Master in Education Foundation Studies modules have all
played a role in the direction this research piece has
taken. The researcher’s previous undergraduate
dissertation, Early year professionals’ perspectives on
reflective practice, and ongoing engagement in the early
years’ education sector at program delivery and design,
from facilitator of a language and literacy programme for
5 – 6 year olds, to design and delivery of a third level
module on an early childhood education degree course for
adults, have all been influential in this thesis. On a
practical level and from the researcher’s experience of
working directly with children aged 6 years and under,
there seems to be a consistent acceptance of manualised
programmes in early years’ education, rather than
investment in the development of individuals’ pedagogical
practices. Some of these manualised, evidence based
programmes do have positive elements and may be useful
to guide a facilitator less experienced or confident in
delivering quality early years’ education. However, from
the researcher’s experience, skilled pedagogues often
have their autonomy restricted by having to display
fidelity to such programmes. As asked to by Dahlberg,
Moss and Pence (1999); is it possible that the technical,
outcome focused assessment of such programmes does
not capture the most important aspect of any
programme? That is, the environment where it is
delivered, that has been created by all stakeholders and
inclusive of the interaction strategies at play during the
programme delivery. The researcher’s drive to support
pedagogues explore and critique early years’ practice,

5
towards the development of quality services for children
and families is what guides this study. The goal of this
research piece is to develop an emergent framework for,
and of, reflective practice, that can be used initially in
early years’ services and later other social science fields.
As highlighted by French (2011):
There is little in ECEC policy that is impeding
deepening of quality ECEC; the challenge is in
implementation.
While not definitively specified by French (2011) in the
above quote, the researcher interprets this point as early
years’ education in Ireland not being restricted, as formal
education in primary and post-primary is, through the
necessity of delivering an assessment focused curriculum.
This ‘freedom’ in early years’ education is a space that
must be maximised for the development of highly skilled,
autonomous thinkers in early years’ education. However,
opportunity to challenge, self and others, in the way
education is presented, must first be experienced and
developed. To reiterate a key question from French
(2011), “How do we develop a ‘whole society’ approach to
implementing quality ECEC?” The researcher sees the use
of VOoSC potentially playing a role in answering this
question and in the development of higher quality early
years’ education.

1.5 Research Statement

There is a lack of practical support for EYPs to engage in
reflective practice. Paid non-contact time for staff and
organisational culture towards reflective practice are
major issues inhibiting progressive development in the
sector. These issues have begun to receive the
recognition they deserve with the 2017 budget providing

6
for payment of seven additional ECCE days to services for
non-contact time (Early Childhood Ireland, 2016), that is
time not directly working with children. However, these
days have been allocated to administrative duties on this
occasion. Even as these challenges are overcome, the
essential question of how to actively engage in reflective
practice remains unanswered. VOoSC can support
services with this dilemma by providing an emergent
framework necessary to support pedagogues’ and
services’ CPD through reflective practice. Thus,
enhancing the quality of services children and families
receive and drawing further attention to the immense
positive influence video observation can have on reflective
practice. This cycle can then continue.
This research would like to provide grounding for the
development of a practical framework for reflective
practice, which can support early year pedagogues
develop higher levels of reflective thinking and in turn
higher levels of quality educative interactions in early
years’ services and society.

1.6 Purpose of the study

The purpose of this study is to test the researcher’s
hypothesis that Video Observation of Self and
Colleague(s) (VOoSC) can support the development of
higher levels of reflective thinking among participants.

1.7 Research Objectives

The objectives of this study are to design and deliver a
VOoSC intervention as an instrument in an early years’
education setting. The focus is on practitioner reflection
and presentation of participants’ experiences of VOoSC,

7
as accurately and holistically as possible. This shall be
done through the use of an interpretative approach of
both qualitative and quantitative methods. In the
following chapter, a thorough review of the relevant
influencing literature shall be presented, as well as
highlighting possible deficits and risks associated with the
intervention. The methodology shall be systematically
explained in chapter three before the findings and
discussion are explicated in chapter four. Finally, chapter
five will conclude the research piece, drawing on the most
relevant aspects from the entire research and
recommendations for moving forward shall be presented.

1.8 Limitations of the study

Limitations of the study include; the ever-present lack of
non-contact time that participants were available for
VOoSC sessions, more time was always wanted by
participants and researcher; the time limit on the
research itself due to it being a master’s level thesis and
the project having to be to be completed within the
college academic year; the video recording equipment,
while sufficient, did not capture all angles or sound in the
room, but was the best option available to the researcher
at the time; an interpretative approach with the
researcher working alone and ironically not having peer
critique, as advocated for in the research; the small
sample of just two primary participants.

1.9 Delimitations of the study

Delimitations include; the use of an abridged version of
Larrivee’s (2008) Survey of Reflective Practice: A Tool for
Assessing Development as a Reflective Practitioner, Self

8
assessment, which was done to support sustained
engagement of the participants during sessions; the initial
population of interest included pedagogues, parents,
teachers and other adults whom engage with children in
an educative manor, however, only early year
pedagogues are represented in this study; the very
relevant issue of ‘quality’, while it has been touched on in
this research, has not had the deeper investigation that is
required in relation to an intersubjective definition of
quality or exploration into alternatives to the “quality”
perspective (Dahlberg, Moss & Pence, 1999).

Conclusion
Reflective practice is seen as necessary for the
development of the early years’ education sector in
Ireland (NCCA, 2009; Schonfeld, 2015; Centre for Early
Childhood Development and Education (CECDE), 2006;
Hayes, 2013). VOoSC is presented as a framework of
support for reflective practice that guides the
development of participants’ reflective thinking. This
action research piece has designed and tested the
effectiveness of VOoSC as an intervention of support for
reflective thinking development in an early years’ service.
The study has presented the development of participants’
thought processes through exploration and interpretation
of their rich experiences throughout the sessions. While a
first-hand follow up to see the connection between
development of thinking and development of practice was
not done on this occasion, participants regularly spoke
about how they thought differently during their practice.
This shows enhanced reflection-in-action (Schön, 1991).
The rich experiences of the two primary participants will

9
be presented in chapter three and conclusions and
recommendations shall be drawn thereafter. The
following chapter, literature review, presents the
researcher’s guiding influences in this study.

10
Chapter Two: Literature review
Chapter 2: Literature review
Introduction
A work of education, like a work of art, comes
into being as it develops and it evolves in a way
which is by definition unforeseeable. (Danilo
Dolci, 1973, p. 146)
National and international policy, and advisory framework
documents promote reflective practice for early year
pedagogues (EYPs) (Schonfeld, 2015; NCCA, 2009;
Government of Ireland, 2002; CECDE, 2006; European
Commission, Directorate-General for Education and
Culture, 2011), and while some do provide literature
designed to develop reflective practice and highlight the
necessary supports (Schonefeld, 2015; CECDE, 2006),
the essential feature of an active guiding framework that
will allow participants to truly engage in reflective practice
remains deficient (Moloney, 2011).

Early years’ education initiatives that follow children’s

skills, thinking and interests and facilitate the
development of these areas represent the ‘programmes’
that display the highest standards of quality (Jordan,
1999; Palmerus & Pramling, 1991; Pramling Samuelsson
et al. 2000; Pascal, 1999; Ramsden, 1997, as cited in
Mitchell & Cubey, 2003). In all the above mentioned
studies, a positive correlation was shown when EYPs were
supported through the use of tools, including video, to
analyse their own interactions, critique them and change
and/or extend them to better focus on children’s
interests, skills and thoughts (Mitchell & Cubey, 2003).
Socio-cultural theory explains that cognitive development
is fundamentally influenced through social interaction

11
(United Nations Children's Fund (Unicef), 2002).
Vygotsky (1978) emphasised that more complex mental
functions, for example, voluntary recollection and
deductive reasoning, originate in the relationships
between individuals. CPD, focusing on the adults’
interactions, is central in developing a socio-cultural
learning environment and the use of video recording is
shown to be an effective tool in supporting pedagogues
through CPD (Mitchel & Cubey, 2003).

Research must also take into account the contextual

learning and associated meanings for both children and
adults (Hayes, 2007). Video observation and a “whole –
team approach” to reflective practice are recognised as
influential aspects in movement towards the “quality”
agenda in Early Childhood Education (Donegal County
Childcare Committee (DCCC), 2014, P.17). Jack
Mezirow’s “transformative learning theory" is an attempt
to “describe and analyse how adults learn to make
meaning of their experience” and it identifies phases
through which this continuous learning process can be
monitored and supported (Mezirow, 1991, p. 198).
Mezirow’s (1991, p. 168, 169) ten phases of
transformative learning are;

1. Disorienting dilemma
2. Self-examination with feelings of guilt or shame
3. A critical assessment of epistemic, sociocultural,
or psychic assumptions
4. Recognition that one’s discontent and the process
of transformation are shared and that others have
negotiated a similar change

12
 5. Exploration of options for new roles,
relationships, and actions
6. Planning of a course of action
7. Acquisition of knowledge and skills for
implementing one’s plans
8. Provisional trying of new roles
9. Building of competence and self-confidence in
new roles and relationships
10. A reintegration into one’s life on the basis of
conditions dictated by one’s perspective.
The researcher incorporates Mezirow’s (1991, p. 168,
169) “ten phases of transformative learning” into a semi-
structured facilitation style during the five VOoSC sessions
and uses Larrivee’s (2008) levels of reflective practice as
a guide to assess participants’ levels of reflection. Other
theorists (Taylor, 2002; Brookfield, 1995; Larrivee, 2000)
have also shared similar thoughts to Mezirow’s on adult
learning processes and even though there may be
variations in the descriptive language used, they all agree
that development of reflective thinking and practice
happens in stages, but what exactly is the relationship
between reflection and learning?

2.1 Early childhood settings in the Irish context

Ireland in the 1970’s began to see a dramatic increase in
the female workforce and the home care capacity of
mothers and families was reduced, thus, out of home
childcare became a necessity for some families (Fallon,
2005). While the use of the language “childcare” or “early
years’ education” in national policy varies depending on
which department authored the documents, early years'
services in Ireland are understood to provide a balance of

13
both education and care (Hayes, 2007). The quality of
the learning environment, inclusive of the quality of
pedagogical interaction strategies, is understood to be
critical in children’s holistic development (NCCA, 2009)
and reflective practice is considered central to providing
higher quality learning and development opportunities for
children and adults (Hayes, 2007). Investment into early
years’ education has continued to grow over recent years,
with the introduction of the ECCE Scheme in January
2010 offering a free preschool year for children aged
between 3 years 3 months and 4 years 7 months
(Department of Children and Youth Affairs (DCYA), web
a). This scheme grew further and a second free preschool
year was available for children from 3 years to 5 years six
months from September, 2016 (Citizens Information,
n.d., par. 3)

2.2 What is learning?

Piaget may be most renowned for his influential work on
cognitive development in children, however, his theories
on assimilation, accommodation, active learning and
schema expressed in this research piece are also
influential in adult learning (Sutherland & Crowther,
2008). Piaget (1976, p. 12) saw learning as “a set of
structures progressively constructed by continuous
interaction between the subject and the external world”.
He highlighted assimilation and accommodation as two
processes used by humans to learn (Piaget, 1976).
Assimilation uses pre-existing cognitive structures,
schema, to make sense of the environment, often
changing the environment to fit into these structures and
is a knowledge based method (Piaget, 2009). This can be

14
connected to Argyris’ (1976) “single-loop learning”.
Argyris (2002, p. 206) presents single loop learning as
the “detection and correction of error”, where attempts to
correct errors are made, but within existing frameworks.
This is an outcome focused approach and it does not
embrace critical reflectivity (Boud & Walker, 1991).
Assimilation may work and the learner is content with the
process, however, by its very nature assimilation entails
perceiving the environment in a specific way to make new
learning fit, and, these perceptions may be skewed by
pre-existing schema, whether ‘true’ or not. When the
existing schema does not work the learner may be in a
state of disequilibrium (Piaget, 1976) and adaption is
necessary for progression. Piaget’s disequilibrium may be
seen as closely related to Mezirow’s (1991) disorientating
dilemma where accommodation must then be used to
change the schema in order to deal with the new
information. This is similar to Argyris’ (1976) double-loop
learning, where learners are asked to come outside the
existing framework and question their pre-existing
meaning perspectives and meaning schemas. Kolb
(1984) identifies similarities between Piaget’s (1970)
model of learning and cognitive development, Dewey’s
model of experiential learning and Lewin’s 1940’s model
of action research. These are; “learning is best conceived
as a process, not in terms of outcomes”; learning is
“grounded in experience”; “the process of learning
requires the resolution of conflicts between dialectically
opposed modes of adaption to the world” (Kolb, 1984, pp.
26-29). Similarly, Taylor (2002), Brookfield (1995),
Larrivee (2000) and Mezirow (1991) see development of
reflective thinking happening in stages, as a process over

15
time and not outcomes focused, but instead focused on
progressive development. The outcomes focused lower
levels of learning, such as Argyris’ single loop learning, do
not require critical reflectivity, as these concepts fit into
pre-existing cognitive structures. However, there is
evidence of inseparability between higher level learning
and higher level reflective thinking. For example: when
the learner’s existing way of working does not allow
learning to continue, higher level reflective thinking, using
a problem solving approach is necessary to facilitate
continued learning (Dewey, 1910).

2.3 Reflective thinking and reflective practice

Theorists have struggled to come to intersubjective
definitions of what reflective thinking and reflective
practice are (Rogers, 2002; Loughran, 2002; Larrivee,
2008; Roth, Lawless & Masciotra, 2001). For some,
reflective practice denotes simple thought on a topic and
for others the term signifies movement within a structure
of support, towards the highest level of reflective
thinking, critical thinking (Rogers, 2002). “To reflect
means to hunt for additional evidence”, evidence that will
either back up our existing beliefs or will expose our lies
(Dewey, 1910, p. 13). Loughran (2002) sees reflective
practice as a process that can offer us genuine
development-orientated feedback on working practices;
allowing meaning to be made from situations and for
tangible learning to take place. Peters (2001) discusses
Wittgenstein's style of philosophy as pedagogical,
encouraging readers to shift their thinking through
narratives, wrong answers and jokes and may be

16
interpreted as related to Mezirow’s (1991) perspective
transformation. Dewey describes reflective thought as:
Active, persistent, and careful consideration of
any belief or supposed form of knowledge in
light of the grounds that support it, and the
further conclusions to which it tends....
(Dewey, 1910)
And Larrivee describes practice as:
...one’s repertoire of knowledge, dispositions,
skills, and behaviours. (Larrivee, 2008)
These two definitions have been influential in the working
definition used for this research piece. However, it was
felt that an emotional aspect was missing; an area that
Mezirow also received critique for neglecting and only
later (2004) revisited and acknowledged this deficiency.
The researcher’s emergent definition shall be presented in
the concluding chapter.

2.4 Why reflect?

Mezirow (1990, p. 18) believed that validation was the
central function of reflection. Reflection is a fundamental
part of progressive development, the root of individual
development in pedagogues and students, and in turn
societal development (Dewey, 1910; Rodgers, 2002).
Hayes (2013, p. 1) affirms the need for collective
discussion in the field of ECE, to be returned to
reflectively in order to “…maintain the flexible, responsive
and flowing [development] process that is early years’
practice”. She emphasises the importance of EYPs
understanding and being confident reflecting on their
practice (Hayes, 2013). McMonagle (2012) indicates that
the whole-team approach to reflection within settings
allows for enhancement of quality, both individually and
collectively. Hayes (2013) believes early years’ practice

17
to be an on-going transition towards higher quality
provision of ECE and that practice can be developed from
within settings and through quality practice placements.
The Competence Requirements in Early Childhood
Education and Care report (CoRe) (European Commission,
Directorate-General for Education and Culture, 2011, p.
21) articulates that a competent early years’ system
“requires possibilities for all staff to engage in joint
learning and critical reflection.”
As indicated above, reflection goes beyond validation and
towards personal, practice and societal development and
there must be a sense of responsibility amongst people
for this ethos to be built upon. A pedagogical outlook that
says; practice is and always will be a work in progress,
even if practice is “excellent”, it is not enough (EBNE) (de
Bono, 2011), can be central to the progression of ECE. If
this exploratory mentality for higher quality practice is
combined with a “growth mindset” (Dweck, 2015) or what
de Bono (2011) calls “a beautiful mind”, one that sees
challenges as opportunities to develop practice, self and
society, it would be a strong base for continuous
professional development in early years’ education.

2.5 Types of reflection (How pedagogues reflect)

Schön (1991) proposed two types of reflection; reflection-
in-action and reflection-on-action. However, he also
referred to tacit knowledge or “knowing-in-action”, the
actions that are performed in the moment without
thought. Reflection-in-action and on-action are two types
of reflection that can be developed by pedagogues, but,
they can be difficult to explain, making them difficult to
critique (Schön, 1991). Reflection-in-action happens in

18
the moment of practice, usually during a problematic
situation and assists with the completion of the task at
hand. Roth, Lawless and Masciotra (2001) do not believe
there is time for reflection-in-action as Schön describes it
and instead promote the concept of “Spielraum”.
Spielraum is seen as the pedagogue creating room to
manoeuvre when a problematic situation is encountered.
The space created allows children and pedagogues to
explore, develop and create their own knowledge in the
immediate situation. Reflection-on-action takes place
after the event, it may be structured (Schön, 1991), but
often happens during unplanned discussions with
colleagues or when alone, (Dineen, 2014; Argyris, 1976;
Schön, 1991). It is often associated with something that
has been learned and may involve a critical incident,
thinking about the incident from perspectives of different
time frames and finding the moment where it was
understood (Schön, 1987). Schön then advocated for
discussing the thinking processes that needed to exist,
including exploring possible short comings of knowing-in-
action and reflection-in-action and linking thinking to
literature in order to validate the new beliefs (Schön,
1987). Mezirow (2004, p. 69, 70) saw “critical reflection
on assimilated epistemic assumptions and critical
dialectical judgement to validate new assumptions” as
necessary for transformational learning to take place.
Fleming (2016, p.4) advocates for Mezirow’s (1991)
“disorientating dilemma” as a requisite for transformative
learning, often “a situation precipitated by a teacher or
change agent who wants to facilitate transformative
learning” by supporting adults to question what they take
for granted. There are commonalities between these

19
theorists and one particular catalytic event associated
with the different levels and descriptions of levels of
reflection is that of a problematic situation, critical
incident or a disorientating dilemma. The language may
differ between theorists, but the concept remains
constant, even if at different levels of disorientation
and/or reflection, this shock or challenge to individuals’
existing knowledge, their ‘truth’, is cataclysmic in opening
participants up to exploration and discursion towards
creation of new ‘working truths’.
Table 2.1 below identifies the types of reflection referred
to in the above section;
Theorist Type of Indicators
reflection/places
of reflection
Schön Tacit When high
knowledge/knowing quality practice
1991
in action is visible but the
pedagogue may
not be able to
explain their
practice
Roth, Lawless Spielraum Happens in the
and Masciotra moment, usually
during a
2001
problematic
situation. The
pedagogue
creates room to
manoeuvre and
find solutions

20
 with the student
Schön Reflection in action Happens in the
moment of
1991
practice, usually
during a
problematic
situation and
assists with the
completion of
the task
Schön Reflection on action Takes place
after the event,
1991
it may be
structured,
however often
happens during
unplanned
discussions with
colleagues or
when alone
Table 2.1 Types of Reflection

2.6 Levels of reflection

When individuals bring previously unconscious
assumptions into consciousness for evaluation
they have the potential for reframing the
questions asked, therefore affecting the thought
processes evoked and their subsequent
behaviors and actions. (Gogia, 2012, p. 6)
Surface reflection, pedagogical reflection and critical
reflection are the three levels described by Larrivee
(2008), however, she also acknowledges a pre-reflective
level. The pre-reflective level or “uncritical thinking” as
described by Dewey (1910, p. 13) is a non-reflective

21
level, where action happens without thought and adaption
to suit specific situations is not considered. Surface level
reflection is interested in describing what works and does
not work, but only within certain parameters and it does
not probe deeper into the “why?” (Larrivee, 2008). This
level can be understood to correlate with what Mezirow
(1991) describes as content reflection. He continues by
further identifying process reflection and premise
reflection. Process reflection examines the procedures
and strategies we use in problem solving (Mezirow, 1991)
and may or may not be to be included in pedagogical
reflection, depending on what current practices are.
Pedagogical reflection, a higher level of reflection, is
based on current beliefs and quality practices within the
sector and is supported by research, theory and
pedagogue knowledge (Larrivee, 2008). Reflection at this
level is used to close the gap between theory and
practice. Argyris’ (1976) “double loop learning” may be
interpreted as a level that comes between the pedagogical
level and the higher levels of Mezirow’s (1991) premise
reflection, Larrivee’s (2008) critical reflection and Dewey’s
(1910) critical thinking. Double loop learning allows one
to step outside the robust single-loop, which is restricted
by existing and unquestioned operational strategies and
led by set goals, plans, rules and values (Argyris, 1976).
Double-loop learning suggests questioning existing
meaning perspectives (Mezirow, 1991) by seeing existing
practice through an alternative lens (Argyris, 1976).
Argyris (1976) sees this reflection happening through
conversations with peers, family, or when alone;
assigning meaning then allows transcendence from single-
loop to double-loop learning and gives us an altered view

22
of ourselves, others and the world. Mezirow’s (1991)
premise reflection, critique that can pertain to “problem
posing as distinct from problem solving” correlate’s with
Larrivee’s (2008) critical reflection, the most exhaustive
level of reflection. Pedagogues at this level understand
all learning environments as part of the holistic world and
not separate aspects. Critical reflection includes
exploration of personal practice and practice in general,
from political, social and ethical perspectives (Larrivee,
2008). At this level, acceptance of new ideas are
considered working hypothesises to guide further action
inquire and not as a final conclusion (Dewey, 1910).
While the literature above identifies reflection as
happening in stages it must also be highlighted that levels
of reflection can fluctuate even within a single
conversation (Venninen, Leinonen, Ojala & Lipponen
(2012); Dineen, 2014). Table 2.2 represents levels of
thinking/learning from what may be considered lower
levels to higher levels:
Theorist Levels of Indicators
reflection/
learning
Dewey Uncritical thinking Action without
thought, adaption
1910
to suite different
situations is not
considered
Larrivee Pre-reflection Action without
thought adaption
2008
to suite different
situations is not

23
 considered
Larrivee Surface level Describes what
reflection works and does
2008
not work but does
not ask why
Mezirow Content reflection Examines the
content of a
1991
problem but not
how to solve it.
Argyris Single loop May reflect on
learning practice but will
1976
not question the
existing
operational
strategies, goal
orientated, follows
rules
Larrivee Pedagogical Based on current
reflection quality practice,
2008
theory and
research.
Mezirow Process reflection Examines the
procedures and
1991
strategies used in
problem solving
Argyris Double loop Questions existing
learning structures and
1976
thought processes,
has an altered
perspective on the
world

24
Mezirow Premise reflection Asks more
questions than are
1991
answered, a
problem posing
Larrivee Critical reflection Exploration of
practice from
2008
personal, general,
political, social and
ethical
perspectives
Dewey Critical reflection ‘Truth’ is a
working
1910
hypothesis to
guide further
investigation.
Table 2.2 Levels of reflection

VOoSC as presented here and influenced by Mezirow’s

(1991) transformative learning theory, is reflection on
action as Schön (1991; 1987) describes it. VOoSC
proposes to take participants from where they are, on any
level of reflection and support them along Mezirow’s
(1991) phases of transformative learning towards higher
levels of reflective thinking.

2.7 How to support reflective practice - Why VOoSC,

(Video observation of self and colleagues)?
By recognizing the social, economic, political,
psychological, and religious assumptions that
shape… [our meaning perspectives] …we can
reconstruct our personal frame of reference, our
self-concept, goals, and criteria for evaluating
change. New priorities for action are likely to
result. (Mezirow, 1978, p. 7)

25
Organisational structures, such as allocating time for
reflective practice and supporting pedagogues to engage
in professional discourse, are seen as necessary for
continuous professional development to take place (Stoll,
Bolam, McMahon, Wallace & Thomas, 2006; Cherrington,
2011; Dineen, 2014). Concrete experiences such as
scenarios, critical incidents, case studies and simulations
help ground critical thinking (Brookfield, 2012). Video
observation can offer these personal concrete experiences
by presenting critical incidents of actual and recent
practice to participants for reflection, allowing solid
connections to develop between thought, practice and
theory. Using video observation, for what Schön (1991)
called “reflection-on-action”, allows participants to receive
a more accurate representation of what actually happened
during practice, rather than relying on memory alone.
Being videoed is initially uncomfortable for most people,
however, if this initial discomfort can be overcome, great
learning can take place, particularly related to developing
higher quality interaction strategies with children, through
the use of video observation of practice (Kernan, n.d.).
This alternative external view can enhance participants
awareness of aspects in their practice that may have gone
unnoticed and potentially guide them into a deeper
reflective process, as previously highlighted (Argyris,
1976). Adults working with children are often unaware of
their pedagogical interaction strategies and video offers
an external perspective to support higher levels of
awareness and learning (DCCC, 2014). Mezirow (1990, p.
13) believed “perspective transformation occurs in
response to an externally imposed disorientating
dilemma”. Video observation, as the medium by which

26
the potential external imposition is delivered, offers the
opportunity for an alternative perspective of self and
colleague to be explored through discursion and personal
reflection.

2.8 Disorientating dilemma

Our interpretations, beliefs and ‘truths’ are often based on
our “meaning making apparatus”, the filing cabinet within
out head that does not just store information but uses
this existing knowledge to assign new meaning to our
interactions with the world (Fleming, 2016, p. 4).
Sometimes these meanings do not work and we may be
thrown into a disorientating dilemma, the term used by
Mezirow (1991) to describe a situation that may jolt
participants out of their comfort zone, creating the most
significant moments in critical thinking (Brookfield, 2012).
This dilemma is the catalytic moment in transformative
learning (Fleming, 2016, p. 4). Mezirow (1997) points
out that a disorientating dilemma can occur not only as a
result of an acute personal and social crises, but also
incrementally through an accumulation of transformed
meaning schemas.

2.9 Why in pairs?

Respectful, responsive, sensitive and reciprocal
interactions that lead to secure relationships between all
stakeholders are seen as central to holistic development
of people (NCCA, 2009;; Ministry of Education, 1996;
Cherrington, 2011; CECDE, 2006). Pultorak (2014) sees
observation, video analysis and peer feedback as
contributing factors to the creation of a rich reflective
environment where CPD can take place and Kernan (n.d)
highlights the increasing use of video in analysing

27
interactions, both child – child and adult – child
interactions as part of quality improvement programmes.
Critical thinking is shown to develop best in small groups,
where colleagues can share alternative perspectives on
topics and create new perspectives (Brookfield, 2012).
Schonfeld (2015, p. 17) explains how “peer-to-peer
reflection” provides a safe space for sharing and exploring
of dilemmas. Reviewing practice, the most important part
of learning, can be done alone during non-contact time,
however, a “critical friend, mentor or expert guide” who
will offer objective support to analyse practice can be of
greater benefit in CPD (Kernan, n.d.). While reviewing
the vignettes with a colleague may not offer objective
views, the researcher believed it would allow for a certain
level of objectivity to develop due to the external view
offered by VOoSC. The researcher also felt that
recognition must be given to, and value placed upon, the
empathic and subjective insight of colleagues, as they
have an insider’s perspective. Dirkx (2006, p. 283) calls
this “practice-based insider research” and Schön (1991)
the “reflective practitioner”. Practice-based insider
research recognises practice as the central focus of
research and sees observation and reflection as key to
developing new perspectives and ideas for practice based
problem resolution (Dirkx, 2006). In pairs, participants
would potentially be engaged with four primary
perspectives on any particular topic; each participant with
their own original perspective, before video observation
and each with their own post-video observation
perspective on the topic. This is of course dependant on
participants sharing perspectives openly (Stoll et. al,
2006, Cherrington, 2011, Dineen, 2014). Participants

28
newly acquired perspectives could offer varying platforms
to engage in reflective practice through discourse and
develop higher levels of reflective thinking. Working in
these small groups allows critical thinking to develop as a
social learning process (Brookfield, 2012). The
researcher, while an experienced and skilled pedagogue,
did not want to offer critique to participants during the
research. This was because it may take away from the
purity and transferability of the research and also, critique
received from an external source can often be perceived
as lacking a contextual and/or practical understanding of
the situation, thus is not openly received by pedagogues
(Clandinin & Connelly, as cited in Dirkx, 2006). Insider
critique from colleagues comes with an empathic
awareness of the context of interactions and a practical
understanding of the situations at hand in the learning
environment (Anderson & Herr, 1999). The facilitator’s
semi-structured maieutic method of questioning would
allow participants time to explore their own and possibly
each other’s perspectives and for discourse to evolve
during this exploration process. This shall be further
explained in the methodology chapter.

2.10 Critique of transformative learning theory

It has been argued that the roles of emotions and the
subconscious are absent from Mezirow’s theory of
transformative learning and that it lacked the social
contextual aspect of development (Dirkx, 1993).
However, Mezirow answered these critics by admitting
that intuition played a major role in individuals
recognising their disorientating dilemma in the first
instance (Taylor, cited in Gogia, 2012) and exclaiming

29
that transformative learning theory is a work in progress,
a collaborative process and “a continuing movement in
adult education” that requires ongoing revision and
expansion (Mezirow, 2004). Gogia (2012) also points out
that while Mezirow didn’t explore extrarational aspects in
his own writing he did encourage others to do so,
modelling critical discourse to help with the development
of transformative learning theory.
Dykstra (1993, p. 120) highlights Cunningham’s
argument of transformative learning theory being a form
of idealism, inflating individuals’ ethical values and belief
in their “humanitarian-technical skills”, but not
acknowledging the wicked problems the surrounding
ecological system creates through power dynamic
struggles outside the individuals’ control. This is a very
valid point and one that has a strong ethical resonance.
Should individuals be supported to reach higher levels of
reflective thinking if the surrounding supports are not
present in the ecological system to empower individuals
to enact through these new perspectives? The current
perspective of the researcher is one shared by Frankl
(1972):
…if we take man[kind] as he really is we make
him worse but if we overestimate him (pause
and audience laughing)… if we seem to be
idealist and are overestimating, overrating man
and looking at him that high (gestures up on the
blackboard) …you know what happens? We
promote him to what he really can be! So we
have to be idealist in a way (Goethe, cited by
Frankl, 1972)
Development of individuals’ levels of reflective
thinking leads to development of society (Dewey,
1910).

30
2.11 Challenges to development of higher levels of
reflection
As highlighted by Cherrington (2011) the problem of a
lack of time in early years’ practice is ever present. If
organisational leadership, structures, ethos and practices
do not value reflective practice as a way of developing
pedagogical practice, then engagement can often be the
biggest barrier to creating a learning culture (Stoll et al.,
2006).
The burning ethical question; should pedagogical
development towards higher levels of reflection be
supported, if the surrounding ecological system does not
support or desire the development of such thinkers? The
irony of course is that if it did support it, it wouldn’t be
needed. Rancière (1987) argues that not only should
individuals be supported towards higher levels of
reflective thinking irrespective of institutional support, but
that emancipation cannot be institutionalised, it cannot be
standardised and it cannot be thought by the
“knowledgeable” to the “ignorant”, instead the facilitator
must say “come on, work it out, I want you to solve this
riddle, …you know how to work things out: so try”
(Bowman, 2016, p134) and the ’ignorant’ learner must be
given the freedom to construct their continuously
emergent ‘truth’. This maieutic method of facilitation is
what VOoSC promotes and provides; an emergent
framework that by its nature cannot be static, but offers
instead, the catalytic converter from which transformation
emerges.

31
2.12 Risks associated with reflection
As highlighted above, reflective practice is widely
recognised as a central process in continuous professional
development, services development and societal
development. However, these rewards do not come
without risks. Rodgers (2002) emphasises the
importance of self-reflection, but cautions that it is only
one aspect of the reflective process, and unless it can be
contextualised and connected to reflection with others and
practice, there is a risk of self-absorbed narcissism
developing. Brookfield (1995) has identified four risks
associated with individuals developing higher levels of
reflective thinking. These are, cultural suicide,
roadrunning, lost innocence and imposter syndrome.
Cultural suicide happens when the reflective process takes
a participant an alternative direction to what is the
cultural and social norm amongst peers and may lead to
exclusion from the group. Roadrunning may happen
incrementally where a participant takes two steps forward
and one step back, two steps forward and three steps
back and feels they cannot progress any further and are
unfamiliar with where they are. Lost innocence comes
about through a realisation that not only do they not have
the correct answers to ongoing dilemmas, but there may
be multiple solutions, a definitive solution may not exist
or they do not have the power, due to environmental
restrictions, to enact their potential solution. This can
leave participants feeling betrayed by reflective practice
and their own development. Imposter syndrome happens
when participants doubt themselves and their abilities as
pedagogues, while keeping a façade of competence, thus
feeling like they are imposters. Schonfeld (2015, p. 58)

32
identifies the “potentially stressful and ethically
challenging nature of reflection” and advocates for
reflection not to be rushed and elucidates to the
importance of participants feeling safe when challenging
their own practice.

Conclusion
Literature from an Irish and international early childhood
education perspective advocates for the inclusion of
reflective practice on a practical level as it essential for
the development of quality practice (NCCA, 2009; CECDE,
2006; Government of Ireland, 2002; DCCC, 2014;
Mitchell & Cubey, 2003). This argument has been
strengthened by highlighting the influence reflective
thinking and practice development for the individual
pedagogue can have on societal development (Dewey,
1910; Rodgers, 2002). However, what reflective practice
exactly is and how to do it has not been made clear
(Rogers, 2002; Loughran, 2002; Larrivee, 2008; Roth,
Lawless and Masciotra, 2001).

Learning is the continuous construction and reconstruction

of people’s development paradigms; taking place through
the unceasing interactions between people and their
environments, happening in stages and best grounded in
experience (Piaget, 1928; Argyris, 1976; Kolb, 1984;
Taylor, 2002; Brookfield, 1995; Mezirow, 1991). Types of
reflection and levels of reflection have been explicated,
including reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action
(Schön, 1991), spielraum (Roth, Lawless and Masciotra,
2001), uncritical thinking and critical thinking (Dewey,
1910), process and premise reflection (Mezirow, 1991)

33
and pre, surface, pedagogical and critical levels of
reflection (Larrivee, 2008). The seemingly inseparable
connection between higher levels of learning and higher
levels of reflective thinking has been explained and how
to support reflective practice has been elucidated to
(Stoll, Bolam, McMahon, Wallace & Thomas, 2006),
Cherrington (2011), Dineen (2014), Schonfeld (2015) and
Brookfield (2012) have emphasised the importance of
organisational structures that support reflective practice.

The use of video to identify areas of practice where

improvements can be made has been influential in
developing quality in early years’ education (DCCC,
2014). Essentially, these quality improvements come
about through adult’s learning about themselves, their
colleagues and then using this new knowledge to
transform themselves and their way of working (Mezirow,
1991). Mezirow’s (1991) ten phases of transformative
learning are presented here as guide on which the VOoSC
framework is based. Initial video observation, of oneself
and colleague, has been identified as the potential
catalytic moment that may induce a “disorientating
dilemma”, the first vital phase of Mezirow’s (1991) ten
phases of transformative learning and engage participants
in a personal development process.

Literature presented has explicated the advantages of

working in pairs, including peer feedback (Pultorak,
2014), context based insider critique (Anderson & Herr,
1999; Dirkx, 2006; Schön, 1991), enhanced critical
thinking (Brookfield, 2012), developing CPD (Kernan,
n.d.) and developing reciprocal relationships between all

34
stakeholders through the development of these areas
(NCCA, 2009; Ministry of Education, 1996; Cherrington,
2011; CECDE, 2006). It was also emphasised (Schonfeld,
2015; Clandinin & Connelly, as cited in Dirkx, 2006) that
critique from a peer can often be more openly received
than critique from an external source. Criticism of
transformative learning and risks of challenges to
reflection have been identified and defended, with the key
moral question being; should individuals be supported to
reach higher levels of reflection if appropriate external
environmental support is not present? This is a
potentially disorientating question in itself and many of
the theorists above have based their seminal work on
closely related areas, but the researcher’s view is that,
yes, individual development should still be supported, as
Individual development leads to societal development
(Frankl, 1972; Dewey, 1910). Fleming (2016) identifies
the important role the facilitator has as a precipitator of a
disorientating dilemma. The style of questioning used by
the facilitator, as well as a thorough rationalization of the
methodological approach shall be explained in the
following chapter.

Table 2.3 below illustrates the main theorists and the

aspects of their work considered by the researcher in this
chapter and in support of this piece of research;

Anderson & Insider critique – contextual empathic

Herr, 1999 awareness
Argyris, Single loop learning, double loop learning,
1976, 2002 unplanned reflection
Boud & Criticism of outcomes focused approaches
Walker,
1991

35
Bowman, Rancière – emancipatory learning
2016
Brookfield, Risks of reflection - cultural suicide,
1995 roadrunning, lost innocence and imposter
2012 syndrome
Concrete experiences to learn from, critical
incidents, critical thinking develops in small
groups
CECDE, Promotes self-reflection on current practice
2006 for early years’ pedagogues
Cherrington, The roll of planning for reflective practice,
2011 non-contact time
DCCC, 2014 Pedagogues are unaware of practice,
promotes video observation, reflective
practice is for the whole team
de Bono, Excellent but not enough, development of a
2011 beautiful mind
Dewey, Uncritical thinking, critical thinking,
1910 experiential learning, reflection is to hunt
for evidence, societal development, truth is
emergent
Dineen, Unstructured reflection, non-contact time
2014
DJELR, 2002 Highlights the need for reflective
collaboration between stakeholders
Dolci, 1973 Maieutic approach – eliciting knowledge
Dirkx, 2006 Risks of outsider ‘expert’ critique
Dweck, Growth mindset
2015
Dykstra, Cunningham – critique of Mezirow’s
1993 idealism lacking a holistic ecological view
European Reflective competences are needed by
Commission, pedagogues and services, joint learning
Directorate- and critical reflection
General for
Education
and Culture,
2011
Fallon, 2005 Need for early years’ care in the 1970’s –
female workforce increase
Fleming, Facilitator’s role in precipitating the
2016 disorientating dilemma, meaning
perspectives
Frankl, 1972 We must be idealist
Gogia, 2012 Reframing the questions – affecting the
thought process
Hayes, 2007 Learning takes place in context, reflective

36
 practice is central to development,
developing confident reflective pedagogues,
development from within services
Kernan, n.d. Benefits of overcoming the discomfort of
being video recorded, critical friend –
objective support
Larrivee Levels of reflection - Pre, surface,
2008, 2000 pedagogical, critical
Contextual learning, critique from students
and colleagues
Lewin 1940s Action research, experiential learning -
observation - reflection -feedback
Loughran, Reflective practice has diverse meaning,
2002 make meaning from reflection on real
experiences
McMonagle Advocated for everybody in the service
(2012) developing reflective practices
Mezirow, Transformative learning theory -
1991 disorienting dilemma - ten phases of
transformative learning, critical dialectical
judgement, content, process and premise
reflection, reflective thinking, reconstruct
perspectives
Ministry of Respectful, secure, responsive relationships
Education,
1996
Mitchell & Using video to support reflective practice
Cubey, 2003
NCCA, 2009 Promotes respectful, negotiated and
reflective learning for all stakeholders,
pedagogical interaction strategies
Peters, 2001 Wittgenstein – shift in thinking
Piaget, Assimilation, accommodation, active
1976, 2009 learning, schema
Pultorak, Promotes video observation, peer feedback
2014
Rancière, Emancipatory education
Rogers, Lack of clarity on reflection, reflection for
2002 societal development, contextualising
reflection
Roth, Spielraum – creating space to find solutions
Lawless and
Masciotra,
2001
Schön, Tacit knowledge, reflection-in-action,
1991, 1987 reflection-on-action
Problem solving exploration through

37
 discussion
Schonfeld, Advocates for support for reflective practice
2015 and highlights the possibilities of peer-to-
peer reflection on dilemmas
Stoll, Bolam, The role of organisational structures in
McMahon, facilitating reflective practice, participants
Wallace & openness
Thomas,
2006
Taylor, 2002 Schemas, perspective transformation,
disorientating dilemma
Unicef, 2003 The importance of social learning
Vygotsky Learning happens through social
(1978) interactions
Table 2.3 Influential theorists and associated concepts

38
Chapter Three: Methodology
Chapter 3: Methodology
Introduction
This chapter outlines the methodology used in this
research piece. The mixed method action research
design, incorporating ethnography, phenomenology and
holistic interpretation is detailed and explained. Access,
ethics and the selection process for primary participants is
described. The thinking behind a semi-structured
facilitation style of video-observation sessions is
explicated and the schedule of the sessions and guiding
questions are presented in detail. The audio data
collection process is described and the method of data
analysis is outlined with an example of coding offered.
Initial discussion focuses on accessing potential research
participants, the necessary planning and associated
challenges regarding the surrounding structures of early
years’ education settings and finding participants to
partake in the research. Following this, the establishment
of a base line of participants’ reflective thinking levels
using questionnaires shall be explained, before detailing
the primary aspect of the research, the Video Observation
of Self and Colleague(s) (VOoSC) sessions. VOoSC in
essence is an emergent framework for reflective practice,
and purposeful reflective practice by its nature should
help develop thinking abilities and reflect back on the
development of what is thought and ‘taught’. VOoSC
facilitates participants to engage in reflective practice and
in order to measure its efficacy, participants’ levels of
reflective thinking were measured. Answers to pre and
post-VOoSC questionnaires were compared and
contrasted to gain an understanding of participants’
reflective thinking at the end of the final session. The

39
Methodology concludes with an explanation of how the
qualitative and quantitative data collected were analysed
and presented.
The methodology of this research piece was selected by
the researcher in response to the research questions
identified at the outset.

The researcher was of the view that this methodology

would best generate data that might answer the
overarching research questions;
1. Can video observation of one’s own and colleagues
practice be a catalyst for participants’ initial engagement
in what Mezirow (1991) described as “transformative
learning”?

2. Can the facilitator’s semi-structured, maieutic style of

questioning, influenced by Dolci (1973), Mezirow (1991),
Driscoll (1994) and Larrivee (2008), support transition
along Mezirow’s (1991) ten phases of transformative
learning?

3. Can Video Observation of Self and Colleague(s)

(VOoSC) be used as a framework to support reflective
practice?

3.1 Research design

This piece of research utilised a mixed methods action
research approach, the approach recognised the
complexities associated with continuous professional
development within the early childhood education sector,
a sector that is endouvering towards professionalism. The
action research approach used was grounded in the
experiential accounts of pedagogues (McNiff, 2009). This
ethnographic phenomenological approach, with a holistic

40
interpretative aspect (Wiersma & Jurs, 2005) generated
in-depth qualitative data which was intended to align the
research within a social science paradigm. A quantitative
dimension was threaded through questionnaires and when
combined with ethnographic observations, constructed a
mixed method approach that allowed the researcher to
triangulate data and reduce possible biases that an
interpretative qualitative approach alone may have
(Denzin, 2009). The specific context of the organisation,
service and individual research participants was taken into
account by the researcher. Qualitative researchers
explore the “how?” in social science and argue for a more
socially constructed view of it (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008).
Phenomenologic approach used was the most appropriate
method of exploring pedagogical practice, it was an active
approach to capturing personal adjustments to lived
experiences (Van Manen, 1990) and was a unique way of
seeing the world through the eyes of participants (Drever,
2003) . As suggested by Braun and Clarke (2006),
individuals making meaning from their reality, influenced
by social context, was acknowledged through the use of a
contextualised thematic analysis method and positioned
between that of a constructivist and a realist approach.
The action research approach in this research has been
identified (Dineen, 2014) as a necessary characteristic in
the continuous development of early years’ education in
Ireland. The video ethnographic approach viewed the
research from the perspective of the participant and
added an immense richness, as it was a “direct
observation” method (Bromley, Adams, Brekke, 2016,
p.2). Jackson (2013) considers approaches such as video
ethnography as the highest standard for ecological

41
validity. Ecological validity is “the extent to which
research can be generalized to real-life situations”
(Jackson, 2013, p. 439). The ethnographic approach
used was not only guided by theory, but also includes
participant generated locally applied theory, as well as
theory generated through observation of participants and
it can be adapted and used in other environments
(Schensul, Schensul & LeCompte,1999). McNiff (2009)
encourages such research and sees “the development of
new epistemologies for a new scholarship of education
knowledge that is grounded in the accounts of
practitioners” as central in the development of education
and society.

3.2 Access, ethics and consent

3.21 Ethical issues

Ethical approval for this study was received from the
Research Ethics Committee at Trinity College Dublin on
January 27th, 2016 (Appendix A). Gate keeper consent
was provided (Appendix C). Participation in the research
was on a voluntary basis and any participant was free to
withdraw at any stage throughout the research, by
contacting the researcher directly through email or in
person, or contacting the management of the service
where research was taking place, by phone, email or in
person. All participants were informed that data would be
stored securely and video data would be destroyed after
thesis results were received in winter 2016; parent
information (Appendix D). Parents provided informed
consent for each of the fourteen children present in the
preschool room during recording (Appendix E). The two
primary research participants, the reserve participant and

42
a community worker who would be present during some
of the recording sessions provided and submitted
informed consent (Appendix F). A short researcher
biography, to further inform and familiarise stakeholders
with the researcher and the research process was made
visible on the door where video recording took place
(Appendix F). Another more detailed research brief was
placed on the services notice board (Appendix H).

3.22 Participants and Access

The initial population of interest to the researcher were
adults (18+ years) interacting with early years’ children
(0-6 years) in an educational capacity on a daily basis
(4+ days a week). This includes pedagogues, parents,
adult carers, junior and senior infant primary school
teachers and extended adult family. The research could
have taken place in an early years’ educational service,
infant class or the home learning environment.
To establish a sampling frame the researcher first sent an
email to four past lecturers, who were now involved at
two separate Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) in
Ireland, asking for their help with finding suitable
candidates that might be interested in participating in the
research. From the responses, one organisation, Crann,
that had seven early years’ services stood out as being
the most suitable. It was felt that seven services would
provide a suitable sampling frame for the research. The
lecturer that provided this suggestion was on the board of
management of the organisation and introduced the
researcher and CEO of Crann. A meeting was arranged
between the researcher, CEO and the general manager of

43
the early years’ services. The outcome of the meeting
was that the organisation would support the research.
The Initial Online Questionnaire (IOQ) (Appendix I) was
distributed to each of their seven services with
instructions and a hyperlink to take pedagogues to the
questionnaire. The questionnaire would provide initial
baseline data on the levels of reflective thinking and
practice in the organisation and the final question on the
questionnaire asked if candidates would be interested in
partaking in the VOoSC aspect of the research. Aspects
of a later to be completed, Original Baseline Questionnaire
(OBQ) (Appendix J) would offer a more detailed insight
into participants’ levels of reflective thinking. Seven
individual responses to the IOQ were returned and three
expressed an interest in the VOoSC aspect of the
research. These three were in different services and
additional support was needed to find suitable
participants. The general manager had identified two
service managers that she felt would be enthusiastic
about participating. The researcher visited the service,
that it was felt would be most supportive, met with the
manager and staff and progress began towards a start
date. One of the seven initial survey respondents was
working in this service and her colleague working with the
same group of children agreed to participate too.
Unfortunately this did not progress to the VOoSC research
stage due to availability of participants. The second
interested service was visited and one of the initial survey
participants who expressed an interest in VOoSC
participation worked there. Her colleague also agreed,
however due to circumstances beyond the researcher’s or
the services control research could not take place in that

44
service. A third service was visited by the researcher
where the manager and assistant manager were both
open to supporting the research by providing non-contact
time for two of their staff, once a week for five weeks for
a period of 1hr 30 minutes on the condition that their
staff agreed. They were also open to video recording
being used in the room where the two potential
participants worked together, as long as parent consent
for children was given. The online survey had been seen
by the potential participants but had not been completed
by them. The research was explained to the potential
participants, Cáit and Úna (not their actual names), and
they agreed to take part. They completed the online
survey as did a third colleague, Kevin, (not his real name)
who expressed interest in participation should Cáit or Úna
be unable to participate. The next phase was acquiring
parental consent for the children who would be present in
the room where recording was taking place once a week
for five weeks.

3.23 Consent for children to participate

The researcher biography and research brief gave all
stakeholders an insight into proceedings. The
researcher’s photograph on the biography meant that
people knew who the researcher was before speaking in
person, and children asked staff about the photograph.
The researcher also explained the research proposal to
children in person when he purposefully went into the
room where recording took place. This happened
throughout the two weeks prior to video recording
commencing. During casual conversation the researcher
asked children if it was okay to video record the fun they

45
have during the day. Children said yes it was yes it was
okay. The researcher also met parents, guardians and
grandparents in person, over a period of seven working
days, during drop off and collection to provide the
informed consent forms, to explain the research in person
and establish a base relationship with
parents/guardians/grandparents. Any questions were
answered by the researcher and informed consent was
initially given for thirteen children. Some signed consent
forms once the research was explained and some took the
consent form home to read and show it to their partners
and brought it back within a few days. One of the
children’s parents did not provide consent initially and it
was agreed that the child would be moved to another
preschool room during recording. However, when the
management explained the research to the parent again
he consented to his child being present during recording.
This brought the maximum number of children that would
be present during any of the five recording sessions to
fourteen.

3.24 The relationship between participants and

researcher
The researcher’s presence in the service over the two
week period prior to video recording and video
observation commencing was key to establishing a
trusting working relationship with all stakeholders in the
service, especially parents so they feel their children are
safe and also importantly, Cáit and Úna. This included
the researcher expanding on the provided biography when
asked and also discussing common interests and working
histories through casual conversation with staff in the
staff room.

46
3.4 Research methods
A mixed methods approach was used: qualitative video
observation of self and colleague with discursive peer
collaboration was combined with four questionnaires,
including a retrospective baseline questionnaire (RBQ)
(Appendix K) which shall be explained further down
(Section 3.41). The questionnaires were used to establish
a pre-VOoSC baseline and a post-VOoSC level of reflective
thinking in order to add an additional dimension to the
picture provided by data from the VOoSC sessions.
An educator is essentially an expert in maieutics,
by which is meant a process of collective
exploration, both theoretical and practical, and
which takes as its starting point the experience
and the intuition of the individual.
(Dolci, 1973, p. 140)
The semi-structured VOoSC sessions used a methodology
grounded in Mezirow’s (1991) ten phases of
transformative learning. These ten phases combined with
facilitator’s maieutic interview strategy (Dolci, 1973) also
included a model of reflection that asks “What, So what,
Now what” Driscoll (1994) and provided a solid guiding
framework which supported the facilitator deliver the
VOoSC sessions. These concepts delivered together in
collaboration with video observation offered an emergent
framework to support reflective practice in early year
pedagogues, allowing participants the opportunity to
thoroughly express themselves (Drever, 2003). An
observation of VOoSC itself may be considered an
observation of reflective practice, however, this
phenomenological research, while acknowledging the
structures that allowed VOoSC to happen, is in fact

47
studying the influence of VOoSC on participants’ reflective
thinking. These findings were then used as a
measurement to gauge the success of VOoSC as a
framework to support quality reflective practice, which
should enhance levels of reflective thinking (Brookfield,
2012; Larrivee 2008). The purpose of observing
participants observing themselves through video was to
establish whether or not video, combined with the
maieutic method of questioning would have an identifiable
influence or not in the development of higher levels of
reflective thinking and possibly facilitate movement
towards transformative learning for early year
pedagogues. Having two diverse collection methods
allowed the data to be triangulated, providing the
researcher with more data upon which interpretations
were made. Research participants were informed about
the research, the scene was set and any questions were
answered.

3.41 Baseline
The initial online questionnaire (IOQ), seeking to recruit
participants, and original baseline questionnaire (OBQ),
once participants were recruited, were first piloted with
three graduates of an early years’ education, honours
degree course. Recommendations from pilot participants
were reviewed and adjustments made accordingly.
Specific corresponding questions (Section 4.3) from the
IOQ were used jointly with OBQ to deepen the
researcher’s understanding of participants’ baseline of
reflective thinking. The online questionnaire included
aspect from “Survey of Reflective Practice: A Tool for
Assessing Development as a Reflective Practitioner, Self

48
assessment” (Larrivee, 2008, pp. 353-356) and the OBQ
was an abridged version of the same questionnaire. As
identified in literature (Dewey, 1910; Schön, 1991;
Mezirow, 1991) reflective thinking happens in stages,
what Larrivee (2008) describes as levels. The researcher
selected Larrivee’s (2008) four levels of reflection,
deciding that the language and definitions of pre-
reflection, surface reflection, pedagogical reflection and
critical reflection, were most suited to this research and
are the identifiable categories used to establish
participants’ levels of reflection throughout. The
researcher decided that Larrivee’s entire fifty three
question “Survey of Reflective Practice: A Tool for
Assessing Development as a Reflective Practitioner, Self
assessment” (Larrivee, 2008, pp. 353-356) was more
extensive than that desired or required for this piece of
research. An abridged version was designed by the
researcher to be more appropriate to this research piece
in order to retain participants’ interest and to allow the
next processes of the research to take place within the
limited amount of non-contact time available and
allocated by service management.

Larrivee’s original questionnaire consisted of fifty-three

questions: fourteen questions at level 1, the pre-reflection
section; eleven questions at level 2, the surface reflection
section; fourteen questions at level 3, the pedagogical
reflection section and fourteen questions at level 4, the
critical reflection section. Twenty questions were used in
the OBQ, five at each level were believed by the
researcher to adequately represent each level of
reflection.

49
The OBQ (Appendix J) was also slightly modified to place
a greater emphasis on reflective thinking rather than
predominately reflective practice, as Larrivee’s did. While
there is an aspect of reflective practice measurement
evident in both the IOQ and OBQ, and the data collected
during the VOoSC sessions, this is primarily
representative of participants’ perceptions of their
reflective practice and not actually data on practice.
Thus, the levels of reflective thinking are what are being
measured as an indicator of the influence VOoSC has on
participants’ levels of reflective thinking development.
These measurements will provide an insight into the
efficacy of VOoSC as an emergent framework to facilitate
reflective practice.
The OBQ was presented to participants at the beginning
of the first VOoSC session, before participants had viewed
any footage.

A comparison of the OBQ and Larrivee’s full questionnaire

are available (Appendix M). The final adapted questions
of the OBQ in the left column, the corresponding
questions from Larrivee (2008) in the central column and
Larrivee’s entire set of questions in the right hand
column. The questions have been divided up according to
levels of reflection.
However, during completion of the OBQ, participants
needed more than expected support from the researcher
and while it was not felt that validity of the OBQ was
compromised, the researcher decided that the
Retrospective Baseline Questionnaire (RBQ) was
necessary. The RBQ had rewording of apparently over
complicated questions and would be presented to the

50
participants after the final VOoSC session in order to
triangulate the baseline of reflective thinking with the
OBQ answers. When the RBQ and the OBQ were
compared, there were some substantial discrepancies.
Following a pilot of the RBQ negative phrasing questions
were removed, as participants required additional
explanation and examples in order to complete such
questions in the OBQ. Also, one extra question was
added to the RBQ that was felt the OBQ lacked. This
additional question offered a measurement of participants’
openness to critiquing colleagues. All of the other twenty
questions in the RBQ corresponded with the OBQ, the
only thing that changed was the way the question was
asked. For example, in the Original Baseline
Questionnaire participants were asked:
I am an early year pedagogue who:
13) Does not thoughtfully connect my actions in
the learning environment with children’s
learning or behaviour.
Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

Instead, in the Retrospective Base Line Questionnaire,

participants were asked:

What were your views before you started the Video

Observation sessions?
Please circle Frequently, Sometimes or
Infrequently, as was most closely matched to your
views before you began the Video Observation
sessions.

And the corresponding question was phrased as;

13) I connected my actions in the early years’
environment with children’s learning or
behaviour.
Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

Entire RBQ is viewable in the appendices (Appendix K)

51
3.42 The setting
The video recordings took place in a preschool room in an
early years’ service. The room had a floor area of 52m2,
it was modelled on a HighScope design, which promotes
the use of diverse, open-ended materials that are labelled
and organised and encourages children to develop
independence (HighScope Educational Research
Foundation, n.d.). The room contained two table top
working areas for creative art, puzzles, writing, fantasy
play, small group time etc. It also included a
book/relaxing area, a sand box, a block/construction area,
miniature fantasy characters, miniature plastic animals, a
dress up area and shelves with many other
developmentally appropriate engaging materials and
resources for the group. All of these diverse areas flowed
into each other creating a singular learning environment
to support many areas of children’s development. During
the five video recording sessions, there were a maximum
of fourteen children, two leading pedagogues and one
assisting pedagogue in the room. As is the nature with
early years’ education other adults briefly entered the
room during recording. These included one parent,
management and other early years’ staff for varying
reasons.

3.43 Video recording

Video recording was captured with a Sony digital HD video
camera recorder, model number: HDR-CX130E, wide
angle lens and stored on a TDK 64GB micro SDXC card in
a AVCHD format; Frame width: 1440; Frame height:
1080; Frame rate: 25 frames/second. The video
recording sessions happened once over five weeks for a

52
period of approximately an hour, and during different
times of the morning. Three sessions were recorded from
9:30 –10:30am and two sessions from 10:15 – 11:15am
approximately. As the room was an “L” shape, the
camera was initially set up in the corner that allowed
picture and sound from both sides of the “L” shaped room
to be captured. This had been previously trialled without
children in the room. This initial positioning also captured
morning circle time. As more activity happened in a
specific area of the room between 10:15 and 11:15 the
camera was moved closer to that to that area for two
recording sessions in order to more accurately capture
what was happening.

3.44 VOoSC Sessions (The facilitator’s role)

As highlighted (Section 2.9), video observation and peer
feedback are contributing factors towards the emergence
of a high quality environment that supports holistic
development of children and adults through reflective
practice (Pultorak, 2014; Kernan, n.d.; DCCC, 2014). The
semi-structured facilitation style was informed by the
research questions. Open ended, general questions were
initially asked to aid participants relax and tea and coffee
were provided to participants. A maieutic facilitation style
that aimed to elicit participants’ knowledge and/or
support the creation of intersubjective knowledge
between participants was used (Dolci, 1973). While a
true maieutic style may involve calculated critique of the
knowledge developers’ (participants’) beliefs by the
facilitator, the style used in this research more so
encouraged participants to create their own critique, to

53
allow intelligence play a part in the acquisition of
knowledge (Dewey, 1910, p. 52). This style is one that
provides flexibility and promotes open interaction and
discursion between participants (Drever, 2003).
However, in order to avoid losing track of the original
research focus, a potential risk of phenomenology
highlighted by Van Manen (1990), guiding questions were
incorporated. These questions influenced by shared
concepts from Mezirow (1991), Driscoll (1994) and
Larrivee (2008) supported participants in movement
along Mezirow’s ten phases of transformative learning
(1991). Borton’s (1970) model of reflection “grew out of
attempts to systematize intuition”, a model grounded in
practice rather than in scientific validity. This “What, So
What, Now what” model was further developed by Driscoll
(1994), influenced by Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning
model. Driscoll’s (1994, pp. 47-50) model of reflection
was influential in facilitating the sessions. In its simplest
form it asks “What, So what Now what” and was believed
by the researcher to be most appropriate, as it potentially
allowed answers to correlate with Mezirow’s ten phases of
transformative learning. Driscoll (1994) suggested open-
ended questions, these support participants’ development
of thought and the answers provide more detailed
information from the participants’ perspectives on the
observed vignettes, from which the researcher can make
associated interpretations.
These questions are presented in Table 3.1:

54
Returning to the  exactly occurred in your
situation – What... words?
 did you see? did you do?
 was your reaction?
 is the purpose of returning to
this situation?
 did other people do?
colleagues, children, visitors
 do you see as key aspects of
this situation?

Understanding the  were your feelings at the

context – So what... time?
 are your feelings now? are
there any differences? why?
 were the effects of what you
did (or did not do)?
 went well in the situation, for
self/others?
 troubles you, if anything,
about what you saw?
 were your experiences in
comparison to your
colleagues, etc.?
 are the main reasons for
feeling differently from your
colleagues etc.?

Modifying future  needs to happen to alter the

outcomes – Now situation?

55
what...  might you do differently if
faced with a similar situation
again?
 are the implications for you,
your colleagues, the patient
etc.?
 are you going to do about the
situation?
 happens if you decide not to
alter anything?
 information do you need to
face a similar situation again?
 are your best ways of getting
further information about the
situation should it arise
again?

Table 3.1 Adapted from Driscoll (1994, pp. 47-50)

A selection of Driscoll’s questions was correlated with

Mezirow’s (1991) ten phases of transformative learning,
as described in the literature (Introduction section), to
create the facilitator’s guiding questions. The
researcher’s intention was to combine these questions
with video observation in order to facilitate participants’
movement through Mezirow’s transformative learning
phases, starting with the disorientating dilemma phase.
Participants were given a reflective journal each before
the first VO session to be used to write down their
perspectives on topics guided by the facilitator’s
questions, writings didn’t need to be full sentences and
words or points would suffice to support participants’

56
further engagement in VOoSC. Initially participants were
instructed to keep their perspectives confidential. A short
vignette, of approximately thirty seconds from the video
recording, was played and the following questions were
used by the facilitator, with the goal of supporting
participants experience the first phase, the disorientating
dilemma, and move through Mezirow’s phases of
transformative learning. Italicised after each of the
following ten questions is the potential corresponding
phase of transformative learning (Mezirow, 1991) the
researcher intended participants to experience.
1) What jumps out at you? Your initial
feelings/thoughts after viewing. Possible
disorientating dilemma/Self-examination
2) Why do you think you feel like that? Self-
examination, reflection
3) How does this relate to what might be considered
“good practice”? assessment of epistemic,
sociocultural, or psychic assumptions
4) Do you agree or disagree with this? What would
you change? Assessment of epistemic, sociocultural,
or psychic assumptions
Then participants were asked who would like to go first
and read out what they have written down. Discussion
between participants may happen before both read out
what they have written down but both should receive
opportunity to share their individual perspectives.
Whether participants engage in discourse or not, the next
questions either guide discourse or support its
emergence, thus creating an environment for cognitive
development through social interaction (Vygotsky, 1978).

57
 5) What points did you both share and what points
were different? Recognition of shared discontent
6) What other possibilities did you have in relation to
how you worked? Exploration of options
7) How could you progress with these new ideas?
Planning a course of action/Acquisition of knowledge
and necessary skills to implement this plan
Support through phases eight, nine and ten was given
through hypothetical questions, this was because the
study was predominantly focusing on the development of
reflective thinking.
8) What would this allow you to do? Provision trying of
new roles
9) And where do you see that leading to? Building of
competence and self-confidence in new roles and
relationships
10) How do you see these areas influencing the way you
work in Early Years Education? What influence do
you see your perspectives having on your career
and early years’ education? A reintegration into
one’s life on the basis of conditions dictated by
one’s perspective
These questions could potentially be asked after every
vignette, however, the important thing is reading the
willingness of participants to continue to engage and not
overloading them with questions. The emotional
engagement with phase one, the disorientating dilemma
and phase two, self-examination with feelings of guilt or
shame can be energy sapping and it is important not to
rush through the phases but support the participants
when they are ready.

58
3.5 Data collection process
All data collection took place in one early years’ education
and care service. This was a community funded full day,
ECCE scheme funded and afterschool service. The ECCE
scheme is a government initiative “…designed to give
children access to a free pre-school year of appropriate
programme based activities in the year before they start
primary school” (DCYA, web a). Fifty-eight children from
3 months to 6 years of age attended the service at the
time of research, of whom a maximum of fourteen from
one preschool room were present during video recording.
Video recording of participants practice took place Monday
or Tuesday in the same room over five consecutive
weeks. A selection of vignettes from the weekly video
were made and presented to participants at the weekly
VOoSC sessions. These sessions took place Thursday
every week for five consecutive weeks in one of two
possible rooms allocated by management of the service.
The primary data analysed in this research is from the
audio recordings of the five VOoSC sessions that the two
VOoSC participants and the facilitator took part in. Other
data was collected from the IOQ, OBQ, RBQ, participants’
diary entries during VOoSC sessions and the Post-VOoSC
questionnaire (PVQ) (Appendix L). The primary research
participants Úna and Cáit were recorded together for
Session 1, 3, 4 and 5 which were guided by the
Facilitator. Cáit was unable to attend Session 2,
therefore, only Úna and the Facilitator were audio
recorded for that that session.

59
3.6 Data analysis
As explicated above (Section 3.41), the RBQ was
formulated and completed by participants after VOoSC
Session 5. The concept for each individual question
remained the same between the OBQ and the RBQ but
the language and style of questioning was simplified. One
extra question was added in to the RBQ and a
corresponding question was added into the PVQ. This
question was in relation to participants critiquing their
colleagues’ pedagogical practice.
Data from the IOQ and OBQ (and later the RBQ) were
interpreted using Larrivee’s (2008) levels of reflection and
a baseline for participants’ levels of reflection was
established. The RBQ was judged by the researcher to be
the more accurate representation of participants’ baseline
of reflective thinking, thus, was compared and contrasted
with the PVQ to provide the researcher with participants’
interpretation of their own thinking development from a
pre-VOoSC stage to a post-VOoSC stage.
Audio data from the five VOoSC sessions was transcribed
by the researcher and copies of the journals participants
used during the VOoSC sessions were also taken. The
researcher made audio notes after every session and
these were useful in reminding the researcher of his initial
feelings and thoughts after every session.
While there are elements of a purist approach, with
themes emerging from the data being used, an
interpretive interactionist approach that is guided by the
literature and interview questions (Denzin, 2001) and
compared with Mezirow’s (1991) ten phases of
transformative learning and Larrivee’s (2008) levels of
reflection are dominant in analysis. The method of coding

60
used was adapted from Saldaña (2009, p.4), an example
of which is presented in table 3.2. The narrative in the
left column is a continuous text that has been broken up
and presented in the table format for clarity, the
corresponding interpretive emergent concept is in the
right column:
Narrative Corresponding
interpretation
1
My cousin Barry, went through 1. Difficult time
a really tough time around the
end of fifth class

2
In school he was a people- 2. Teacher’s pet
pleaser and
his teachers loved him to death.

3
Two boys in particular that he 3. Bad influences
chose to try to emulate, were
not very good for him.
4
They were very critical of him, 4. Bullying
they put him down all the time,
and he kind of just took that
internalised it
5
In that time period, in fifth 5. The lost boy
class, they really just kind of
shunned him all together, and so
his network as he knew it was
gone.

Table 3.2 adapted from Saldaña (2009, p.4)

61
Transcribing and coding happened between sessions and
also after the final session. Themes emerged from the
sessions both during transcription and coding. Decoding,
reflecting on data to decipher its meaning and encoding,
labelling the data appropriately (Saldaña, 2009) often
happened in unison and at times during transcription.
The coded themes from all five VOoSC sessions were
grouped together and aligned with both Mezirow’s (1991)
ten phases of transformative learning and Larrivee’s
(2008) levels of reflection in order to interpret and
understand participants’ development in relation to these
theories. Direct quotes from the five VOoSC sessions
were mapped onto the particular phases of Mezirow’s
theory, and a linking interpretative statement from the
researcher’s perspective was attached. Using Larrivee’s
(2008) explication of levels of reflection, the researcher
then identified the corresponding level that the
participants displayed. Often different levels of reflection
can be visible in a single statement (Venninen et. al,
2012; Dineen, 2014). Original corresponding audio
recordings were often revisited to ensure that the context
of the transcribed data was accurately captured and
understood. To gain a deeper understanding of the data
it was further analysed, compared and contrasted with
other relevant literature. For example: Brookfield (1995)
in relation to risks associated with reflection Schonfeld
(2015) in relation to the stress participants may
experience during reflection, Schön (1991) in relation to
types of reflection.

62
Conclusion
This chapter has outlined the ethnographic,
phenomenologic and holistic interpretative approach
underpinning this action research study, grounded in
participants’ experiences (McNiff, 2009). The research
design, research methods, access, ethics, sampling, data
collection and data analysis have all been explained and
the choice of methodology has been justified. The
interpretive interactionist approach guided by Denzin
(2001) and linking back to the studies central literature
from Mezirow (1991) have been emphasised. The central
literature of Mezirow’s ten phases of transformative
learning shall continue to be evident as the findings and
discussion are presented in the following chapter.

63
Chapter Four: Research Findings and
Discussion
Chapter 4: Research findings and discussion
Introduction
Presented in this chapter is an interpretation of the
emerging themes which were most prevalent from the
five VOoSC sessions. These themes are linked to
correlating literature in order to deepen the reader’s
understanding of the researcher’s perspective. First a
brief discussion will be presented on the surrounding
systems that allowed VOoSC to take place, then the
findings from the baseline questionnaires shall be
explained, followed by the primary outcome of interest in
this chapter; the participants’ engagement from VOoSC
Session 1 through Session 5. This shall be linked back to
literature and compared and contrasted with the
participants’ self-evaluated, post-VOoSC levels of
reflective thinking questionnaire (PVQ) and a conclusion
shall be drawn. The recurring dominant themes
throughout the research were; The shock (disorientating
dilemma), the act of reflection, openness, peer support,
progression through the phases, recognition of
development and critiquing VOoSC as a framework to
support reflective practice. First the systems of
organisation that allowed VOoSC to happen shall be
explored.

4.1 Surrounding systems

Organisational structures play a pivotal role in the
reflective practices of early year pedagogues, as do
pedagogue’s openness to critique and ability to
communicate respectfully (Stoll et. al, 2006, Cherrington,
2011; Dineen, 2014). The research setting’s openness
and enthuse towards the research at every level must be

64
highlighted. Consultation with, and support from the
Board of Management, CEO, General Manager of the early
years’ services, managers and assistant managers of the
individual services, non-participating staff, parents,
children and the two primary participants were all
necessary prerequisites for the research to take place.
This research would not have been possible without the
openness of all these stakeholders. A deficit of non-
contact time for early years pedagogues to reflect has
been identified as one of the major obstacles to
facilitating reflective practice (Cherrington, 2011;
European Commission, Directorate-General for Education
and Culture, 2011; Stoll et. al, 2006; Dineen, 2014),
thus, in order to adequately support VOoSC, an allocation
of non-contact time was required for this research project.
The setting where VOoSC took place enabled this research
by providing non-contact time for the two primary
participating pedagogues. It must be acknowledged that
this organisation is a community-based education service
and that the non-contact time provided may not be a
viable option for many private early years’ services in
Ireland as present.

4.2 Participants
Úna and Cáit worked together as joint room leaders in a
preschool room with fourteen children aged 3 – 5 years
old. At the time of research, Cáit had eight years’
experience in early childhood education and care. She
had completed Childcare FETAC Level 5 & Level 6, Child
protection training, Síolta and Aistear training, first aid
and manual handling. Úna had fifteen years’ experience
in early childhood education and care. She had

65
completed Childcare FETAC Level 5, working with children
with additional needs, first aid, manual handling and was
studying HighScope for over a year. She also seemed
interested in further studies. “I haven’t done my Level 6
[in Early Childhood Education and Care] yet.” The
language used by Úna is evidence of a growth mindset
(Dweck, 2015; de Bono, 2011), that there are aspects of
practice that she does not know now, but she will
continue to develop her skills into the future. While Cáit
and Úna had been working in this centre for over two
years, they had only been working together, with the
same group and in the same room, for a month at the
beginning of VOoSC.

4.3 VOoSC questionnaires

The initial online questionnaire (IOQ) had two
primary objectives, firstly, it was the opening point
of contact with potential research participants and
secondly, it provided a preliminary sample of their
pre-VOoSC baseline of reflective thinking. It must
be noted that while some of the questions asked
specifically about reflective practice, in essence,
the data these questions provide is thinking on
practice and not actual practice, thus “reflective
thinking” shall mainly be used when referring to
participants’ levels of reflection. Using Larrivee’s
(2008) levels of reflection, participants’ answers to
the online questionnaire indicated that they were
reflecting on their practice possibly somewhere
between ‘surface level’ and ‘pedagogical level’ of
reflection.

66
 Q6: As an Early Years' Practitioner, what do
you think about when you hear the term
“reflective practice”? (IOQ, 2016)

I think about how my day went with the

children and what workf [sic] well. (Cáit,
2016, Online questionnaire).

I think about myself and how I work and how

I can improve how I can work. (Úna, 2016
Online questionnaire).

On a five point scale of not important, a little important,

important, very important and extremely important, Úna
identified reflective practice as “Extremely important” for
all stakeholders (Board of directors, manager of service,
room leader and general early years’ staff). Cáit
identified reflective practice as “Very important” for all
stakeholders.
Before the primary research commenced, a more
thorough baseline for reflective thinking was established
for participants at the beginning of the first VOoSC
session. The Original Baseline Questionnaire (OBQ) was
used for this. However as explained in methodology
(Section 3.41) a Retrospective Baseline Questionnaire
(RBQ) was also used and data triangulated between the
RBQ and OBQ to establish an accurate baseline.

From a comparison of the twenty questions on the OBQ

and RBQ,
Cáit answered:
 30% (6 out of 20 questions) of RBQ the same as
the OBQ.
 5% (1 out of 20 questions) of RBQ at a higher level
of reflective practice than the OBQ.

67
  65% (13 out of 20 questions) of RBQ at a lower
level of reflective practice than the OBQ.

Úna answered:
 45% (9 out of 20 questions) of RBQ the same as
the OBQ.
 15% (3 out of 20 questions) of RBQ at a higher
level of reflective practice than the OBQ.
 40% (8 out of 20 questions) of RBQ at a lower level
of reflective practice than the OBQ.
Taking increases and decreases into account, participants’
answers in the RBQ showed on average a decreased by
62.5% for Cáit and 27.5% for Úna in their levels of
reflective thinking when compared to the OBQ. That is,
they put their reflective thinking levels at lower pre-
VOoSC levels than they had originally thought, indicating
a substantial increase in self-awareness related to
reflective thinking. It was concluded that the RBQ
provided a more informed, therefore, more accurate self-
evaluation of pre-VOoSC levels of reflective thinking than
the OBQ. This is interpreted by the researcher as
participants being more aware of their actual pre-VOoSC
levels of reflective thinking due to participation in VOoSC
creating self-enlightening practices for participants, thus,
when they looked back after having gained new insights
during VOoSC, they revaluated their previous perceptions
(Gogia, 2012).
When the RBQ was measured against the PVQ, with
twenty-one corresponding questions on each, participants’
self-evaluation of reflective thinking levels increased by
50% for Úna and 70% for Cáit. This substantial increase
in self-evaluated levels of reflective thinking is believed,

68
by the researcher, to be a direct influence of the VOoSC
sessions. However, the questionnaires were only one
aspect of the research and the VOoSC sessions
themselves offer insightful qualitative data for discussion.
The first and catalytic phase of transformative learning is
the disorientating dilemma; a phase that the researcher
believed could be induced through participants’
observation of themselves on video.

4.4 The VOoSC Sessions - Thematic analysis using

Mezirow’s framework
The following table 4.1 outlines the sessions facilitated
during the course of the data gathering phase of this
research;
Activity Date Time
Week 1 Recording Tuesday 9:30 –
09/02/16 10:30
Video Thursday 10:30 –
Observation 11/02/16 12:00
Session 1
Week 2 Recording Tuesday 9:30 –
16/02/16 10:30
Video Thursday 10:30 –
Observation 18/02/16 12:00
Session 2
Week 3 Recording Tuesday 9:30 –
23/02/16 10:30
Video Thursday 10:30 –
Observation 25/02/16 12:00
Session 3

69
Week 4 Recording Tuesday 10:15 –
01/03/16 11:15
Video 03/03/16 10:30 –
Observation 12:00
Session 4
Week 5 Recording 08/03/16 10:15 –
11:15
Video 10/03/16 10:30 –
Observation 12:00
Session 5
Table 4.1 Outline of VOoSC sessions

Educators are generally unaware of their interaction

strategies with children in early years’ services and the
opportunity for observation of self from an external
perspective can offer great learning opportunities (DCCC,
2014). The researcher believed that video would be the
catalyst that moved participants into a disorientating
dilemma, the first phase on Mezirow’s (1991) ten phases
of transformative learning. A disorientating dilemma
happens when an externally imposed moment shocks the
receiver into realising that their supposed reality is not
accurate in the context of their newly acquired
information (Mezirow, 1991). Openness to allow this new
perspective challenge the old must be present at this
stage of “struggle”, and the “inner conflict” can be a
challenging and fearful time (Larrivee, 2000, p. 305). If
the struggle is overwhelming, a return to the old practice
may be imminent.

4.41 Openness
After watching the first vignette twice, without facilitator
input and before participants even began feeding back,

70
they decided among themselves that they would be open
to giving and receiving feedback from each other. Úna
was cautious when asking;
I don't mean this in a bad way, but say if I saw
something that jumped out at me the second
time and just say (laughing) it was something
Cáit did…. (Úna, 2016, VOoSC, Session 1)
However, Cáit was open to critique, interrupting Úna;
…no work away, you saw there what you have
to do. …I bet you we saw the same thing.
(Cáit, 2016, VOoSC, Session 1)
Úna reciprocated the openness;
If you saw something that I did as well... you
need to say it, is that okay? ...because if I was
doing something wrong, I'd like to know I was
doing it.... (Úna, 2016, VOoSC, Session 1)

This openness prevailed throughout the first session;

…you put down whatever you think and
whatever you feel, I've no problem at all, we're
probably putting down the same thing. (Cáit,
2016, VOoSC, Session 1)
Openness is an extremely valuable component in the CPD
of participants (Stoll et. al, 2006, Cherrington, 2011,
Dineen, 2014) and on this occasion for VOoSC, as a tool
to support reflective practice. The researcher did believe
video observation had the potential to support openness
between participants, as previously highlighted by
Pultorak (2014), but didn’t necessarily envisage it
happening in the very first VOoSC session.

4.42 Persistence
Initially Úna found that she was consciously “trying to
relax with the camera” and felt she looked “uncomfortable
and nervous” (2016, VOoSC, Session 1). The Center for
Education Policy Research (CEPR) (2015) and Donegal

71
County Childcare Committee (DCCC) (2014) identified
that educators were more nervous under observation and
this potentially alters their regular practice. Cáit said she
was not bothered by the camera in the first recording, but
after viewing her practice she became more conscious of
it. However, even though participants may have been
anxious of the camera in the first two recordings, they
maintained interest and commitment to VOoSC. This
sustained interest can be linked to a growth mindset of
participants (Dweck, 2015; de Bono, 2011). Upon video
observation in Session 2, Úna identified that she seemed
“more involved” and “more relaxed” during the second
recording (2016, VOoSC, Session 2).

4.43 Disorientating dilemma

Participants spoke about how ‘shocking’ their observed
practice was from the very first VOoSC session (Cáit,
VOoSC, Session 1). Mezirow (1991) described this
emotional turmoil as the participants’ “disorienting
dilemma”, the first in his ten phases of transformative
learning and believed this to be the catalyst in perspective
transformation. Úna identified that she didn’t notice
Cáit’s practice at the first viewing because she was
focusing on her own practice, but on the second viewing
she did and shared the same perspective as Cáit in
relation to her interactions with one of the children,
particularly her body language (Úna, 2016, VOoSC,
Session 1). Upon viewing the vignettes in Session 1, Úna
and Cáit critiqued what they saw, appearing perturbed at
times, but possibly closer to disequilibrium (Piaget, 1972)
than obvious disorientation (Mezirow, 1991). However,
Cáit appeared to be more disorientated and this was

72
evident in her tone as she described what she saw in her
own practice:
I started putting the words into his mouth,
‘what were they building and did they use this,
did they use this?’ Instead of letting him tell
me what he saw them using. (Cáit, 2016,
VOoSC, Session 1)
Úna had seen that Cáit had missed that a child was trying
to say something and she brought the attention back to
that child:
I saw what happened and I just wanted to give
him a chance to talk about it and kind of
explain more, give him more chance of
[saying] what he’d seen. …It was only because
I was beside him that I heard him saying that
and I thought ‘aah [sic], let him talk about
that’, you know. (Úna, 2016, VOoSC, Session
1)
While the evidence of disorientation is not clear, Cáit’s
tone of voice appeared more emotive than Úna’s, possibly
because she and Úna had seen her practice through a
negative perspective on this occasion. However, Úna
supported Cáit:
Some kids need a bit of prompting as well Cáit, so I
didn’t think you did really bad there, [b]cause they
needed prompting sometimes. (Úna, 2016, VOoSC,
Session 1)

The discursion from Session 1 is evidence of a critical

outlook by participants, on each other’s and their own
practice, as they have identified aspects that they want to
see improvement. Úna and Cáit are engaging somewhere
between surface level and pedagogical level of reflection
(Larrivee, 2008). This identification of aspects of their
practice they would like to develop, through video
observation and peer feedback, are critical to the creation
of an environment that sees CPD prosper (Pultorak,

73
2014). The concept are also more likely to be accepted
due to being grounded in participants actual practice
rather than an “expert” outsider’s perspective, which may
not be as openly received (Dirkx, 2006).

Cáit was unable to attend VOoSC Session 2. Úna was less

diplomatic in critiquing Cáit’s daily practice and pointed
out that Cáit was overpowering in their working
relationship. Úna pointed out that when Cáit was out
sick, Úna played a more influential role in the pedagogical
strategies used by facilitators and she “made sure to give
all the girls [staff] that were with us an opportunity to talk
out and we all had input into” the session. Here we can
see evidence of how Session 1 had been catalytic in
influencing Úna’s practice when the opportunity arose and
this evidence of development directly relates to the
importance of reciprocal relationships highlighted in
Síolta, the National Quality Framework for Early Childhood
Education (CECDE, 2006). Úna hoped that video would
play the influential role in Cáit recognising that she was
dominating sessions and not sharing the lead role with
Úna (2016, VOoSC, Session 2).
I was hoping then that by her seeing the video, she
could see that as well. (Úna, VOoSC, 2016)
Session 3 appeared to have an even more powerful
disorientating influence on Cáit, she was silent for a few
seconds after watching one of the vignettes, and then
said, “I’m going home, I’m changing my job. I think I
couldn’t look after dogs” (2016, VOoSC, Session 3). The
facilitator and Úna laughed a little, however, what
appeared like an embarrassed and disappointed look on
Cáit’s face brought an alarming sense of seriousness to

74
the situation. Here evidence of “self-examination and
feelings of guilt” are evident, while the disorientating
dilemma is still present (Mezirow, 1991, p. 168). Cáit felt
“the whole clip was shocking” (2016, VOoSC, Session 3)
and due to the distressed emotional expression on Cáit’s
face and in the tone of her voice, as well as the actual
language she used, the facilitator made an ethical call and
broke from an objective facilitation role by attempting to
support Cáit to see the positive in her self-critique abilities
and her recognition of practice that can be improved.
…like I said it’s important, when you see
something that you mightn’t be happy with,
that that’s a positive, [an] exceptionally
positive thing. (VOoSC Facilitator, 2016,
Session 3).
The final clip in session 3 also had a disorientating impact
on Cáit and she found it:
Shocking, absolutely shocking. What I’ve seen
there now this morning is like, oh my god…
bloody hell, change your job Cáit. No
seriously, that, that has opened my eyes.
(Cáit, 2016, VOoSC, Session 3)
Cáit criticized her interaction strategies and believed it
was not at the standard a pedagogue with a Level 6
education qualification should have. Here Cáit has clearly
entered Piaget’s (1972) “disequilibrium” or Mezirow’s
(1991) “disorientating dilemma, however, Úna stepped in
by attempting to support Cáit, agreeing in part with her
self-criticism, but then also highlighting that there were
positives.
I could see what you were saying, but I saw
the positives as well. I felt that Cáit did try to
interact with Brigid. I mean you did try.
(Úna, 2016, VOoSC, Session 3)
The Facilitator (2016, VOoSC, Session 3) attempted to
objectively support Cáit transition through this feeling of

75
disorientation and questioning of her abilities to work in
early years’ education by using a maieutic style of
questioning (Dolci, 1973), attempting to elicit participants’
knowledge or create “spielraum” (Roth, Lawless and
Masciotra, 2001) for participants’ to create their own
intersubjective knowledge. The facilitator asked, “What
other possibilities could…”, but Cáit interrupted before the
question finished; “I reckon [I could] go and get a job in
Argos, …no seriously” (2016, VOoSC, Session 3). Cáit’s
“self-examination with feelings of guilt or shame” is
visible here (Mezirow, 1991, p. 168).

However, Cáit did eventually begin moving towards the

next phase, assessing the situation and she began
identifying possible solutions:

I need to take a step back, maybe take a good

look at the child’s body language and
everything, rather than just [a child’s] face… so
maybe next time just take a little step back
and let the child tell me what they want to tell
me and stop maybe firing so many questions at
them you know. Cáit (2016, VOoSC, Session
3).
Discussion between Cáit and Úna shows movement
through Mezirow’s (1991) second phase and towards the
third phase of “assessment”. The fourth phase of “shared
discontent” was also evident above, as was the fifth phase
of exploration of options for new roles, relationships, and
actions:
Even by talking open, sure we can help each
other…. (Úna, 2016, VOoSC, Session 3)

4.44 Progression through the phases

There is overlapping between the phases and the sixth
phase, planning a course of action, could be included on
this occasion as participants spoke about what they could

76
do differently in the future. The next phase, phase seven
is interesting, as the researcher believes a strong
argument could be made for participant engagement in
VOoSC itself providing opportunity for movement to the
next phase “acquisition of knowledge and skills for
implementing one’s plans” (Mezirow, 1991, p. 168). For
example, in the above scenario; Cáit has identified
aspects of her practice than she wants to change and has
suggested how she might change them. During
discussion with and support from Úna throughout the
VOoSC process, new skills are being developed and
existing knowledge, based on what may be identified as
quality practice, is being revisited and plans to turn this
knowledge into practice are being made.

The facilitator’s probing line of questioning, aiming at

supporting intersubjective critique, encourages
participants to work through the transformative learning
process (Dolci, 1973) and allows intelligence play a role in
the knowledge development (Dewey, 1910): For example
“...how could you progress with the ideas you’ve been
talking about?” (Facilitator, 2016, VOoSC, Session 3).
Basically take the step back and watch these
videos every Monday to make sure I am taking
the step back rather than keep pushing them
you know, and keep an eye on the body
language, the child’s body language. Definitely
the body language as well. Where’s that
morning I didn’t.... (Cáit, 2016, VOoSC,
Session 3)
While this research was predominantly focused on the
influence of VOoSC on participants’ thinking, which in
theory would only allow exploration up to phase six of
Mezirow’s (1991) theory of transformative learning, follow

77
up questions were asked that deepened participants
exploration into what their new found knowledge and
plans might lead to in practice:
And what would you see that leading to? What
would it allow you to do? (Facilitator, 2016,
VOoSC, Session 3)
Allow the child to speak for themselves rather
than kind of pushing words into their mouths or
whatever you know. Am, allowing them to gain
the confidence to be able to speak for
themselves. (Cáit, 2016, VOoSC, Session 3)
Okay. And the ideas that ye have been talking
about here then, what influence do you think
that could have on early years? (Facilitator,
2016, VOoSC, Session 3)
It’s giving the children confidence anyway,
that’s what we need to build on, is their
confidence you know. Let them kind of, be
more open rather than us trying to push them
to be more open, let them kind of build-up on
their confidence, let them take the lead. (Cáit,
2016, VOoSC, Session 3)
This is evidence of Cáit’s thinking moving towards a
pedagogical level (Larrivee, 2008). Other less obviously
emotional discussion between Cáit and Úna revolved
around the roles each member of staff plays at times
when parents drop off children after the session has
already started. One vignette showed a parent arriving
with her child after the morning circle/greeting time had
started and she had to walk around the circle to the sign
in book. Úna made “a point that if the book was over on
the right hand side away from the circle” that the parent
wouldn’t be distracting the group as much. Úna also used
this as an opportunity to diplomatically address the main
issue she had brought up in Session 2, that of Cáit being
dominant in their working relationship. Úna highlighted

78
that their manager suggested they alternate their leads
for morning circle/greeting time:
...just say you greet the parents one day, I’ll
do the singing with the kids, I’ll do the news,
whatever and ah, the next day I’ll do it. (Úna,
2016, VOoSC, Session 3)
Yeah. (Cáit, 2016, VOoSC, Session 3)
I’ll greet the parents and let them sign in and
that, you know. Cause that might work better
together. (Úna, 2016, VOoSC, Session 3)
This confident engagement from Úna could be interpreted
as her being at a number of different phases of Mezirow’s
(1991) ten phases of transformative learning. The basic
view might see it as planning a course of action, phase
six, however, the researcher interprets Úna’s interaction
as somewhere from phase eight to phase ten. The reason
for this is as follows; Úna’s dilemma from Session 2 was
that she felt Cáit took the lead and was dominant in their
working relationship. This dominance has also been
evident in participants’ conversations during VOoSC, so by
Úna taking the lead during the active process of VOoSC,
whether consciously or subconsciously, she is either
provisionally trying a new role, phase eight, building
confidence in the new role and relationship with Cáit,
phase nine, or she has integrated her findings from her
new and altered perspective into her life, phase ten. An
argument for all of these phases could be made. Cáit
agreed with Úna’s suggestion and Úna repeated aspects
of what she had previously said before they both
discussed how this would be more beneficial for “look[ing]
after parents” (Úna, 2016, VOoSC, Session 3);
So the parent doesn’t feel left out, that they
feel like they’re being welcomed as well as the
children. You know what I mean? It’s nice for
the parents as well you know... because

79
 whatever happens with parents does rub off on
children. (Cáit, 2016, VOoSC, Session 3)
While there were no specific references to methodologies
or practice guidelines, Cáit did mention interactions and
shows a working knowledge of what is considered to be
good practice according to Síolta (CECDE, 2006) and
Aistear (2009), thus displaying a pedagogical level of
awareness again here (Larrivee, 2008).

4.45 Revisiting the dilemma and peer support

When Cáit arrived to Session 4 she appeared distressed.
The Facilitator asked participants, “So, how are ye finding
it?” Cáit’s comments and tone indicated that she had been
mulling over topics from session 3 between sessions and
it was evident she was revisiting phase two, self-
examination with feelings of guilt or shame, and was
contemplating her career in childcare:
It's just every time I look back I'm like, 'oh my
god I shouldn't be in childcare'. That's how it's
feeling. (Cáit, 2016, VOoSC, Session 4)
While the researcher didn’t want to continue to offer his
perspective on the feelings and processes that Cáit and
Úna were going through, the visible impact that the
VOoSC sessions were having, on Cáit in particular, was
creating a disorientating dilemma for the researcher. He
felt responsible for creating the environment that brought
about this disorientation in participants’ thinking and
emotions and because additional support to participants
was not planned as part of this research, it was causing
an ethical issue for the researcher. The facilitator wanted
to minimise his input in order to allow participants
adequate opportunity for self-teaching and learning.
However, it was felt that ethically, Cáit needed additional

80
support to help her see the positive side in what she was
identifying in her own practice. To pull her out of this
state of disorientation, the Facilitator attempted to help
Cáit recognise where these aspects of practice that she
considered negative may lead to, she appeared to be in a
constant state of disorientation, stating that she should
“quit childcare” because the negatives she is seeing are
constant (2016, VOoSC, Session 4). Cáit explained how
she had repeated an interaction with a child, that she
believed to be substandard between Session 3 and
Session 4 and appeared extremely distressed because she
had “…done it again…”. Cáit asked herself “Am I in the
right job?” and questioned herself after seeing the videos.
I was like, ‘oh my god no, I just can’t do this, I
just can’t do childcare if that’s what I’m doing’,
what effect am I having on those poor children,
that I’m doing this and I’m speaking like this
and I was like, ‘I think I need to give up
childcare’. …it [VOoSC] did have a really
negative effect on me one of the weeks, really
negative effect! I was like, ‘I don’t really want
to do this anymore’. And I don’t mean the
recording, I meant the childcare. …I used to
come in and do my job and have a good day
and I felt I was relaxed and the kiddies went
home happy and nobody got hurt, but now I’m
like, I’m kind of, now I’m aware of what I’m
doing, what I’m saying and it’s no fun. ...
before I was oblivious as to [what] I’m seeing
on the video now you. (Cáit, 2016, VOoSC,
Session 4)
The powerful influence that VOoSC can have on
participants is clearly evident here in Cáit’s openness with
her thinking and emotions. The facilitator first attempted
to objectively support Cáit’s transition towards phases
that may have a more positive feeling for participants
emotionally. This was done by reciting the processes that

81
Cáit had already gone through and asking; “Where do you
think that will lead?” (Facilitator, 2016, VOoSC, Session
4). Cáit seemed unable to progress but Úna supported by
asking;
Do you mean like we come in here and we take
for granted we’re doing okay, hope the day
goes smooth, the kids happy and we feel we
did our best and then you go home, right? But
maybe this is making us question, look at
ourselves and question about, are we really
doing everything right… (Cáit, 2016 VOoSC,
Session 4)
Both Úna and Cáit finished the sentence together: “...for
the children” (2016, VOoSC, Session 4). Here the benefit
of working with a peer, who shares the daily facilitation of
the group and now shares the reflective and
transformative experiences of VOoSC, is evident.
Participants were developing an environment that
supports social learning (Brookfield, 2012) and allows
intersubjective “practice-based insider research” (Dirkx,
2006, p. 283) to emerge. This relationship also supported
Úna to express more positive feelings towards her work
again:
...I know where you have got a big effect on
them [sic], ‘cause we’re with them five days a
week kind of, you know. With some cases it’s
only three hours [a day] but what we’re doing
with them, they’re like sponges, they absorb
everything. (Cáit, 2016, VOoSC, Session 4)
Úna then extended Cáit’s point and related it to literature
from a HighScope training course she is doing:
...the HighScope is not the old way we talk to
kids. Now it’s making you think and I can see
the point, it is good, because instead of the
child saying something to you and you just
answering the child in yeah or no or whatever,
they’re making you think about, okay making
the child’s brain work. So instead of saying,’ it’s

82
 a lovely picture’, you’ll say, ‘so tell me about
the picture’ and they’ll start talking to you
about what they’ve done and how they did or
ask ‘how they managed to do that’ or
something, you know, it’s making them think
more you know, but it’s so different to, what
I’m trying to say is, it’s the language as well,
the way we talk to the kids and it’s the
language I've to really work on because [sic],
I'm trying at the moment, but I’m struggling.
...It’s hard to get the language right. You
question them more instead of just saying, ‘Oh
that’s a lovely picture’, question them more
and get them to use their brain more and all....
(Úna, 2016, VOoSC, Session 4)
This is evidence of Cáit and Úna working together during
VOoSC, linking practice and theory and displaying a
pedagogical level of reflective thinking (Larrivee, 2008).
Cáit then began displaying, what may be considered,
higher levels of thinking, reframing the questions asked
(Gogia, 2012) and moving towards what is known as;
double loop learning (Argyris, 1976; Argyris & Schön,
1974), critical thinking (Larrivee, 2008; Dewey, 1910), or
premise reflection (Mezirow, 1991). Cáit was animate as
she spoke about the differences between what is
considered “good practice” in relation to the interaction
strategies she and Úna are encouraged to use and the
interactions, language and mannerisms that children are
exposed to on a daily basis in the local community.
…this is the way they speak, and I find that
when they’re coming in and we’re changing this
and it’s like, but yet when they go home, the
mothers are still and the grannies are still
speaking like the way they normally would to
them. Are we, sometimes I just say to myself,
are we confusing them.... This is the [area
name removed], this is who these children are,
this is who their parents are, this is what they
are used to. Who am I to turn around and
start changing things? The way they do, they

83
 way their parents done it and there wouldn’t be
anything wrong with that I think. I don’t think
so, you know what I mean. (Cáit, 2016,
VOoSC, Session 4)
Úna agreed with these comments made by Cáit. It is
difficult to say for certain whether Cáit is moving towards
critical reflection, that is, exploration of practice from a
political, social and ethical perspective (Larrivee,2008).
However, there is definitive evidence in Cáit’s language
that directly relates to all but the political element, which
may be impossible to separate anyway. Cáit has not
gone as far as creating a new working hypothesis on this
occasion (Dewey, 1910), but elements of critical reflection
were touched on by her.
Participants were asked to write down where they believe
their new thinking might lead to and to bring it back for
Session 5, they agreed to do this. However, participants
didn’t write anything down in their journals between
Session 4 and Session 5.

4.46 Recognition of development

The fifth session was the final session. Opening
discussion (Facilitator, Cáit, Úna, 2016, VOoSC, Session
5):
So how are ye finding it, the whole experience?
(Facilitator)
Daunting, a little bit. Eye-opening (Laughing).
(Cáit)
What were the biggest challenges in it?
(Facilitator)
Seeing your mistakes. (Cáit)
Yeah looking at your, [mistakes] yeah. (Úna)
Anything else? (Facilitator)

84
 I can't say seeing the good points, 'cause I
didn't see really many of my good points, I
think one or two out of the whole thing. (Cáit)
I think you are underestimating yourself as well
though, you're doing an awful lot good Cáit as
well. And we're all making mistakes, you know.
(Úna)
Cáit mumbles “I don’t know” (2016, VOoSC, Session
5).

In this brief opening conversation of Session 5, some of

the practical benefits of VOoSC are brought to light as
participants identify how their self-awareness has been
heightened. While Cáit still appears to have early phases
of transformational learning influencing her thinking in a
negative manor, one of the positive of working in pairs,
again comes through as Úna encourages Cáit to see the
positives in her work. The facilitator also gave the
example of Cáit’s dilemma from Session 4, in which she
was upset that she repeated a specific interaction with a
child. She ‘caught’ herself in the moment while
interacting in a way she didn’t want to. This reflection-in-
action (Schön, 1991), indicates enhanced self-awareness
from the previous session where the interaction needed to
be viewed on video for Cáit to realise her strategies. The
facilitator objectively asked; “...what do ye see the next
step being?” (Facilitator, 2016, VOoSC, Session 5). Cáit
answered:
...thinking before I even do it now, because I
am doing that now like, 'okay no, I can't do
that. Okay maybe we'll approach this
differently'. So this is what I'm doing now.
(Cáit, 2016, VOoSC, Session 5)
So would you see that as a positive?
(Facilitator)
Yeah, definitely. (Cáit).

85
 It's making us look at ourselves more now and
we’re questioning what we're doing, you know,
did we do that right and could we of handled
that better and all. It does make you look at
yourself. (Úna, 2016, VOoSC, Session 5)
And you are also going like, 'can I improve on
that? You know, things like that. They're the
questions we're kind of asking now aren't we.
Yeah, it was worth it in the end, like don't get
me wrong, it was a bit [facial expression and
deep breath indicating challenging], but it was
good as well, you know, it was good to get, it's
like them points, [if] we hadn't seen that in
there, we'd probably still be doing what we're
doing. What we were doing! But now that
we've seeing it and we're like, 'well that doesn't
look good, no that doesn't sound right, oh my
god that looks shocking' (laughing). Where's
now we're like, 'okay, I have to be a bit more
weary of what I’m saying, how I'm saying it
and stuff like that. You know what I mean?
And why I have to say, give a child a reason for
now saying no, rather than just saying 'no you
can't have that, you can't do that, no move in
there you can't sit out there', rather than
saying, 'okay you can't sit out there because
the other children are coming back with their
bowls and they're going to fall over you'.
Things like that now, you see I'm explaining a
bit more. Yeah, so yeah, that’s a good thing
(laughing). (Cáit, 2016, VOoSC, Session 5)

At this stage there is evidence that both participants have

navigated through at least six phases of Mezirow’s
transformative learning theory (1991);
1. Disorienting dilemma
2. Self-examination with feelings of guilt or shame
3. A critical assessment of epistemic, sociocultural,
or psychic assumptions
4. Recognition that one’s discontent and the process
of transformation are shared and that others have
negotiated a similar change

86
 5. Exploration of options for new roles,
relationships, and actions
6. Planning of a course of action
As suggested earlier there is also a strong argument for
participation in VOoSC to offer participants access to the
next phase;
7. Acquisition of knowledge and skills for
implementing one’s plans.
And participants displayed elements of phases eight, nine
and ten, through their thorough engagement with VOoSC
and/or in their explication of practice, whether
hypothetical or real.
8. Provisional trying of new roles
9. Building of competence and self-confidence in
new roles and relationships
10. A reintegration into one’s life on the basis of
conditions dictated by one’s perspective.
(Mezirow, 1991, p168)

Participants were asked how they might be able to

continue the processes of development that they have
begun to create as part of VOoSC.
I think am [sic][Cáit pauses], myself and Úna
working together, we could help one another
out as well, you know what I mean? It's like, if
you see something that I've done, you say,
'Cáit, I just saw that and maybe we kind of do
this and maybe we should try this instead of
doing it that way'. You know what I mean?
Help one another out in regards to stuff like
that you know? (Cáit, 2016, VOoSC, Session 5)
Úna identified that sometimes it is hard for people to take
criticism, but both Cáit and Úna agreed that they would
be open to receiving criticism.
If you see me doing anything, I mean Jesus,
just say it to me. Cause sometimes you don't
realise... And Jesus you mightn't like it at the

87
 time but when you think about it say, 'no' [this
criticism in necessary]. (Úna, 2016, VOoSC,
Session 5)
Participants highlighted that they had only been working
together a month when they began VOoSC and that it had
helped them develop a stronger working relationship.
They were also asked to identify what they believed the
main reason for being “open to critiquing each other and
questioning each other” (Facilitator, 2016, VOoSC,
Session 5). They identified to benefit the children as the
main reason (Cáit & Úna, 2016, VOoSC, Session 5).
[B]cause you don’t want to be like, as they say,
when the children come into preschool this is
like the foundations. This is the foundations to
set them up for, I mean you don’t want to be
doing something wrong and steering them in
the wrong direction and things like that, you
know what I mean? ...We need to be setting
them on the right path you know, throughout
their life. (Cáit, 2016, VOoSC, Session 5)
And then to be good role models for them as
well you know. (Úna, 2016, VOoSC, Session 5)
When participants were asked if they were ready to watch
the vignette, their replies still indicated nervousness at
viewing themselves and they even began recalling what
they were doing during recording. However, after viewing
the vignette Úna volunteered to go first at critiquing what
she saw, indicating a development in her confidence (Cáit
& Úna, 2016, VOoSC, Session 5):
...looking at that, we missed out on lots of
good observations of the children. Children
seemed really engrossed in what they were
doing, they were really doing, ah, and enjoying
the roll play, ah, they didn’t even notice we
weren’t with them (Laughing). (Úna)
Yeah, it’s true (Laughing). (Cáit)
They were all interacting so well and I just said
in the end they’re a great bunch of kids

88
 because they are like, I mean, they’re just….
(Úna)
They are. (Cáit)
I mean that was fantastic. (Úna)

The facilitator had two other vignettes prepared, however,

the discursion that took place between Cáit and Úna from
this single snippet indicated an advanced level of
reflective thinking, at pedagogical level (Larrivee, 2008)
and the facilitator decided it was an ideal opportunity to
finish the sessions. Participants saw aspects of their
practice that could be improved and highlighting specific
opportunities for documentation of observations that they
missed. In addition, they also saw the positives of
allowing children more space and opportunity to learn
through play without feeling the need, as adult
pedagogues, to enquire and interrupt the children at
work.
They didn’t need any adult intervention or adult
to kind of butt in their little game. They were
enjoying it. (Cáit, 2016, VOoSC, Session 5)
That’s what I said, they didn’t realise we
weren’t there. They’re having such a good
time. (Úna, 2016, VOoSC, Session 5)
…they didn’t come and ask us to join, or to be
this or to be that in that game so they
obviously didn’t want us involved in it. (Cáit,
2016, VOoSC, Session 5)
Cáit reflected on something in her practice that she
believed supported the positive interactions they just
witnessed on video. She had encouraged children who
may have clashed to mix in a positive manor by allocating
seats at lunch and small group time;
so if one of them needs a help she has to ask
the one beside her, ‘can you help me with this
please?’, or whatever, [b]cause there was a lot

89
 of am, ‘no we’re not playing with you, us two
are playing together and we’re not playing with
you’ so I’ve been trying and got them mingling
a little bit. Like it was great to see them
playing like that, so it was like, ‘Yes!’
(Laughing). You know what I mean. That there
was no bitchiness between one another there.
They weren’t saying to one particular one, ‘no
you’re not playing’, which has been happening.
Which so that was good to see, that makes me
feel like I’m doing something right (Laughing).
(Cáit, 2016, VOoSC, Session, 5)
Úna confirmed what Cáit said and identified that “…We’re
trying to work on it at the moment with them” (Úna,
2016, VOoSC, Session 5)
When participants were asked how they could build on
what they saw, they answered (2016, VOoSC, Session 5);
…it's just every now and again, it's just take
that little step back. (Cáit)
That's what I was going to say, that yeah. And
see what happens. (Úna)
And see what happens, and see how they. And
just observe them but not let them know that
you are observing them, because when I think
that they see you watching them, they stop.
(Cáit)
It distracts their play. (Úna)

However, Úna and Cáit criticised some of the learning

they took from HighScope, where they understood that
they are always required to be interacting with the
children and they feel under pressure when they are not.
…okay maybe we should just let them, let it
flow, let them kind of be themselves, let them
use their own imagination, let them come up
with their own little game like they did there.
HighScope is, ‘No, you have to be interacting
with the children all the time.’ …Sometimes I
feel like I’m butting in. …I think it’s because
we’re told that we have to be interacting with
them all the time you ‘re conscious of it. (Cáit,
2016, VOoSC, Session 5)

90
 So maybe just having a balance of interacting
good with them, you know when you want,
when you can, when they want you to.
Observing as well, a bit of taking, a step back
and watching and let them, leaving them to
their own devices as well, you know. (Úna,
2016, VOoSC, Session 5)
Cáit highlighted how she would have received different
instructions from her FETAC Level 5 childhood education
course in relation to interactions and that advice would
have been, not to interrupted children while they are
engaged in their activities (Cáit, 2016, VOoSC, Session
5). However, both participants admitted to being at early
stages of learning about HighScope. The participants’
critique of the method they are encouraged to use here is
interesting and could be understood to be at a
pedagogical level as they compared and contrasted
different theoretical approaches (Larrivee, 2008). There
are aspects from Mezirow’s (1991) first to the sixth phase
of transformative learning theory evident as Úna and Cáit
explain their dilemma, experience their discontent and
feelings of guilt when they interrupt children, they assess
the learning and advice they have received from training
and realise they share similar feelings and thoughts in the
subject. They then explore other options and plan, as
Úna suggests, that a balance between interacting and
allowing space might be what is best practice. As
mentioned above, Úna and Cáit displayed a high level of
engagement with this vignette, and while there were two
more recordings prepared for the final session, the
researcher felt that the confident critique displayed and
positive atmosphere created by participants made this an
opportune time to draw an end to the VOoSC sessions.

91
Also, from an ethical perspective neither Úna nor Cáit
were in a state of disorientation.

4.5 Critique of VOoSC

4.51 Participant critique

At the end of Session 5 Úna and Cáit were asked;
If you knew what you would have felt as we
went through this [VOoSC process], would you
have done it? (Facilitator, 2016, VOoSC,
Session 5)
Cáit firmly answered “No!” and proceeded to explain how
difficult VOoSC was. She then went on to emphasise
Úna’s importance in pointing out positives that Cáit was
not seeing in her own work and how that helped her
proceed.
When participants were then asked;
Would you do something like this again?
(Facilitator, 2016, VOoSC, Session 5).
There was a resounding “Yeah, definitely!” from both Cáit
and Úna (2016, VOoSC, Session 5).
It opens your eyes. …I thought I was perfect
and I was doing everything right, until I seen
the video and I was like ‘Holy Shit!’, I cringed.
(Cáit, 2016, VOoSC, Session 5).
“I hated being on the camera, …but it’s
definitely good to reflect on ourselves” (Úna,
2016, VOoSC, Session 5).

92
4.52 Measuring the ‘success’ of VOoSC
As evidenced throughout the research, VOoSC, as a tool
to support reflective practice, is a challenging but an
extremely rewarding emergent methodological
framework. Participants’ self-evaluative questionnaires
and the extremely rich interpretive data show numerous
examples of enhanced levels of thinking, towards critical
thinking and along the continuum of transformative
learning. The comparison between the baseline
assessment (RBQ) and the post-VOoSC assessment (PVQ)
show a 50% increase for Úna and 70% for Cáit in their
levels of reflective thinking. However, as was presented
in the literature, levels of reflection can fluctuate even in
a single conversation (Venninen et al.; Dineen, 2014).
Nevertheless, this participant self-assessment in
combination with the rich data from the VOoSC sessions
give a valuable account of the positive influence VOoSC
had on the reflective thinking levels of Cáit and Úna. It
must also be strongly emphasised that this is social
science research, by its very nature it is not exact, and
nor should the ongoing attempts to display social science
research in a mechanical manor persist. Social scientists
have a responsibility as an educated group, to stand up to
the political demands for mechanical representation of
this sector’s research and for it to fit into the economically
focused political agenda and demand reframing of the
questions asked. The researcher would like for the
narrative to be emphasised as the ‘proof of success’ here,
the very words of the research participants, the big
people working with the little people, Úna and Cáit.

93
Conclusion
As identified in literature (Stoll et. al, 2006, Cherrington,
2011, Dineen, 2014; European Commission, Directorate-
General for Education and Culture, 2011), without
organisational support, not least the provision of paid
non-contact time for participants to engage in the VOoSC
sessions, this research project would not have been
possible. Each individual stakeholder, including staff who
were not direct participants, played a role in enabling this
research to take place. Cáit and Úna’s initial openness
(de Bono, 2011) to the research, even if there was slight
nervousness, which was expected (CEPR, 2015; DCCC,
2014), allowed the essential first engagement with VOoSC
to happen. The IOQ combined with the OBQ and later the
RBQ provided a baseline of reflective thinking from which
participants development of reflective thought could be
measured, using Larrivee’s (2008) levels of reflective
practice. During the VOoSC sessions participants were
guided by the facilitators maieutic style of questioning,
influenced by Driscoll’s (1994) what, so what, now what
model of reflection which mapped onto Mezirow’s ten
phases of transformative learning. Movement through
these phases allowed participants’ development of
thinking to be tracked and Larrivee’s (2008) descriptions
of levels of reflection were again used by the researcher
to interpret what level of reflective thinking participants
were displaying.

As literature had pointed out (DCCC, 2014) participants

were unaware of many of their interactive practices when
engaging with children. Viewing their practice shocked
them and threw them into a disorientating dilemma

94
(Mezirow, 1991), the first and catalytic phase of Mezirow’s
ten phases of transformative learning. Participants again
displayed openness, and evidence of peer support began
emerging as they worked through dilemmas individually
and jointly during session discourse. Evidence of the
disorientating dilemma was present in every VOoSC
session, whether as a singular large shocking realisation
or as the development of a smaller thought provoking
concept. The disorientating dilemma phase has shown to
be extremely powerful in the initial engagement towards
perspective transformation.
Shocking, absolutely shocking. What I’ve seen
there now this morning is like, oh my god…
bloody hell, change your job Cáit. No
seriously, that, that has opened my eyes.
(Cáit, 2016, VOoSC, Session 3)
The above quote from Cáit is evidence that she is not only
in the disorientating dilemma phase but also in phase
two: Self-examination with feelings of guilt or shame.
Participants were supported to move to the next phase by
working together, sharing their perspectives on the
identified problem, exploring their options and making a
plan. This allowed participants to move through phases
3) A critical assessment of epistemic, sociocultural, or
psychic assumptions, 4) Recognition that one’s discontent
and the process of transformation are shared and that
others have negotiated a similar change, 5) Exploration of
options for new roles, relationships, and actions and 6)
Planning of a course of action. Learning from
engagement with VOoSC itself may be considered
participants’ “acquisition of knowledge and skills for
implementing one’s plans” phase seven. During
engagement with VOoSC, participants displayed aspects

95
of phases 8) Provisional trying of new roles, 9) Building of
competence and self-confidence in new roles and
relationships and 10) A reintegration into one’s life on the
basis of conditions dictated by one’s perspective.

A high proportion of participants’ critique was directed

towards their interaction strategies with children,
however, potential change in communication strategies
with colleagues during daily work was also discussed as a
means to make certain transitions run more smoothly.
Taking responsibility for specific roles on certain days
during drop-off and collection in order to support
development of relationships with parents was addressed,
as was participants sharing responsibilities and the lead
role during daily sessions with children. Participants
displayed evidence of how their newly developed thinking,
often at a pedagogical level (Larrivee, 2008), could play
an influential role in the quality of services they provide to
children and families. For example; through enhanced
respect for and recognition of individuals, both children
and adults. Here Cáit and Úna display their newly
developed thinking on the importance of play for children
and importantly not uninvitingly encroaching on children’s
play:
They didn’t need any adult intervention or adult
to kind of butt in their little game. They were
enjoying it. (Cáit, 2016, VOoSC, Session 5)
That’s what I said, they didn’t realise we
weren’t there. They’re having such a good
time. (Úna, 2016, VOoSC, Session 5)
And evidence of participants’ development of
planning skills and communication skills:
...just say you greet the parents one day, I’ll
do the singing with the kids, I’ll do the news,

96
 whatever and ah, the next day I’ll do it. (Úna,
2016, VOoSC, Session 3)
Yeah. (Cáit, 2016, VOoSC, Session 3)
I’ll greet the parents and let them sign in and
that, you know. Cause that might work better
together. (Úna, 2016, VOoSC, Session 3)
While certain disorientating dilemmas were difficult for
participants to work through, due to the heavy emotional
aspect, participants support for each other emerged and
allowed progress to continue.
Participants identified how their self-awareness has
been heightened through engagement with VOoSC.
They identified what appears to be movement from
an uncritical thinking level to a pedagogical level of
reflection (Larrivee, 2008)
...thinking before I even do it now, because I
am doing that now like, 'okay no, I can't do
that. Okay maybe we'll approach this
differently'. So this is what I'm doing now.
(Cáit, 2016, VOoSC, Session 5).
It's making us look at ourselves more now and
we’re questioning what we're doing, you know,
did we do that right and could we of handled
that better and all. It does make you look at
yourself. (Úna, 2016, VOoSC, Session 5)
This type thought progression after only five video
observation sessions displays the immense potential that
VOoSC can have in perspective transformation and
development of higher level thinking among participants.
Participants acknowledged the challenges and stress that
VOoSC put them under but both said they would definitely
take part in further sessions.
I hated being on the camera, …but it’s
definitely good to reflect on ourselves. (Úna,
2016, VOoSC, Session 5)
Participants asked about the possibilities of other early
years staff using VOoSC and when the researcher said he
planned to present on it in the future they suggested
sharing their experiences with the audience in person.

97
As discussed in the literature, there are quality supporting
documents that attempt to guide pedagogical reflective
practice in the Irish early years’ education sector
(Schonfeld, 2015; CECDE. 2006; NCCA, 2009), but a
practical, user friendly framework to support these rich
texts is absent. VOoSC offers the practical support
needed to ground what these documents are attempting
to support in real, every day, concrete practice and
influence positive change in early years education.

98
Chapter Five: Conclusion and
Recommendations
Chapter 5: Conclusion and recommendations

National and international literature advocates for

reflective practice as being essential for the development
of early years’ pedagogy, however, in Ireland support for
pedagogues to engage in reflective practice is both
lacking and deficient. This research aimed to design and
test an intervention of a reflective practice framework
that supports early year pedagogues develop higher levels
of reflective thinking. The following are the key research
questions that findings have explicitly answered:

1. Can video observation of one’s own and

colleagues’ practice be a catalyst for participants’
initial engagement in what Mezirow (1991)
described as “transformative learning”?
A resounding yes, video observation of self and colleague
has opened the eyes and minds of participants by
inducing the first and essential phase of Mezirow’s (1991)
transformative learning theory, the “disorientating
dilemma”.
2. Can the facilitator’s semi-structured, maieutic
style of questioning, influenced by Dolci (1973),
Mezirow (1991), Driscoll (1994) and Larrivee
(2008), support transition along Mezirow’s (1991)
Ten phases of transformative learning?
Yes, the maieutic style of questioning used facilitated
participants’ self-exploration and transition along
Mezirow’s (1991) Ten phases of transformative learning.
However, as the researcher reflected on the audio of the
VOoSC sessions, he often heard aspects of his speech
patterns that can be improved in order to deliver the
supporting questions more clearly. One suggestion that

99
may support clearer delivery is simplification and
reduction of the original ten supporting questions and
only delivering a follow up question when participants are
unclear of what is being asked or to guide them back
towards the research if they have wandered off course.
The researcher didn’t match the pilot questionnaire group
closely enough to the VOoSC participants, something that
he will be more aware of in future.
3. Can Video Observation of Self and Colleague(s)
(VOoSC) be used as a framework to support
reflective practice?
The answer to this overarching research question is yes,
VOoSC, as presented through the documented thoughts
of participants and the literature supported interpretations
of the researcher, is a more than worthy emergent
framework to develop and support the reflective practices
and thinking of early year pedagogues and services in
Ireland and in turn develop the level of quality that
services provide to children and families.

Recommendations
As was evident in this research, organisational support is
essential for reflective practice to happen, with paid non-
contact time of prime importance. Budget 2017
announced the provision of paid non-contact time with no
children present of seven days for ECCE services,
however, this time has been specifically allocated to
supporting services with their administrative work. While
this allocation of non-contact time is positive and is
clearly an important move forward in supporting services
progress towards higher levels of quality,

100
  an additional specific allocation of paid non-
contact time at least once a week for a minimum
of one hour thirty minutes of reflective practice
(similar to this study) is what this research
strongly suggests as a necessary start for
purposeful engagement in CPD in an Irish
context.

However, the allocation of time by itself will not guarantee

purposeful, quality reflective practice and
 the researcher strongly advocates for the use of
an emergent framework of support for reflective
practice. A framework such as VOoSC can
support pedagogical and service participation in
reflective practice, leading to development of
higher levels of thinking amongst early year
pedagogues, higher levels of practice in services
and in turn, filter towards the development of
more ethical societal practices.

The researcher sees VOoSC as an invaluable support for

CPD, whether implemented directly with services or as a
support to other education and development programmes
such as early childhood education degree programmes
during in-service practice placement, the learning
opportunities that VOoSC can facilitate are innumerous.
The researcher plans to further develop and implement
VOoSC through his own practice as an early years’
pedagogue, incorporate it into the development of
restorative programmes focusing on respect and
recognition and also assimilate VOoSC with the
researcher’s current third level module development and

101
delivery on an early childhood education degree
programme.
While redelivery of VOoSC as it is presented here, would
more than likely see results similar to those portrayed in
this research piece, however, as an emergent framework
that will always be developing improvements must be
made. VOoSC is not and cannot be developed into a
manualised methodology. It is designed to be an
emergent framework of and for reflective practice,
supporting the development of higher levels of thinking
that may surpass the current workings of VOoSC, either
rendering VOoSC outdated or supporting VOoSC’s
continuous and collaborative transformation.

VOoSC has been shown to influence the development of

participants’ levels of reflective thinking, and further
development and implementation of VOoSC is an
objective of the researcher. This action research study is
the first time that the researcher attempted (and
succeeded) to design and deliver VOoSC. The most
evident aspect of the facilitation process that the
researcher wants to continue to develop is the delivery of
the supporting questions that guide participants through
their experiential learning. This area began evolving
during the research and the researcher will continue to
refine it as VOoSC continues to develop. A key area that
the researcher plans to incorporate in to development is
receiving critique on the VOoSC process in practice.
Concepts for this are still being developed but it likely will
involve peer facilitators other stakeholders and video
observation in what may look like a critique of VOoSC
using VOoSC. If a five week programme, of only one

102
video recording session and one video observation session
per week, can have such a strong influence on
pedagogues’ levels of reflective thinking, imaging what we
could do on a larger scale!
VOoSC will continue as an emergent piece of action
research and others are encouraged to partake in its
development.

103
 Bibliography

Anderson, G.L. & Herr, K. (1999). The new paradigm of wars: Is

there room for rigorous practitioner knowledge in schools
and universities? Educational researcher, 28(5), 12 – 21.
Retrieved from
http://www.lh.umu.se/digitalAssets/50/50170_the-
paradigm-war.pdf

Argyris, C. (1976). Single-loop and double-loop models in

research on decision making. Administrative Science
Quarterly 21(3) 363-375. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2391848

Argyris, C. (2002). Double-loop learning, teaching, and

research. Academy of management learning & education,
1(2), 206 – 219.

Borton, T. (1970). Reach touch and teach: student concerns

and process education. New York: Vail-Ballou Press, Inc.

Boud, D. & Walker, D. (1991). Experience and learning:

Reflection at work. EAE600 Adults learning in the
workplace: Part A. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED384696.pdf

Bowman, P. (2016). The intimate schoolmaster and the

ignorant sifu: Poststructuralism, Bruce Lee and the
ignorance of everyday radical pedagogy. In Seery, A. &
Dunne, É. (2016). The pedagogics of unlearning. Earth,
Milky Way: Punctum Books.

Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in

psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-
101.

Bromley, E., Adams, G. F., & Brekke, J. S. (2012). A Video

Ethnography Approach for Linking Naturalistic Behaviors
to Research Constructs of Neurocognition in
Schizophrenia. The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical
Neurosciences, 24(2), 125–140.
https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.neuropsych.11080201

Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brookfield, S. (2012). Teaching for critical thinking. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass

104
Center for Education Policy Research. (2015). Best foot
forward: A Toolkit for Fast Forwarding Observations Using
Video Harvard University.

Cherrington, S. (2011). Early childhood teachers’ thinking and

reflection within their communities of practice.
Wellington: Victoria University of Wellington.

Citizens Information (n.d.). Early Childhood Care and Education

Scheme. Retrieved 2 November 2016, from
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/education/pre_scho
ol_education_and_childcare/early_childhood_care_and_ed
ucation_scheme.html

Dahlberg, G., Moss, P., & Pence, A. R. (1999). Beyond quality in

early childhood education and care: postmodern
perspectives. London ; Philadelphia, PA: Falmer Press.

de Bono, E. (2011). ‘How to have a beautiful mind’. Mind & Its

Potential 2011. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbsKQQGwsMg

Denzin, N.K. (2009). The research act: A theoretical

introduction to sociological Methods. London: Aldine
Trransaction.

Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln Y.S. (2008). The landscape of qualitative

research (3rd ed.). London: Sage.

Denzin, N. K. (2001). Interpretive Interactionism; Applied social

research methods, (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

Department of Children and Youth Affairs. (web a). ECCE

Programme Guide to the Programme and the
Administrative Procedures - for Service Providers and
Parents. [Form]. Retrieved 2 November 2016, from
http://www.dcya.gov.ie/docs/ECCE_Programme_Guide_to
_the_Programme_and_the_Administrative/1550.htm

Department of Children and Youth Affairs. (web b). Free Pre-

School Year in Early Childhood Care and Education
(ECCE)Guide for Parents. Retrieved 25 October 2016,
from
http://www.dcya.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/chil
dcare/ECCE_guideforparents.htm#1

Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston, New York, Chicago: D.

C. Heath & Co.

105
Dineen, A. (2014). Early year professional's perspectives on
reflective practice (Unpublished undergraduate
dissertation). Dublin Institute of Technology. DOI:
10.13140/RG.2.1.1231.3764

Dolci, D. (1973). The maieutic approach: the plan of a new

educational centre at Partinico. Prospects - quarterly
review of education, 3(2), 137-146.

Donegal County Childcare Committee. (2014). Professional

pedagogy project: 2011 – 2014. A reflection of learning:
Donegal’s participation in the national early years access
initiative.

Drever, E. (2003). Using semi-structured interviews in small-

scale research: a teacher's guide (Revised ed.).
Edinburgh: Scre.

Dirkx, J.M. (2006). Studying the complicated matter of what

works: Evidence-based research and the problem of
practice. Adult education quarterly, August, 273-290.

Dirkx, J.M., Cunningham, P., Hart, M., Mezirow, J., & Scott, S.
(1993). Conceptions of transformation in adult education:
Views of self, society, and social change. In D. Flannery
(Ed.). The 34th adult education research annual
conference (AERC) proceedings, 359 – 366). University
Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University.

Driscoll J. (1994) Reflective practice for practise. Senior Nurse,

14(1), 47-50. Retrieved from:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8303152

Dweck, C. (2015). Carol Dweck revisits the 'growth mindset'.

Education week. Retrieved from
http://162.230.210.194/RandD/Education%20Week/Dwe
ck%20Revisits%20the%20'Growth%20Mindset'.pdf

Dykstra, C. (1993). A critique of the language of liberal social

change adult education and its accommodation of new
right ideology. In D. Flannery (Ed.). The 34th adult
education research annual conference (AERC)
proceedings, 119 – 124. University Park, PA:
Pennsylvania State University.

Early Childhood Ireland, (2016). Budget 2017 Analysis.

Retrieved from
https://www.earlychildhoodireland.ie/budget-2017-
analysis/

106
European Commission Directorate-General for Education and
Culture. (2011). Competence requirements in early
childhood report (CoRe). London and Ghent: University of
East London and University of Ghent.

Fallon, J. (2005). Early childhood in Ireland: evidence and

perspectives. Dublin: Centre for Early Childhood
Development and Education.

Fleming, T. (2016). Toward a Living Theory of Transformative

Learning: Going beyond Mezirow and Habermas to
Honneth1. 1st Mezirow Memorial Lecture at Columbia
University Teachers College. Retrieved from
http://www.tedfleming.net/doc/Paper_for_TC_June_2016.
pdf

Frankl, V. (1972). Why believe in others. Retrieved from

https://www.ted.com/talks/viktor_frankl_youth_in_search
_of_meaning

French, G, (2011). Policy challenges for deepening quality.

Paper presented at The next six years: the first six years.
Dublin: Start Strong. Retrieved from
http://www.startstrong.ie/files/Dr._Geraldine_French_-
_Quality_in_an_Irish_Context_.pdf

Gogia, L. (2012). Transformative learning theory: How Mezirow

created a living seminal work through dialogue. Retrieved
from
http://www.academia.edu/8018605/Transformative_learn
ing_theory_How_Mezirow_created_a_living_seminal_work
_through_dialogue

Government of Ireland. (2002). Quality childcare & lifelong

learning: Model framework for education, training and
professional development in the early childhood care and
education sector. Dublin: Department of Justice Equality
and Law Reform.

HighScope Educational Research Foundation (n.d). HighScope

preschool curriculum. Retrieved from:
http://www.highscope.org/file/pdfs/preschoolcurriculum_
3-13-15.pdf

Fallon, J., & Centre for Early Childhood Development and

Education. (2005). Early childhood in Ireland: evidence
and perspectives. Dublin: Centre for Early Childhood
Development and Education.

107
Hayes, N. (2013). Early years practice: getting it right from the
start. Dublin: Gill & Macmillian.

Hayes, N. (2007). Perspectives on the relationship between

education and care in early childhood. A research paper.
Dublin: National Council for Curriculum and Assessment.

Jackson, S. L. (2013). Research methods: a modular approach

(3rd Ed). Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.

Kernan, M. (n.d.). Reviewing and assessing pedagogical

interactions from NCCA on Vimeo. Retrieved from:
https://player.vimeo.com/video/52970514

Kitchenham, A. (2008). The Evolution of John Mezirow’s

Transformative Learning Theory. Journal of
Transformative Education, 6(2), 104–123.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344608322678

Kolb, D. A (1984). Experiential learning: experience as the

source of learning and development. New
Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Larrivee, B. (2008). Development of a tool to assess teachers'

level of reflective practice. Reflective Practice, 9(3), 341 –
360. Retrieved from https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-
bin/webadmin?A3=ind1112&L=PDP-AND-E-
PORTFOLIOUK&E=base64&P=258144&B=------
_%3D_NextPart_001_01CCBA67.42E88B63&T=applicatio
n%2Foctet-
stream;%20name=%22Larivee.pdf%22&N=Larivee.pdf&a
ttachment=q&XSS=3

Larrivee, B. (2000). Transforming teaching practice: becoming

the critically reflective teacher. Reflective Practice, 9(3),
293 – 307. Retrieved from
http://ed253jcu.pbworks.com/f/Larrivee_B_2000Critically
ReflectiveTeacher.pdf

Loughran, J.J. (2002). Effective reflective practice: In search of

meaning in learning about teaching. Journal of Teacher
Education, 53(1), 33-34. Doi:
10.1177/0022487102053001004

McMonagle, A. (2012). The Professional Pedagogy Project -

Supporting Every Childs Right to Early Education.
Donegal: DCCC Publishing.

108
McNiff, J. (2009). How do I justify my contributions to new
institutional epistemologies for a new scholarship of
educational knowledge? Paper presented at the
symposium ‘Institutional research: How do we influence
processes of epistemological transformation through the
creation of academic practitioners’ living educational
theories of practice?’ British Educational Research
Association Annual Meeting, University of Manchester.
Retrieved from
http://www.jeanmcniff.com/userfiles/file/Publications/Ber
a09/JMBERA09PracResfinal.pdf

Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult

learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mezirow, J. (1978). Education for perspective transformation:

Women’s re-entry programs in community colleges. New
York: Teacher’s College, Columbia University.

Mezirow, J. (1993). How adults learn: The meaning of adult

education. In D. Flannery (Ed.). The 34th adult education
research annual conference (AERC) proceedings (pp.
179–184). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State
University.

Mezirow, J. (2004). Forum Comment on Sharan Merriam’s ‘The

Role of Cognitive Development in Mezirow’s
Transformational Learning Theory’. Adult Education
Quarterly, 55(1), 69–70. Doi:
10.1177/0741713604268892

Mezirow, J. (Ed.). (1990). Fostering critical reflection in

adulthood: a guide to transformative and emancipatory
learning (1. ed). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative Learning: Theory to

Practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing
Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Ministry of Education. (1996). Te Whāriki. Wellington: Learning

media limited.

Mitchell, L., Cubey, P. (2003). Characteristics of professional

development linked to enhanced pedagogy and children’s
learning in early childhood settings: best evidence
synthesis. Wellington, N.Z.: Ministry of Education.

Moloney, M. (2011). Locating Quality in Early Childhood Care

and Education Discourse in Ireland- Pre-school and Infant

109
 Classrooms as a Crucible for Learning and Development
(PhD Thesis). Retrieved from
https://dspace.mic.ul.ie/bitstream/handle/10395/1928/M
oloney,%20M.(2011),Locating%20Quality%20in%20Early
%20Childhood%20Care%20and%20Education%20Discou
rse%20in%20Ireland%3A%20Pre-
school%20and%20Infant%20Classrooms%20as%20a%2
0Crucible%20for%20Learning%20and%20Development(P
hD%20Thesis).pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y

National Council for Curriculum and Assessment. (2009).

Guidelines for good practice - Supporting learning and
development through assessment. Dublin: National
Council for Curriculum and Assessment.

Neylon, G. (2012). An analysis of the free pre-school year in

early childhood care and education (ECCE) scheme – from
a practitioner’s perspective. Paper presented at the
International Conference on Engaging Pedagogy 2012
(ICEP12) ITB, Dublin, Ireland. Retrieved from
http://icep.ie/wp-
content/uploads/2013/02/icep12_submission_19.pdf

Peters, M. (2001). Philosophy As Pedagogy1: Wittgenstein’s

Styles Of Thinking. Radical Pedagogy. Retrieved from
http://www.radicalpedagogy.org/radicalpedagogy/Philoso
phy_as_Pedagogy__Wittgensteins_Styles_of_Thinking.ht
ml

Piaget, J. (1976). Piaget’s Theory. In B. Inhelder, H. H.

Chipman, & C. Zwingmann (Eds.), Piaget and His School
(pp. 11–23). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Retrieved from
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-
46323-5_2

Piaget, J. (2009). La causalité chez l’enfant (Children’s

understanding of causality). British Journal of Psychology,
100(S1), 207–224.
https://doi.org/10.1348/000712608X336059

Pultorak, E. G. (2014) Reflectivity and cultivating student

learning: critical elements for enhancing a global
community of learners and educators.

Rancière, J. (1987). The ignorant schoolmaster: Five lessons in

intellectual emancipation (Stanford, California: Stanford
University Press, 1987).

110
Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John
Dewey and reflective thinking. Teachers college record,
104(4), 842-866.

Roth, W.M., Lawless, D., & Masciotra, D. (2001). Spielraum and

teaching. Curriculum Inquiry, 31(2), 183-207.

Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative

researchers. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

Schensul, S. L., Schensul, J. J. & LeCompte, M. D.

(1999). Essential Ethnographic Methods: Observations,
interviews and questionnaires. Walnut Creek, CA:
Altamira Press.

Schön, D. (1991). The reflective practitioner: How professionals

think in action. London: Basic Books.

Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Schonfeld, H., (2015). Reflective practice for early childhood

professionals. National Childhood Network (Ireland),
North Tipperary County Childcare Committee, &
Barnardos (Ireland). Dublin: Barnardos.

Shonkoff, J & Phillips, D. (2000). Committee on Integrating the

Science of Early Childhood Development. From Neurons to
Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood
Development. Washington, DC, USA: National Academies
Press, 2000. p 188.

Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S.
(2006). Professional Learning Communities: A Review of
the Literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221–
258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-006-0001-8

Sutherland, P., & Crowther, J. (Eds.). (2008). Lifelong learning:

concepts and contexts. London: Routledge.

The United Nations Children’s Fund. (2002). The state of the

world’s children 2003. New York: Unicef.

Taylor, E.W. (2002) Transformative learning theory – an

overview. Retrieved from http://www.calpro-
online.org/eric/docs/taylor/taylor_02.pdf

111
Tierney, A. L., & Nelson, C. A. (2009). Brain Development and
the Role of Experience in the Early Years. ResearchGate,
30(2), 9–13.

Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human

science for an action sensitive pedagogy. London,
Ontario: The University of Western Ontario.

Venninen, T., Leinonen, J., Ojala, M. & Lipponen, L. (2012).

Creating conditions for reflective practice in early
childhood education. International journal of child care
and education policy, 6(1), 1-15.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Wiersma, W. & Jurs, S. G. (2005). Research methods in

education: An introduction. (8th ed.). Boston:
Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.

112
Appendices
Appendix A (Ethics approval)
Appendix B (Letter to the board)
Dear Board of XXXXXXX,
I am a Post Graduate M.Ed. student at Trinity College Dublin and currently working on my thesis.
Through XXXXXX, one of XXXXX board members and one of my past B.A. in Early Years’ Education
lecturers at Dublin Institute of Technology, I was put in contact with XXXXX, CEO and XXXXX, Senior
Manager of Early Years Education and Care at XXXXX. I was really excited by the interest and
knowledge XXXXX and XXXXX had in relation to my research proposal and I would be grateful if the
Board of XXXXX would grant me permission to carry out my research in one of their XXXXX early years’
education settings.
Please find a brief of my research proposal below which is to be reviewed by Trinity College’s Research
Ethics Committee (REC) on the 7th of December, 2015.

Brief of M.Ed. Thesis Proposal

Working title: How can the use of video vignette analysis support reflective practice for the early year
professionals?
This research proposes to offer a brief insight into the influence video recording and analysis,
supported by both unstructured and semi-structured observations, focus groups and semi-structured
interviews sessions may have on the development of reflective practice in early year professionals
(EYPs), thus, potentially enabling the EYPs to provide higher quality learning opportunities for the
children they work with.
The research will take place in an early years setting, and while children will be recorded as part of this
research, the prime research participants are the EYPs employed by the service (n=2) and working with
the children.
The research setting will initially be spread out over a number of settings and will subsequently focus
on two EYPs working in one setting.
Methods: A multi-method approach of 1)Online questionnaires, through Survey Monkey, distributed to
a range of settings within a single larger organisation based in Dublin, will be used both to help
establish a base level of reflective practice in early years' settings and as a tool to source the most
suitable participants for this research. Prior oral consent has already been secured from the research
setting/organisation to use online questionnaires. 2) Semi-structured interviews of management will
be used to get additional perceptions of the base level of reflective practice in the service and will also
be used to feed back what the research has found at the end of this project. 3) Initially, Unstructured
observation of video recorded practice, and later structured observation of video recorded practice will
be used to create targeted vignettes which will be presented to the two early year professionals during
4) Focus groups which shall be facilitated by the researcher in a semi structured style. These may
potentially enable the participants to assess how they have and could further enhance opportunities
for learning to take place within the early years’ environment. These focus groups may also provide
the participants with the opportunity to assess the evidence that learning has taken place and their
role in that process.
This research shall take place over a period of 6 weeks, approximately 1 hour of recording of EYPs'
practice per week and 1.5 hours of focus group time per week. An interview with the management of
the individual research setting as well as an interview with the CEO of the larger organisation that the
early years setting is part of will be sought prior to the 6 week research period to aid in establishing a
base level of reflective practice in the service. There will also be a meeting with the two primary EYP
research participants prior to the research in order to explain the process and acquire informed
consent. There shall also be closing sessions with the two primary EYP participants, the centre
manager and the CEO the week after the 6 week research period.

Should the Board of XXXXX have any questions or queries please don’t hesitate to contact me or my
thesis supervisor.
Kind regards,
Andrew Dineen

Andrew Dineen
Master of Education (Student)
Trinity College Dublin
Email: adineen@tcd.ie
Tel: 0861577481

Melanie Ní Dhuinn (Thesis Supervisor)

Assistant Professor in Teacher Education
School Placement Coordinator
School of Education
Trinity College
Dublin 2
Email: mnidhuin@tcd.ie
Tel: +353 1 8963488
Appendix C (Gatekeeper consent)

Gatekeeper Consent
Dear Gatekeeper,
As you are aware, I am a student of Trinity College Dublin and in my final year of a Master's
Degree in Education. I am carrying out a research project for my thesis and seeking your permission to
conduct the research in XXXXX.

The working title of my thesis is: An investigation into the use of video recording of practice as a tool to
support reflective practice in early year professionals. As explained in the initial brief, I propose to
video record the practice of two early year professionals, based with the 31/2 - 41/2 years age group. This
recording will take place once a week, over a period of 6 weeks, for approximately 1 hour using an
unmanned camera, discretely set up in the learning environment. I will then make a short vignette from
this recording, approximately 3 minutes, focusing on the two EYPs' interactions with the children in the
group. I shall be seeking the research participants’ interpretations and thoughts on the recording of their
practice during the weekly video presentation and feedback sessions. These video presentation and
feedback sessions will take place during non-contact time and will take approximately 11/2 hours, once a
week. For the purpose of this project, it is important that this video presentation and feedback sessions
happen within the participants’ regular working hours. This request is made due to the researchers
previous findings indicating that non-contact time greatly influence the quality and prevalence of
reflective practice. As previously discussed, initially all XXXXX early years staff will be asked to fill
out an online questionnaire and from this group, two voluntary participants, ideally working together,
will be used as the primary participants for this research project.

A pilot recording session will have to be done prior to the research commencing to ensure that picture
and sound are adequate to analyse. A casual meeting with the final two research participants for the
purpose of explaining the research and signing of consent forms will also be necessary.
While the children in the group are not the primary participants, they will be visible on the recorded
videos and informed consent will be sought from parents/guardians.
The information gathered through online questionnaires, video recording, vignette presentation and
participant feedback will be analysed and used as part of my thesis. The confidentiality of all
participants and the service where research is taking place is of utmost importance and shall be upheld at
all times. The raw video/audio data and the edited vignettes will be retained until my thesis has gone
through the final external examination, December 2016 at the latest. Trinity will store this electronic
data securely, at the School of Education, in accordance with Trinity Board of Ethics good practice. The
data shall be destroyed once the final external examination has taken place.
The proposed video recording and video observation sessions will take place from January 25th, 2016 to
March 13th, 2016. A summary of the findings will be made available on request.
 If you have any questions or queries please don't hesitate to contact me through email at
adineen@tcd.ie or by phone on 0861577481.

Kind regards,
__________________________.
Andrew Dineen

Date: 07/01/2016 .

I (Gatekeeper)_______________________________ give permission for this research project to take

place in (Name of organisation)____________________________________________.
Date:_______________.
Researcher Signature____________________________.
Appendix D (Research information for parents)
Appendix E (Parent/Guardian consent)
Appendix F (Parent information)
Appendix G (Researcher Bio for service)
Appendix H (Research Brief)
Appendix I (Initial Online Questionnaire)
Appendix J (Original Baseline Questionnaire - OBQ)
Please circle, Frequently, Sometimes or Infrequently, as is most closely matched to your views
on the statements.
I am an early year pedagogue who:
1) Is preoccupied with management, control and children’s compliance.
Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

2) Calls commonly-held beliefs into question.

Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

3) Seeks ways to connect new concepts to children’s prior knowledge.

Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

4) Provides different instructions to different children depending on their understanding.

Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

5) Does not see the interdependence between adult and child actions.
Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

6) Suspends judgments to consider all options.

Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

7) Sees early years’ educational practices as being open to further investigation.

Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

8) Modifies how I work without questioning the underlying assumptions of the new methods
of education.
Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

9) Is willing to take things for granted without questioning.

Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

10)Acknowledges that early years’ educational practices and policies can either contribute to,
or hinder, the realisation of a more just and humane society.
Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently
11)Adjusts my practice only to the current situation without developing a long term plan.
Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

12)Acknowledges what the child brings to the learning process.

Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently
 13)Does not thoughtfully connect my actions in the learning environment with children’s
learning or behaviour.
Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

14)Adjusts my practice based on experience only.

Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

15)Considers the ethical consequences of early years’ educational practices and policies.
Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

16)Engages in construct criticism of my own practice.

Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

17)Enforces the pre-set rules without taking the child’s perspective in to consideration.
Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

18)Is curious about the effectiveness of early years’ educational practices so I experiment and
take risks in my work.
Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

19)Fails to connect specific methods to underlying theory.

Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

20)Challenges the normal practices in relation to power and control within the learning
environment.
Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

Please place your initials here_______ and date__________.

Appendix K (Retrospective Baseline Questionnaire -RBQ)
What were your views before you started the Video Observation sessions?
Please circle Frequently, Sometimes or Infrequently, as was most closely matched to your views
before you began the Video Observation sessions.

1) I was mainly focused on managing, controlling and getting children to do what I asked
them.
Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

2) I used to question what is considered to be the best way to work.

Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

3) I looked for ways to connect new learning to children’s prior knowledge.

Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

4) I provided different instructions to different children depending on their understanding.

Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

5) I saw that the interactions between adults and children influenced each other’s behaviour.
Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

6) I made judgments before I had considered all options.

Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

7) I saw the way we work in early years’ education being open to further investigation.
Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

8) I followed methods of education without asking where the ideas for the method came from.
Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

9) I took things for granted without question.

Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

10)I saw that the early years’ education system can make society either more just and humane
or less just and humane.
Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

11)I adjusted how I worked to situations without developing long term plans.
Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

12)I acknowledged what the child brings to the learning process.

Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

13)I connected my actions in the early years’ environment with children’s learning or
behaviour.
Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

14)I only changed how I worked based on my experience .

Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

15)I considered the ethical consequences of early years’ educational practices and policies.
Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

16)I questioned how I worked.

Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

17)I enforced the rules without listening to the child’s point of view.
Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

18)I questioned how effective the way I worked was, so I experimented and tried different
things in my work.
Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

19)I connected specific methods of education to the theory behind it.

Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

20)I shared power and control with children in the learning environment.
Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

21) I questioned how my colleagues worked.

Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently
Appendix L (Post-VOoSC Questionnaire - PVQ)
What are your views now, at the end of the Video Observation sessions?
Please circle Frequently, Sometimes or Infrequently, as most closely matches your views, now that
you are finished the Video Observation sessions.

1) I am mainly focused on managing, controlling and getting children to do what I ask them.
Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

2) I question what is considered to be the best way to work.

Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

3) I look for ways to connect new learning to children’s prior knowledge.

Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

4) I provide different instructions to different children depending on their understanding.

Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

5) I see that the interactions between adults and children influence each other’s behaviour.
Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

6) I make judgments before I have considered all options.

Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

7) I see the way we work in early years’ education being open to further investigation.
Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

8) I follow methods of education without asking where the ideas for the method come from.
Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

9) I take things for granted without question.

Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

10) I see that the early years’ education system can make society either more just and humane or
less just and humane.
Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently
11) I adjust how I work to situations without developing a long term plan.
Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

12) I acknowledge what the child brings to the learning process.

Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently
 13) I connect my actions in the early years’ environment with children’s learning or behaviour.
Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

14) I only change how I work based on my experience.

Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

15) I consider the ethical consequences of early years’ educational practices and policies.
Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

16) I question how I work.

Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

17) I enforce the rules without listening to the child’s point of view.
Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

18) I question how effective the way I work is, so I experiment and try different things in my work.
Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

19) I connect specific methods of education to the theory behind it.

Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

20) I share power and control with children in the learning environment.
Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently

21) I question how my colleagues work.

Frequently - Sometimes - Infrequently
Appendix M (OBQ and Larrivee comparison)
Level 1: Pre-reflection
OBQ Corresponding questions from
Larrivee (2008)
 Enforces the pre-set rules  Enforces preset standards
without taking the child’s of operation without
perspective in to adapting or restructuring
consideration based on students’
responses
 Adjusts my practice based  Does not support beliefs
on experience only and assertions with
evidence from
experience, theory or
research
 Is willing to take things
for granted without  Is willing to take things
questioning for granted without
questioning
All questions from Larrivee (2008)
 Operates in survival mode, reacting automatically without consideration of
alternative responses
 Enforces preset standards of operation without adapting or restructuring based
on students’ responses
 Does not support beliefs and assertions with evidence from experience, theory or
research
 Is willing to take things for granted without questioning
 Is preoccupied with management, control and student compliance
 Fails to recognise the interdependence between teacher and student actions
 Views student and classroom circumstances as beyond the teachers control
 Attributes ownership of problems to students or others
 Fails to consider differing needs of learners
 Sees oneself as a victim of circumstances
 Is preoccupied with  Dismisses students’ perspectives without due consideration
management, control and  Is preoccupied with  Does not thoughtfully connect teaching actions with student learning or
student compliance management, control and behaviour
student compliance  Describes problems simplistically or unidimensionally
 Does not thoughtfully  Does not see beyond immediate demands of a teaching episode
connect my actions in the  Does not thoughtfully
learning environment connect teaching actions
with children’s learning with student learning or
or behaviour behaviour

Level 2: Surface Reflection

OBQ Corresponding questions from All questions from Larrivee (2008)
Larrivee (2008)
 Modifies how I work  Modifies teaching  Limits analysis of teaching practices to technical questions about teaching
without questioning strategies without technique
the underlying challenging  Modifies teaching strategies without challenging underlying assumptions
assumptions of the underlying about teaching and learning
new methods of assumptions about  Fails to connect specific methods to underlying theory
education. teaching and learning  Supports beliefs only with evidence from experience
 Fails to connect  Fails to connect  Provides limited accommodations for students’ different learning styles

99
 specific methods to specific methods to  Reacts to students responses differently but fails to recognise patterns
underlying theory underlying theory  Adjusts teaching practices only to current situation without developing a
 Adjusts my practice  Adjusts teaching long-term plan
only to the current practices only to  Implements solutions to problems that focus only on short-term results
situation without current situation  Makes adjustments based on past experience
developing a long without developing a  Questions the utility of specific teaching practices but not general policies or
term plan long-term plan practices
 Makes adjustments  Provides some differentiated instruction to address students’ individual
 Adjusts my practice based on past differences
based on experience experience
only  Provides some
 Provides different differentiated
instructions to instruction to address
different children students’ individual
depending on their differences
understanding

Level 3: Pedagogical reflection

OBQ Corresponding questions from All questions from Larrivee (2008)
Larrivee (2008)

100
 Seeks ways to connect  Seeks ways to connect
new concepts to new concepts to
children’s prior students’ prior
knowledge knowledge
 Is curious about the  Has genuine curiosity
effectiveness of early about the effectiveness of
years’ educational teaching practices,
practices so I experiment leading to
and take risks in my work experimentation and
risk-taking
 Engages in construct  Engages in constructive
criticism of my own criticism of one’s own
practice teaching
 Acknowledges what
 Acknowledges what the student brings to the
child brings to the learning process
learning process
 Analyzes relationship between teaching practices and student learning
 Strives to enhance learning for all students
 Seeks ways to connect new concepts to students’ prior knowledge
 Has genuine curiosity about the effectiveness of teaching practices,
leading to experimentation and risk-taking
 Engages in constructive criticism of one’s own teaching
 Adjusts methods and strategies based on students’ relative performance
 Analyzes the impact of task structures, such as cooperative learning
groups, partner, peer or other groupings, on students’ learning
 Searches for patterns, relationships and connections to deepen
understanding
 Has commitment to continuous learning and improved practice
 Identifies alternative ways of representing ideas and concepts to
students
 Recognizes the complexity of classroom dynamics
 Acknowledges what student brings to the learning process
 Considers students’ perspectives in decision making
 Sees teaching practices as remaining open to further investigation
101

 Sees early years’
educational practices as
being open to further
investigation.
OBQ Corresponding questions from
Larrivee (2008)
 Considers the ethical
consequences of early
years’ educational
practices and policies.
 Challenges the normal
practices in relation to
power and control within
the learning environment.
 Suspends judgments to
consider all options.
 Sees teaching practices
as remaining open to
further investigation
Level 4: Critical reflection
All questions from Larrivee (2008)
 Views practice within the broader sociological, cultural, historical, and
 Considers the ethical political contexts
ramifications of  Considers the ethical ramifications of classroom policies and practices
classroom policies and  Addresses issues of equity and social justice that arise in and outside of
practices the classroom
 Challenges status quo norms and practices, especially with respect to
power and control
 Challenges status quo  Observes self in the process of thinking
norms and practices,  Is aware of incongruence between beliefs and actions and takes action
especially with respect to to rectify
power and control  Acknowledges the social and political consequences of one’s teaching
 Is an active inquirer, both critiquing current conclusions and generating
102

 Calls commonly-held
beliefs into question.
 Acknowledges that early
years’ educational
practices and policies can
either contribute to, or
hinder, the realisation of a
more just and humane
society.
View publication stats
 Suspends judgments to new hypotheses
consider all options  Challenges assumptions about students and expectations for students
 Suspends judgments to consider all options
 Recognizes assumptions and premises underlying beliefs
 Calls commonly-held  Calls commonly-held beliefs into question
beliefs into question  Acknowledges that teaching practices and policies can either
contribute to, or hinder, the realization of a more just and humane
 Acknowledges that society
teaching practices and  Encourages socially responsible actions in their students
policies can either
contribute to, or hinder,
the realization of a more
just and humane society
103