Workbook Professional in Their Mirrors

WORKBOOK PROFESSIONALS
IN THEIR MIRRORS
Profession 5 Working with diversity; with the positive and
successful interaction with students in mind. Hanne Touw, Tanja
van Beukering and Peter de Vries
Copyright
©September 2012 University of Applied Science Utrecht I Seminar for Orthopedagogics
Nothing from this publication is allowed to be duplicated and/or made public in any manner whatsoever, without previous written permission from the seminar
for Orthopedagogics / University of Applied Science Utrecht
CONTENT
Foreword 3
1. Professionals in their mirrors: background 6
2. Professionals in their mirrors: working method 14
Chapter 3: Work materials: 23

Step 1 25
Step 2 31
Step 3 35
Step 4 39
Step 5 42
Step 6 49
Step 7 49
Professional in the mirror, Seminar for Orthopedagogics, University of Applied Science Utrecht, www.seminarium.hu.nl 1
2 Professional in de Spiegel, Seminarium voor Orthopedagogiek, Hogeschool Utrecht, www.seminarium.hu.nl
FOREWORD
This workbook is a part of the output of the lecture on ‘Behavioural problems in teaching practice’ given by the
faculty of Education of the University of Applied Science, Utrecht. During the development phase of the method
‘Professionals in their mirrors’ this lecture was under the management of Prof. Dr. J.C. (Kees) van der Wolf. The
producers of this lecture are partly mentioned in the lecture ‘Behaviour and research in educational practice’.
This workbook was realised in the context of the research project ‘Professionals in their mirrors: with in mind the
positive interactions with all students’. Two institutes of the faculty of education participated from the start of this
project: Institution Theo Thijssen (Primary school education) and the Seminar for Orthopedagogics (master
education Special Educational Needs). Based on the experiences of the participants from different pilots, Hanne
Touw, Tanja van Beukering and Peter de Vries developed the method. Subsequently, several colleagues within
and out of the University of Applied Science Utrecht contributed to the optimisation of the method.
There are 12 steps described in this workbook. Since 2010 the data for these steps has been analysed for Hanne
Touw’s doctoral research. She focussed her research on the thinking of the teachers and their interaction with the
students that she considers to have behavioural problems. This research is under management of Prof. Dr. Th.
(Theo) Wubbels and Dr. P. (Paulien) Meijer, both working at the University of Applied Science Utrecht.
The developed method asks future teaching professionals to consider their own thought processes concerning
students, and as well as this their actions with regard to these students. It concerns the becoming conscious of
your own thoughts and actions, particularly considering students with behavioural problems. By figuratively
looking into a mirror the teachers can discover with which students they have more of less contact and for which
they have less of an affinity with, and ask themselves why this is. With the aid of the obtained insights they can
develop guidelines for their interaction with these students.
In the method self-examination in the form of critical reflection is essential. This method is embedded in a
coaching trajectory, in which an experienced trainer supports the participants with their execution of the
methods. The expansion of the actions repertoire of the professional forms the main goal. The emphasis lay on
the level of the class: the direct interaction level between teaching professionals and students.
This workbook is meant for participants of the training. They will go through the steps under guidance of a coach
specifically trained in this method.
In this workbook the method ‘Professionals in their mirrors’ will be explained step by step.
The workbook consists of four chapters. Chapter 1 describes the theoretical substantiation of this working method.
The content of this chapter has been published before1. In chapter 2 the project and the method are described.
The content of this chapter has also previously been published2. In chapter 3 the six basic steps and the
sequential steps will be addressed. For each step you will find the user materials, as well as a description of the
assignment. Chapter 4 describes the user’s manual for the computer programme (IDA) in which the data obtained
through this method can be analysed by the participant.
1 Touw, H. & Beukering, T. van (2009). Professionals in their mirrors: background. Periodical for Orthopedagogics, 48, 453-460.
2 Touw, H. & Beukering, T. van (2009). Professionals in their mirrors: working method. Periodical for Orthopedagogics, 48, 461-467.
We’re very curious as to your experiences with ‘Professionals in their mirrors’: what works well and what
suggestions do you have for improvement? Please do let us know as we would like to utilise your ideas and
reactions. ‘This way ‘Professionals in their mirrors’ will continue to develop.
The development team

Hanne Touw is an educationist. She works as professor and developer for the Seminar for Orthopedagogics and is
a doctoral student at the University of Utrecht. www.seminarium.hu.nl.
Tanja van Beukering is an educationist, pedagogic and health care psychologist. As an educational consultant she
works at Van der Wolf & Van Beukering, educational consultants, www.deonderwijsadviseurs.nl.
Peter de Vries is an educational psychologist and works as trainer, school counsellor and developer at the
Seminar for Orthopedagogics, University of applied science Utrecht, www.seminarium.hu.nl.
September 2012
PidS.svo@HU.nl

1
PROFESSIONALS IN
THEIR MIRRORS:
BACKGROUND
PROFESSIONALS IN THEIR MIRRORS:
BACKGROUND
Hanne Touw & Tanja van Beukering
Source: Periodical for Orthopedagogics, 48 (2009) 453-460
Summary
Behavioural problems are the result of interactions between students, home environment and the class and school
environment. The personality of the teacher plays a crucial role here. The behaviour of the students has an
influence on the teacher, but the behaviour of the teacher also has an influence on the teacher-student interaction.
Problems, no matter how serious, are relative. One teacher may see and experience more or different problems to
another and this has an influence on their way of thinking and their actions. Therefore self-perception is very
important. In this article we will go into and stimulate the three thought processes which identify a good teacher:
intuitive thinking, theoretical thinking and reflective thinking. These three thought processes are all linked to one
another. Intuitive thinking will be discussed in terms of the Personal Construct Theory (PCT) of Kelly. His theory
makes it possible to call attention to the perceived thoughts of teachers on students. The reflective method
‘Professionals in their mirrors’, which is based on the PC theory, makes it clear which thoughts and convictions
influence the thinking and actions of teachers. This is important for the relation and interaction with all students, in
particular the students perceived as having behavioural problems. In this work we clarify the theoretical
backgrounds of ‘Professionals in their mirrors’. The concrete method will be addressed in the following article:
Now I can better understand why I have a click with some people. For me they have two essential qualities:
being considerate and being honest. I wasn’t really aware of how much attention I pay to this. I only
discovered this once I became aware of my own thoughts and convictions, my personal constructs. I know
which students in my class are considerate and honest; at least that’s how I personally perceive them. I
generally find these easier to interact with. Also when it comes to my family, friends and colleagues I find
consideration and honesty very important. These qualities ensure that I feel at ease with them.
I don’t mind so much when they lack certain other qualities. I manage to pick out the colleagues and students
who are not so considerate or honest to me very quickly. I have a sense for it and this irritates me quite a bit. It
would be easier if I could let go of my ideals a bit, because consideration and honesty is something you can
develop in some of your students. I could do this just by being a good example but also by creating practice
situations in the class. I’d like to talk about this more with my colleagues.
Teacher at a primary school

1 Introduction
The manner in which teachers think about students influences how they interact with them. The thoughts about
students are inextricably linked to the manner in which teachers think about themselves, with their own qualities
and vulnerabilities. The reflection above is evidence of this. There it is evident that personal experiences and
convictions play an important role in the relation between teacher and student. This counts even more so in the
interaction with students with behavioural problems. Teachers, parents and policy makers all feel that there has
been a definite increase in students with behavioural problems over the last years. They are very concerned about
the consequences these problems might have. With a negative interaction spiral the teacher and student can end
up in a vicious cycle, in which both amplify one another’s behaviour (Admiraal, Wubbels & Korthagen, 1996). This
can lead to an increase in behavioural problems, such as closed, insecure, fearful, opposing and forceful
behaviour, aggression towards fellow students or teacher and even falling behind at school. Eventually this can
lead to repeating a year or even being referred to special needs education or to youth care. For teachers this can
result in losing the enjoyment of teaching, or in the worst case scenario, a burnout. Teachers strive towards
positive relations with students. Just as the students do, they want to feel competent and autonomous (Stevens,
2002: Van Doorn, 2003). An important question is how to prepare a teaching professional so that he¹ will feel
competent enough to make interactions with badly behaved students run in a positive manner. This theme is what
this work is all about. ²
2 Behavioural problems: situational, relational, relative and fluctuating

Behavioural problems are some of the most difficult problems a teaching professional will be confronted with. There
are a lot of views on the causes and manner of approach on behavioural problems. Because of this it is not easy to
pick a good point of view. We assume that behavioural problems are the result of interactions between the student,
the home environment and the class and school environment, including the personality of the teacher. Hereby four
aspects come into the picture (Van der Wolf & Van Beukering, 2009).
2.1 Behavioural problems: the situational aspect

Behaviour, including problem behaviour, is largely decided by the situation in which it manifests itself, as behaviour
without a situation does not exist. The behaviour of a child in one situation could give rise to more problems than in
another situation. Sometimes children behave very differently at home or at the sport club than when they are at
school. Problem behaviour is not only dependent on the situation, but also on the people involved in the situation.
This is why one should always question what the situation is and who was involved when looking at the problem
behaviour.
2.2 Behavioural problems: the relational aspect

Behaviour always has a relational and communicative aspect. The student inputs behaviour, but so does the
teacher. The student is rude and the teacher becomes angry. The student displays performance anxiety and the
teacher becomes irritated. In this why certain interaction patterns come into existence, which obtain a more or less
stable character. The teacher-student interaction can be seen as the product of the combined characteristics of the
teacher and students. Both bring their own characteristics to the table, and therefore also their behaviour.
2.3 Behavioural problems: the relative aspect

There is no absolute in ‘good’ or ‘bad’ behaviour. Teachers are often the ‘victim’ of the general assessment law
(Posthumus, 1947) when calculating the student’s behaviour. This contains the idea that everybody who assesses
a collection of objects or subjects has the tendency to qualify a quarter as ‘good’ (or ‘positive’), half as ‘in-between’
(or average’) and a quarter as ‘bad’ (or ‘negative’). According to Posthumus, we have a ‘natural’ tendency towards
making a rough estimation of 25-50-25. For teachers these assessment tendencies are independent from the
school situation in which the students and teacher find themselves. It does not matter if the school is situated in a
problem area in a big city or in a rich area in the outskirts. Every time the teacher will assess around a quarter of the
children as having problem behaviour, independent of the content of the behaviour. He presumes an image of
behaviour as he would find in his own class. The teacher’s norms are therefore expandable. Both ‘good’ and ‘bad’
classes will therefore always have students with behavioural problems.
2.4 Behavioural problems: the fluctuating aspect

Of course many behavioural problems are also timely, they fluctuate. IN certain periods they are more severe
and in the next period the intensity may decrease, or increase, etc. Some problems, such as bad concentration
and hyper activity will appear in about 40 to 60% of children dependant on age. For young children you can think
of problems such as attention seeking, wild behaviour and dependent behaviour, as these are often found.
These problems will often disappear the older the children get.
1 For ‘he’ you can of course also read ‘she’.

2 Also see Van Beukering & Touw (2005).
Professional in de Spiegel, Seminarium voor Orthopedagogiek, Hogeschool Utrecht, www.seminarium.hu.nl 9

3 Recognise your part in relations with students
The glasses through which you perceive your students (and their parents) are coloured by your own values,
norms, convictions and life experiences. You will form an image of the student and their parents very quickly in
your mind, even within seconds. It’s very hard to just get rid of this image. It is impossible to not form any
prejudices, no matter how much you would want this. Images will form when you obtain a first impression of a
student, whether you want it to or not. These are based on:
• The appearance of a student (such as heritage, physical attractiveness, personal hygiene, mental or physical
handicaps);
• Their name (think of Roderick van Nijenroode or Achmed Abdoulah);
• Contact and communication (such as spontaneity, reserved, eye contact, voice, language use);
• Stories from colleagues about the student and their family, already knowing their parents or a brother or
sister
• Your previous experiences (this child reminds me of....)
It is important to realise that these images you form of a student will have an effect on your relation with them.
You will always pick up on the behaviour of the student which you had previously envisioned and it will be hard to
shake this off. If the student behaves contradictory to your image of them you are less likely to change your image
(‘tunnel vision’). It is therefore important to regularly take into consideration your image of the student and ‘look in
the mirror’. What is my image based on? And in how far does this influence my behaviour (positive or negative)
towards the student and their parents? By reflecting on this you will consider your affinity with certain students,
particularly towards students you are concerned about. The obtained insights will offer guidelines for interaction
with these students. For this ‘becoming aware of’ process a method has been developed: Professionals in their
mirrors (see the next article in this periodical). Professionals in their mirrors is based on the insights of construct
psychologist Kelly (1955), the theory about thought processes of the teacher is based on Atkinson & Claxton
(2000) and the coaching method of Garman (1986).
4 Construct psychology
Kelly (1955, 1963) has developed the personal Construct Theory (PC theory). His PC theory concerns the manner
in which personal convictions guide the thinking and actions of people. He delves into the manner in which people
are influenced by their own interpretation of construction and their social environment. He puts forward the idea
that behind the judgement and behaviour of a person there is hidden an implicitly individual theory. This theory is
based on personal perception of occurrences. According to him we arrange our views by our surroundings and the
things we experience by comparing these with previous experiences. We judge based on the views and
convictions we have acquired over time. These are completely unique, and therefore personal. Kelly calls these
constructs. These constructs are embedded in an individual (personal) construct system. This way, children from
one family can perceive an event such as Christmas with the family in an entire different manner to one another.
The youngest child might remember Santa’s beard as being very scary and will be scared the rest of the evening
(but perhaps also the following years). Whereas the oldest child might remember that grandma and grandpa were
there, which made the evening very pleasant. For her the construct pair ‘pleasant’ and ‘unpleasant’
(unconsciously) will be paramount in how she perceives Christmas.
Kelly has shown that every person possesses a construct system. This system is particularly handy when we list
what we perceive. In a sense, new situations become more manageable or predictable. This is because we
subconsciously compare the situation to a previous one very quickly, to see whether they are similar. A construct
system is composed of endless dichotome constructs (Bonarius, 1980). According to Kelly there are around eight
to twelve of these. A dichotome construct consists of the following elements: a personal construct and a personal
opposite (antipole).The personal construct and the personal opposite contain the experiences and knowledge
which the owner of the construct has memorised during his or her lifespan (up until now). These are the elements
from which the construct is built. When a teacher considers a student to be ‘calm and quiet’, then this is probably
because the student awakens this feeling due to the teacher’s previous experiences. In fact the student is just
doing what the teacher expects. Other students from his class, in comparison, who are not as quiet, might be
considered to be distracting. This way a personal combination of the construct ‘calm’ and the antipole ‘distracting’
will exist for the teacher. In this example the teacher has the dichotome construct of the construct pair ‘calm –
distracting’. The constructs offer the teacher support and form the basis for his reactions to people and new
situations. For teachers this support is very important. After all they have to react to situations in a quick and
effective manner on a daily basis. Their constructs help them in doing this.
We assume, from the construct psychology, that constructs decide the way in which a teacher interacts with the
student. One teacher might, for example, prefer a student such as Pippi Longstocking, whereas another might not.
What might be considered a difficult child by one person could be considered a child with zeal by another. A
teacher could find it important that a student is helpful, warm, intelligent and creative. Those are the constructs of
the teacher in question. The idea of construct psychology is that the teacher pays attention to the things that
trigger their constructs, in a positive or negative way. That is why it is important to gain an insight into your own
presumptions, so that you know why you have made these presumptions about your students. It gives you a
starting point for working towards better relations with your students, which might not be very good at the moment.
Your constructs give you valuable information about your thoughts and actions towards students.

Example
A new student (Shadyra, age 8) will be joining Els’group. She was previously in special needs education but is
now making the transition to a regular school. There have been prior talks with Shadyra’s mentor and parents. Els
has her own ideas about the possibilities and treatment of Shadyra. During her training as teacher Els was in a
group with a deaf person. She participated in all lessons and activities. Spoken Dutch was translated by an
interpreter. In the beginning Els found this strange and unsettling but she soon became used to it. Els now
combines these previous experiences with the information she has received from Shadyra’s mentor and parents.
She can now ‘place’ Shadyra. Els has positive expectations and awaits the arrival of Shadyra and her interpreter
with confidence. Hopefully this will show in class.
In which manner do we form a connection with students in the class? The teacher has expectations of all students
in the class, even those with behavioural problems. The construct system involved with the students in question
will encompass the teacher’s vision of education, at least a part of it. The constructs from which the vision is
founded can be seen as the building blocks. Behind each construct is a teacher’s story. Why would a teacher find
inquisitiveness so important in a student? How can inquisitiveness influence other things in a positive manner?
How much benefit (or none) they gained from their own inquisitiveness? The question that arises is how the
teacher then interacts with students who are not inquisitive or eager to learn? And how does he display this in his
actions towards students. In short, we stimulate the teacher to look into his construct system and how this affects
his interaction with these students, particularly those with behavioural problems. We do this by putting emphasis
on intuition, theory and reflection.
5 Intuition, theory and reflection

Looking for your own role and expectations of the students is an important step in developing the professional
identity of the teacher. It is essential that this happens for the teacher as well as the students, as the student’s
time at school can largely be influenced by negative (low) expectations from the teacher (Rosenthal & Jacobson,
1968; Jungbluth, 2003). Of the teacher we expect a constant investigative attitude. He must be able to view his
class as a phenomenon to be investigated on a regular basis (Ponte, 2003). This means that he should be able to
reflect on his own perceptions and experiences. He is also able to make a connection between his own
convictions, insights and experiences, and the theoretical concepts of his subject area.
The importance of learning to reflect as a part of the professional development of the development of teachers is
not a new concept. Schön (1987) has previously stated that reflecting on your actions prevents the teacher
stereotypes, labels or theorises situations, or uses certain techniques without really considering the characteristics
of the situation in question. Because of this it is important to build up a reflective knowledge and to reflect on their
own personal constructs with regard to students with behavioural problems (Van der Wolf, 2003: Touw and Van
der Wolf, 2003).
By becoming aware of your own ideas and convictions you give yourself the room to better understand a difficult
situation with students or a parent. This can lead to adjusting your beliefs, which can change your actions.
Atkinson and Claxton (2000) describe three thought processes which support teaching:
a. intuitive thinking, which supports direct actions and fast decisions;
b. theoretical thinking, which offers more objective information necessary for the analysis of the problem and
adjusting the actions;
c. reflective thinking, which is important for receiving feedback, learning from (your own) experiences,
connecting experiences with theoretical insights and developing your own vision.
These thought processes are inextricably linked to one another. Improving intuitive thinking, theoretical thinking
and reflective thinking are all three necessary if a teacher wants to develop his actions and thought processes.

6 Coaching method
Garman (1986) developed a coaching method which appears to be suitable in supporting this cyclical process.
Her method (‘Reflective Heart of Clinical Supervision) consists of two elements: ‘Reflection on action’ and
reflection on recollection’ (Pajak, 2000). ‘Reflection on action’ delves into the study of events in the here and now.
‘Reflection on recollection’ focuses on critical incidents from the past, which can influence the actions and thinking
in the here and now. Garman’s method fits into the development reflective approach. This approach pays attention
to reflection and introspection of teachers to improve their professional growth. Garman takes an important
position within this approach as they emphasise the theoretical and scientific knowledge, unlike many other
representatives of this approach.
Theoretical thinking Intuitive thinking
Theoretical Knowledge
knowledge when acting
planning practical
review
Contextual
knowledge
Reflective
thinking
Figure 1 Relation between intuition, theory and reflection (to Atkinson & Claxton, 2000)
7 Conclusion and discussion

In this work our vision on behaviour problems is illustrated. The main point is that students with behaviour problems
should not be seen separately from the situation in which the behaviour appears. This also counts for the teacher.
He is also a part of the situation. The relationship between the teacher and student is very important. The teacher,
as well as the student, influences the situation in a positive or negative manner. Problems, no matter how bad they
are, are relative. Every teacher will experience more or different problems in their own way.
This will continue to happen by thinking about behaviour problems and the actions undertaken in daily practice.
That is why self-knowledge is absolutely crucial. We argue for making teachers more professional by focussing on
the integration of the three thought processes which characterise a good teacher: intuitive thinking, theoretical
thinking and reflective thinking. These three processes are linked to one another in a cycle. Intuitive thinking is
discussed in terms of Kelly’s Personal Construct Theory (PCT). His theory makes it possible for teachers to
become more aware of their thoughts on the students. The reflective method ‘Professionals in their mirrors’, which
is based on the PCT, clarifies which views and prejudices influence teachers in their thoughts and actions. This is
important, because what we think we see is often more than what we think then what we see (Compernolle, 2003)

References
Admiraal, W., Wubbels, T., & Korthagen, F. (1996). Gedrag van aanstaande docenten in aandachteisende situa- ties in
de klas. Tijdschrift voor Onderwijsresearch, 21 (2), pp. 162 - 181.
Atkinson,T., & Claxton, G. (2000). The intuitive practitioner. On the value of not always knowing what one is
doing. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Beukering, T. van, & Touw, H. (2005). Persoonlijke constructen van leraren over gedragsmoeilijke leerlingen: via reflectie
naar zelfinzicht en professioneel handelen. In H. Jansen (red.), Levend leren. Ontwikkeling, onder- zoek en
ondersteuning binnen het pedagogisch werkveld (pp. 143-157). Utrecht: Agiel.
Bonarius, H. (1980a). Persoonlijke Psychologie, deel I: Inleiding in de Theorie en Praktijk van
Constructenpsychologie. Deventer: Van Loghum Slaterus
Bonarius, H. (1980b). Persoonlijke Psychologie, deel II: Inleiding in de Theorie en Praktijk van
Constructenpsychologie. Deventer: Van Loghum Slaterus
Compernolle (1983). 1th Congress of the European Family Therapy Network . Brussels.
Doorn, F. van (2003). Wetten van de juf. In K. van der Wolf (red.), In het hoofd van de meester.
Gedragsproblemen in de onderwijspraktijk in ecologisch perspectief (pp. 115-125). Utrecht: Agiel. Garman,
N.B. (1986). Reflection, the heart of clinical supervision: A modern rationale for practice. Journal of
Curriculum and Supervision, 2 (1), 1-24.
Jungbluth, P. (2003). De ongelijke basisschool. Etniciteit, sociaal milieu, sekse, verborgen differentiatie, segre-
gatie, onderwijskansen en schooleffectiviteit. Nijmegen: ITS.
Kelly, G.A. (1955). The Psychology of Personal Constructs. Vol. 1 and 2. New York: Norton.
Kelly, G.A. (1963). A Theory of Personality. The Psychology of Personal Constructs. New York: The Norton Library.
Pajak, E. (2000). Approaches to clinical supervision: Alternatives for improving instruction. Norwood, MA:
Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc.
Ponte, P. (2003). Interactieve professionaliteit en interactieve vormen van kennisontwikkeling in speciale onder-
wijszorg. Tilburg: Fontys Opleidingscentrum Speciale Onderwijszorg.
Posthumus, K. (1947) Levensgeheel en school. ’s-Gravenhage: Van Hoeve.
Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Schön, D.A. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Stevens, L. (2002). Zin in leren. Antwerpen: Garant.
Touw, H., & Wolf, K. van der (2003). De reflectieve leraar in opleiding. In K. van der Wolf (red.), In het hoofd van de
meester. Gedragsproblemen in de onderwijspraktijk in ecologisch perspectief (pp. 77-88). Utrecht: Agiel.
Wolf, K. van der (2003). De hand van de meester. In K. van der Wolf (red.), In het hoofd van de meester.
Gedragsproblemen in de onderwijspraktijk in ecologisch perspectief (pp. 13-31). Utrecht: Agiel.
Wolf, K. van der, & Beukering, T. van (2009). Gedragsproblemen in scholen. Het denken en handelen van leraren.
Intuïtie, theorie en reflectie. Leuven: Acco.
About the authors
Hanne Touw works at the knowledge centre, De Tanja van Beukering works as an advisor, researcher
Kleine Prins and the Seminar for Orthopedagogics, and trainer at the educational advisory bureau of Van
University of Applied Science Utrecht. She is a der Wolf & Van Beukering.
doctorate at the University of Utrecht. Email: tanja@deonderwijsadviseurs.nl
Email: hanne.touw@hu.nl

2
PROFESSIONALS IN
THEIR MIRRORS:
WORKING METHOD
PROFESSIONALS IN THEIR MIRRORS: METHOD
Hanne Touw and Tanja Beukering
Source: Periodical for Orthopedagogics, 48 (2009) 461-467
Summary
We find positive relations with students (particularly those with behavioural problems) very important. An essential
requisite is that we know ourselves. ‘Professionals in their mirrors’ has been designed to improve insights into
yourself’. This reflective method offers educational professionals a framework which stimulates them to think about
the part they play in their relations with students, colleagues and parents. Thereby special attention is paid to the
personal education vision of the teacher with regard to students with difficult behaviour. This method focuses on
making personal views and convictions more tangible, the so called constructs. ‘Professionals in their mirrors’ can
be applied to teaching courses and different types of schools. In this article we discuss the method’s goal, the
different steps involved and the role of the trainer/coach. The theoretical background of the method is explained in
the previous article ‘Professionals in their mirrors: Background’.
Some reactions from participants of the method

‘It was an adventure collecting my personal constructs and those of my colleague while we were working with
the same students. Our constructs were clearly different. It helped to better understand through what type of
glasses I’m looking, at least the colour of them’. ‘This self evaluation completely changed the way I think. I
now know more about myself, my strengths and weaknesses’. ‘Prior to this I always had a clear idea about
students and their parents. I’m still very critical, but I won’t point a finger at someone as fast. I’m currently
working on a bird’s eye view’. ‘My reflection process has gone into more depth by learning about my
constructs. This working method has contributed to a more investigative approach when I’m teaching’.
1 De werkwijze is mede ontwikkeld en beproefd door collega’s van proefscholen, collega’s en studenten van Instituut Theo Thijssen en het
Seminarium voor Orthopedagogiek van de Faculteit Educatie, Hogeschool Utrecht.

1 Introduction
You will probably recognise that as a teacher² you are more tolerant with some students and considerably more
rigid towards others. But what encourages or promotes this? Arte there certain insights which can help you build
more positive relations with all students? In each case the contact between teacher and student plays an
important role. Both parties bring their own behaviour to the table. This behaviour can intensify the problem, but
also prevent it or limit it. Of course we all want to have a good influence on behavioural problems, but how do we
do that? First we have to know ourselves. To stimulate these insights into yourself we have developed the method
‘Professionals in their mirrors’. In the meantime the method is applied to teacher training and different school
types. The theoretical backgrounds that inspired this work method are explained in ‘Professionals in their mirrors:
background’. The goal of this method and its 12 steps will be explained in this article.
2 Goal of Professionals in their mirrors

‘Professionals in their mirrors’ offers professionals in education (such as teachers) a framework to stimulate them
to think about the part they play in their interaction with students, colleagues and parents. Special focus is placed
on the teacher’s personal education vision, with regards to the students with behavioural problems. The method
works on making their personal views and convictions more tangible, the so called constructs. The method doesn’t
just focus on teachers, but on all professionals in education, both in primary and secondary education.
3 Professionals in their mirrors: the basic steps

The method consists of twelve steps. The first six are the basic steps. These are focussed on listing the gathered
constructs, to describe them and to relate them to your own students. The other six steps are process steps. After
the sixth step the participant can fill in the information about their constructs in the computer program IDA. This is
a tool, developed for this method, for Data analysis.
Step 1: Gathering personal constructs and antipoles

We ask each of the participants to name all the students from his3 group of students which he regularly teaches
and to write these down on individual cards. We ask them to pick out three random cards from the stack. We then
ask the participant to select two students which are most similar to one another. The participant then asks the
question ‘How are these students mainly similar?’ The answer to this question is a construct and is noted in the
form. The participant picks up three cards and adds them to the stack. Again they put down three random cards and
repeat the procedure. In this way personal constructs about students are collected. On average we appear to have
twelve to sixteen construct pairs, but more or less are also common. As soon as the participant can no longer think
of new constructs we ask him to think of an antipole for each construct. For this you no longer need the cards with
the student’s names on them. For examples of constructs and antipoles see figure 1.
Name participant: Joris ten Cate Group: 7, primary school De Kameleon

Personal construct (step 1A) Personal antipole (step 1B)
1 quick to understand Slow thinker
2 solves things by talking Solves thing by fighting
3 unpredictable consequent
4 slow pace Hard worker
5 etc.
Figure 1 the personal constructs and antipoles of Joris
Step 2: Experiencing personal constructs

Each participant is asked about the experience of their constructs and antipoles. Which one does he consider
positive? The other half of the construct is thereby automatically the antipole. In Figure 2 there is an example of
listing the personal constructs of the student. Compare this to figure 1. We can see that some of Joris’ constructs
switch place within the construct pair.
The choice for arranging the construct or antipole is dependent on the participant’s vision of education, their
previous experience and what exactly they mean exactly with their construct or antipole. This is what step 3 is
about.
2 By ‘teacher’ we also mean teachers in training and other professionals working in education.

Positively experienced personal constructs Personal antipoles
1 quick to understand Slow thinker
2 solving by talking Solving by fighting
3 consequent unpredictable
4 hard worker Slow pace
5 etc.
Figure 2 the personal constructs and antipoles listed by Joris
Step 3: Giving a personal meaning to a construct and antipole

The participant gives a personal description to each of the constructs and antipoles. This way the meaning of the
chosen construct and antipole are made clear. A construct appears to be described differently by the participants. It
is noted how obvious it is within education that we understand one another when we use constructs such as ‘loud’,
‘quiet’’ or ‘performance anxiety’. Often we mean completely different things. That’s why a description of the
construct in your own words is very important. Only then there can be a mutual understanding.
Step 4: Scoring students based on the positive constructs of the participant

The positively experienced constructs are written down on a form by the participant. After this they score their
students based on their own constructs. The participant does this with the use of the 5 point scale (See Figure 3).
The scores range from 0 to 4. A low score on the positive construct (score 0 or 1) indicates that participant feels
that construct does not apply to/ or barely applies to this student. The participant implies that they experience
more aspects of the antipole regarding the student. For a score of 2 the positive construct applies to the student
as often as it does not. If the student gets a score of 3 or 4 they the construct is almost/completely applicable. The
antipole in this case is rarely or never the case. The filled in lists offer good possibilities for the guidance talks in
learning teams. These teams consist of student or colleagues who are working through this method at the same
time.
Name participant: Joris ten Cate

Name Student: Josien Date of birth student: 09-09-1999
Positively experienced construct Not applicable at all Completely applicable
1 quick to understand 0 1 2 3 4
2 solving by talking 0 1 2 3 4
3 consequent 0 1 2 3 4
4 hard worker 0 1 2 3 4
Etc. 0 1 2 3 4
Figure 3 Scores that Joris gives to student Josien
Step 5: Arranging personal constructs in seven areas of attention

For an analysis of the constructs the participant is offered a model in which he can arrange his positively
experienced personal constructs (compare Pameijer and Van Beukerering, 2009). We perceive this model as a
framework for our thought process (and eventually our actions) concerning the functioning of students in school and
home environment. In the model seven areas are distinguished. The arrangement happens in the following way.
Each construct is listed in one of the areas by the participant. There can be more than one construct within an area.
In Figure 4 this arrangement model is illustrated by using the constructs from Figure 2. Joris has arranged his
construct into three different areas. During the review on his arrangement Joris, together with his trainer, check
whether these three areas of attention form the most important starting points for Joris. If that is the case then what
implication does this have for him and the students? If this is not the case then which area is potentially
underexposed?
Areas of attention Personal constructs

(more constructs per area are possible)
1 Learning progress/development of student
2 Work attitude and behaviour during tasks Student hard worker
3 Cognitive functioning of student Quick to understand
4 Social-emotional functioning of student Solving problems by talking, consequent
5 Artistic or expressive capacity of the student
6 Physical function of student
7 Upbringing with regards to home situation
Figure 4 Personal constructs arranged by Joris in the areas

Joris has arranged his constructs into three different areas. During the review on his arrangement Joris, together
with his trainer, check whether these three areas of attention form the most important starting points for Joris. If that
is the case then what implication does this have for him and the students? If this is not the case then which area is
potentially underexposed?
Step 6: Psychological closeness between teacher and his students

In this step the participant can indicate how he experiences the distance between himself and his students. In
Figure 5 this is illustrated.
Josien X me
The distance between the ‘me’ and the X is minimal. With this Joris indicates that he barely experiences a
psychological distance between himself and Josien.
Figure 5 Example of the psychological closeness between Joris and his student Josien
4 Professionals in their mirrors: process steps

After six basic steps the participants then follow the six process steps. The process steps combine two or more
basic steps or link the constructs to a new aspect. Because of this a construct can be viewed in another way.
Step 7: Relating de construct definitions to scores of two students.

This process step combines information from step 3 and 4. The participant writes a portrayal of two students based
on the scores of his constructs. This way a link is made between your own definitions (step 3) and the scores of the
two students (step 4). The goal of this is to find out whether the definitions are synonymous when applied to
students. As an example we will show Joris’ first two sentences about his student Josien.
Joris’ first positive construct is ‘quick to understand’. The definition Joris gave in step 3 is: ‘quickly understands
what it’s about when explained’. Joris gave Josien a score of 4 for ‘quick to understand’ (see figure 3). The
positive construct entirely applies to Josien. The first sentence of his portrayal of Josien is: ‘Josien understands
things quickly, she picks up on the subject really well when explained to her’.
For the second construct Joris gives Josien a score of 0. This score is related to the antipole of the construct, that
she got a 0 for the positive construct ‘solving by talking’ (see Figure 3). The definition that Joris chose for this
antipole is: ‘Get psychical in conflicts’. The score 0 shows that the antipole completely applies to Josien. The
second sentence in his portrayal of Josien shows that: Josien is a student who solves conflict by fighting, she
always gets physical.
For each score of a construct the procedure above is repeated until all positive constructs of antipoles have
come to light. The portrayal of the student, which has come to being, forms a good starting point for a
conversation about thinking and judging students. How does this work in the approach of the student and the
actions of the teacher?
Step 8: Combining antipoles with types of behavioural problems

The goal of this processing order is that the participant discovers for each type of behavioural problem which
constructs he formulates. In this step eight ‘types’ of behavioural problems are presented (see Van der Wolf &
Van Beukering, 2009).
Step 9: Combining positive constructs with strong characteristics

In this process step the participant will combine their positive constructs with 22 strong characteristics. These are
divided into five categories. The goal is to gain an insight into the strong characteristics to which the constructs of
the participant point. These characteristics are derived from the ‘Classification of Character Strengths’3 (Seligman &
Petersen, 2005). These are designed as the antithesis of the classification of psychiatric disorders, the DSM IV
(Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition).
3 See www.authentichappiness.org

Step 10: Making a mind map
As a prelude to a personal professional portrayal (step 11) the participant creates a mind map. In this he visualizes
the connection of his constructs and the manner in which they are important to him.
Step 11: Writing a personal professional portrayal of someone

This method offers the participant ingredients they can use for writing a personal professional portrayal,
formulating learning questions and the manner in which he wishes to work on the substantiation of this.
When working on the personal professional portrayal the participant includes all information which he has
gathered when going through the steps. Hereby his own reflections will be utilised, which have been
formulated when going through the steps. By looking at the steps in their own ‘rear-view mirrors’ a participant
can discover which type of behaviour of a student might appeal to him more or less and why this is the case.
Step 12: Discussing personal professional portrayal (PPP) and the learning questions
It’s up to the participant how he wants to present his PPP to the learning team. He can do this by telling them
about the constructs with regard to an object. He can also choose to read his PPP to his learning team. In this
periodical an example is given of the PPP in the shape of a fairy tale. One teacher said about this step that ‘You
get to know your colleagues in an entirely different manner. The portrayals give new images of one another. This
way a better insight is gained into one another’s strengths and weaknesses. We can benefit from this in our
school and in our education’.
5 Role of the trainer

Trainers/counsellors of ‘Professionals in their mirrors’ are experienced in coaching. It is important that they have
also gone through this method. In the method the focus on the practice of your profession is central. Of course the
different aspect or ‘layers’ of the participant are addressed, such as their meanings, incentives, inner conflicts. It is
almost inevitable for a person’s strengths and weaknesses not to come to light. The guidance counsellor has the
responsibility to watch out for professional boundaries. If there is a question of a serious personal problem, which
for example has an influence on relations with students, then the trainer/counsellor will advise the education
professional to follow a different path, for example supervision of conversations with a psychologists. But in the
most cases this will not be necessary.
6 Conclusions
The reflective method ‘Professionals in their mirrors’ offers education professionals a framework that stimulates
them to think about the part they play in their relations with students, colleagues and parents. Special focus is
placed on the teacher’s personal education vision, with regards to the students with behavioural problems. We
assume that the behavioural problems are a result of his interactions between the student, home environment and
the class and a school environment. The teacher as a person plays a crucial role in this. This method focuses on
making personal views and convictions more tangible, the so called constructs. We stimulate the teaching
professional to look into his own construct system and to see which implications this has on his interactions with
students, particularly those with behavioural problems. We do this by paying attention to intuition, theory and
reflection.

References
Pameijer, N., Beukering, T. van, & Lange, S. de (2009). Handelingsgericht werken: een handreiking voor
het schoolteam. Samen met collega’s, leerlingen en ouders aan de slag. Leuven: Acco.
Seligman, E.P., Steen, T.A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive Psychology Progress: Empirical Validation of
Interventions. American Psychologist, 60, 5, 410-421.
Touw, H., & Baars, A. (2008) Professional in de spiegel: herken je aandeel in relaties. De wereld van het jonge
kind, 36, 4-7.
Wolf, K. van der, & Beukering, T. van (2009). Gedragsproblemen in scholen. Het denken en handelen
van leraren. Intuïtie, theorie en reflectie. Leuven: Acco.
For more information see the references for ‘Professionals in their mirrors: background’.
For more information about Professionals in their mirrors you can contact Peter Linschoten. Emailadres: Peter.Linschoten@hu.nl

3
WORK MATERIALS
STEP 1: GATHERING CONSTRUCT PAIRS
Goal
• Goal of step 1 A is gathering personal constructs.
• Goals of step 1 B is formulating the personal antipoles for the constructs, so that construct pairs come to exist.
Method 1A
You will go to work point by point:
• Make a list of names of all students in your group.
• Write the names of each of your students in your group on separate pieces of paper.
• Make a stack of the name cards.
• Grab three name cards at random from the stack.
• Select two of the students from the three which have the most similarities to one another. Do this by asking
yourself: In how so far are the two students similar (and do they differ from the third)?
• On the left side under form 1 under ‘Personal constructs’ write the word (definition) that comes to mind for
these two students. Preferably just one word, maximum of two.
• Place the three name cards back into the stack and shuffle the cards.
• Take another three random cards from the stack.
• Repeat the same steps.
• Collect your personal constructs this way (step 1A).
• Repeat this until you notice that you are repeating yourself. You can then step with step 1A.
In which aspect are these two students most similar?

(and do they differ from the third)
Your name:……………………..……………................. m/f

Your date of birth:................................................. Fulfilment date:……………………..……………..................
Schooltype:……………………..…………….............. Group:……………………..……………..........................
How many years have you been working in education:...
Function:……………………..……………........................
Note here, if applicable, the student or students in your group who you are partial to.
Note the first name and the reason. Add an explanation if necessary.
First name: Reason:
First name: Reason:
First name: Reason:
First name: Reason:
First name: Reason:

Method step 1B
You will go to work point by point:
• You are finished gathering your personal constructs in the left column of form 1.
• Read the first construct (definition) which you have noted here.
• Think about what in your opinion best displays the opposite of your first construct.
• Write down on the right side of form 1 (under ‘Personal antipole’) the first the word (definition) that first came
up in you when you thought of the opposite. From now on this is the antipole which fits with your first
construct.
• Now read the second construct in the left column and think about what in your opinion best displays the
opposite of your second construct.
• Write down on the right side of the form (‘Personal antipole’) the first word (definition) that first came up in
you when you thought of the opposite. From now on this is the antipole which fits with your second
construct.
• You will be finished when you give each construct on the form an antipole, thus creating the construct pairs.
Hereunder is an example in which four construct pairs have been filled in.
EXAMPLE STEP 1B
Form 1 Gathering construct pairs
Personal constructs Personal antipoles

(This column is filled in during step 1A) (This column is filled in during step 1B)
1. Quick to understand Slow thinker
2. Solves by fighting Solves by talking
3. Unpredictable Consequent
4. Hard worker Slow pace
5. Etc.

FORM 1 COLLECTION OF CONSTRUCT PAIRS
Personal construct (step 1A) Personal antipole (step 1B)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
N.B. Add lines if u have more constructs. Less than sixteen constructs is also possible.

Space to write down your reflections with regards to step 1

STEP 2 EXPERIENCES OF CONSTRUCT PAIRS
Goal
Goal of this step is to weigh the construct pairs against one another: which half of the pair do you generally
experience as the most positive; the construct or the antipole?
Method
Work in the following manner:
• Arrange your own constructs and antipoles based on the dimensions ‘positively experienced constructs’ (left
column) and antipoles (right column).
• First fill in the positively experienced construct of the construct pair in form 2. The other construct of the pair
will be placed directly next to it and will automatically become the antipole.
• T hen note down which construct (from the construct pair) that you had written down as first and second in
form 1. Do this by circling the numbers 1 or 2. Use form 1 to use the original order in which the constructs
were written.
EXAMPLE
Form 1 Personal constructs (1A) and personal antipoles (1B)
1A Personal constructs 1B Personal antipoles

1. Quick to understand Slow thinker
2. Solving by fighting Solving by talking
3. Unpredictable Consequent
4. Hard worker Slow pace
EXAMPLE
Form 2 Experiences of construct pairs
Positively experienced personal Circle position Personal antipoles Circle position (see
constructs (see form 1) form 1)
1. Quick to understand 1 Slow thinker 2

2. Solving by talking 2 Solving by fighting 1
3. Consequent 2 Unpredictable 1
4. Hard worker 1 Slow pace 2
In the example in form 2 it is evident that the construct pairs 2 and 3 (constructs and antipoles) have been given a
different position. They have been switched from the right to the left column.
Professional in the Mirror, Seminar for Orthopedagogics, University of Applied Science Utrecht, www.seminarium.hu.nl 31
FORM 2 EXPERIENCES OF CONSTRUCT PAIRS
Positively experienced personal Circle position Personal antipoles Circle position (see
construct (see form 1) form 1)
1. 1-2 1-2
2. 1-2 1-2
3. 1-2 1-2
4. 1-2 1-2
5. 1-2 1-2
6. 1-2 1-2
7. 1-2 1-2
8. 1-2 1-2
9. 1-2 1-2
10. 1-2 1-2
11. 1-2 1-2
12. 1-2 1-2
13. 1-2 1-2
14. 1-2 1-2
15. 1-2 1-2
16. 1-2 1-2
N.B. Add lines if u have more constructs. Less than sixteen constructs is also possible
32 Professional in the Mirror, Seminar for Orthopedagogics, University of Applied Science Utrecht, www.seminarium.hu.nl
STEP 3 DESCRIBING THE CONSTRUCT PAIRS
Goal
Goal of this step is to make your own views and convictions about students more concrete.
Method
Go to work in the following way:
• Note your construct pairs (positive constructs and personal antipoles) in form 3. Take these over from form 2.
Please note that the construct pairs should stay together and that they should remain in the same order.
• Describe each construct of the construct pair concisely (maximal 1 line per description).
• Make descriptions for all constructs in this way.
EXAMPLE
Form 3 Description of the construct pairs
Name: Pieter Weeda

Positive construct Description Antipole Description
1. Quick to understand Slow thinker Needs more time than

Understands quickly
average to understand
when an explanation is
the explanation.
given
2. Solve by talking Solves by fighting

Talks it out when Becomes psychical
there is a conflict in a conflict.
Etc.
FORM 3 DESCRIPTIONS OF THE CONSTRUCTS
Positive construct Description
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
FORM 3 DESCRIPTIONS OF THE CONSTRUCT PAIRS
Antipole Description
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
STEP 4 SCORING STUDENTS BASED ON THE
CONSTRUCTS
Goal
Goal of this step is to analyse whether the students ‘substantiate’ your own views and convictions.
Method
You will now look to see how far your positive constructs are applicable to your students.
Follow the following steps:
• Copy all the positively experienced constructs onto form 4.
• Keep the same order as the positive constructs in form 2.
• Copy the filled in form proportionate to the amount of students in your group, plus an extra example.
• For each student fill in an example from form 4. Let yourself be guided by the image you (now) have of each
student.
• Option: finally fill in the positive constructs in the form with yourself in mind. Hereunder you will find an example
of four positive constructs filled in by Peter.
EXAMPLE
Form 4 Scoring students based on constructs
Name: Pieter Weeda m/f

Name student: Josien m/f
Date of birth student: 23-04-2003
Group: 5

Quick to understand 0 1 2 3 4
Solve by talking 0 1 2 3 4
Consequent 0 1 2 3 4
Hard worker 0 1 2 3 4
Etc.
FORM 4 SCORING STUDENTS BASED ON THE
CONSTRUCTS
Name students: m/f
Date of birth student:
Group:
1. 0 1 2 3 4
2. 0 1 2 3 4
3. 0 1 2 3 4
4. 0 1 2 3 4
5. 0 1 2 3 4
6. 0 1 2 3 4
7. 0 1 2 3 4
8. 0 1 2 3 4
9. 0 1 2 3 4
10. 0 1 2 3 4
11. 0 1 2 3 4
12. 0 1 2 3 4
13. 0 1 2 3 4
14. 0 1 2 3 4
15. 0 1 2 3 4
16. 0 1 2 3 4


STEP 5 ARRANGING CONSTRUCTS IN AREAS
OF ATTENTION
This step is – in its entirety – not applicable to this course Behaviour, Period 1 A perspective on behaviour, 3
constructs.
Goal
In step 5 the positive constructs are arranged into several areas. The goal of this is to make it more tangible in
how so far the constructs are spread over a certain amount of educationally relevant areas.
Method
Go to work as follows:
• In form 5 order your positively experienced personal constructs in the seven areas. The positive
constructs are listed in form 2 in the left column.
• Each construct should only be listed in one of the areas. Although we understand that it is sometimes
possible to list them in more than one area we ask you to choose only one.
• When arranging the constructs in the seven areas let the definitions of your constructs (step 3) inspire you.
• More than one construct can be arranged into one area.
EXAMPLE
Form 5 Arranging constructs into the seven areas
Name: Pieter Weeda
Seven areas Personal constructs
1. Learning: Learning development and performances (it is more possible to put more construct in one area)
2 Work attitude and behaviour during tasks

Hard worker
3 Cognitive functioning of student
Quick to understand
4 Social-emotional functioning of student
Talk by solving, consequent
5 Artistic or expressive capacity of the student
6 Physical function of student
7 Upbringing with regards to home situation

FORM 5A ARRANGING CONSTRUCTS INTO
AREAS OF ATTENTION
Name participant:
Seven areas of attention Personal constructs

(more constructs per area are possible)
1. Learning: Learning development and performances
2 Work attitude and behaviour during tasks
3 Cognitive functioning of student
4. Social-emotional functioning of student
5. Artistic or expressive capacity of the student
6. Physical function of student and external

characteristics
7. Upbringing with regards to home situation
N.B. E a c h c o n s t r u c t c a n o n l y b e p l a c e d i n o n e a r e a .

Space to write down your reflections with regards to step 5a and 5b

STEP 5C EXTRA ASSIGNMENT FOR STEP 5C
FOR SCHOOLTEAMS
Arranging constructs and educational needs in areas of attention
This exercise can be executed if/when your school has formulated the educational needs of the students. It’s
about the needs, which according to the team, count for all students of the school.
Method
Go to work as following:
1. Per area count the amount of constructs noted in form 5.
2. Copy the constructs per area onto form 5B. If you didn’t arrange some of the constructs into an area leave
that space open.
3. Examine (and discuss) the educational needs formulated by your school and shorten them (where needed)
into concise sentences.
4. Arrange with the group the educational needs of the seven areas of attention. Educational needs can
intuitively belong to more areas. Try to make a choice together.
5. Reflect on the relationship between the seven areas, the amount of constructs and the education needs.
What do you notice?
Hereunder you can find a properly filled in form1
EXAMPLE
Form 5C Arranging constructs and educational needs in the areas of attention
Name participant: Ghita Streefland
Seven areas of attention Amount of Educational needs

constructs
1 Learning: Learning 1 Our students have the need for tangible,
development and concrete and positive results.
performances
2 Work attitude and behaviour 3 Our students have the need for structure.
during tasks
3 Cognitive functioning of 1 Our students have the need for ‘real’ assignments.
student Our students have the need to learn and remember by doing
and experiencing.
4 Social-emotional functioning 5 Our students have the need for

of student personal recognition.
Our students have the need for a consistent routine in
school.
5 Artistic or expressive 0 Our students have the need for a routine in which
capacity of the student their artistic and expressive qualities are utilised.
6 Physical function of student 1 Our students have the need for structuring their body
and external language.
characteristics
7 Upbringing with regards to 0 Our students have the need for a respectful approach by
home situation their parents and caretakers.
1 We would like to thank the OSG ‘De Meergronden’ profession focus unit in Almere for making the formulated educational needs of the
students available (2006).

FORM 5C ARRANGING
CONSTRUCTS AND EDUCATIONAL
NEEDS IN AREAS OF ATTENTION
Name participant:
Seven areas of attention Amount of Educational needs

constructs
(see form. 5)
1 Learning: Learning
development and
performances
2 Work attitude and behaviour

during tasks
3 Cognitive functioning of
student
4 Social-emotional functioning
of student
5 Artistic or expressive
capacity of the student
6 Physical function of student and

external characteristics
7 Upbringing with regards to

home situation
N.B. E a c h c o n s t r u c t c a n o n l y b e p l a c e d i n o n e a r e a .

Space to write down your reflections with regards to step 5c

FORM 6 PSYCHOLOGICAL CLOSENESS WITH
REGARDS TO THE STUDENTS
Goal
In step 6 the psychological the distance between the participant and all students from their group is made
visible.
The goal of this step is to become more aware of the psychological distance that the participant experiences
at this moment between the students and can thus explain it better.
Method
Go to work as
following:
• Note down the names of the students in your group in form 6 under the heading ‘student’.
• Place a cross on the line where you feel the psychological closeness between you and the student takes
place. Per student a straight line is heading towards you (the figure).
• Write down in numbers on form 6, per student (in the left column), how often they received a score of 0, 1, 2,
3 or 4 in form 4.
EXAMPLE 1
Some students are emotionally closer to you. In this case place a cross on the line close to the figure of the
‘teacher/me’. After doing so it should look like this:
Annabel X ________Teacher/me
There is a small distance between the X and the teacher. This indicates that there is a small psychological
distance between the teacher and the student Annabel at this moment.
EXAMPLE 2
Some students are emotionally further from you. In this case place a cross on the line far from the figure of
the ‘teacher/me’. After doing so it should look like this:
Matt X _______________________________________________________Teacher/me
There is a bigger distance from the X than in example 1. This indicates that the teacher experiences a bigger
psychological distance from Matt than Annabel at the moment (example).

50
FORM 6 PSYCHOLOGICAL CLOSENESS WITH REGARDS TO THE

STUDENTS
Amount 0,1,2,3,4 scores per student
www.seminarium.hu.nl
Professionals in their mirrors, Seminar for Orthopedagogics, University of applied Science Utrecht,
Name student teacher/me
0 1 2 3 4
........................................ ..............................
........................................ ..............................
........................................ ..............................
........................................ ..............................
........................................ ..............................
........................................ ..............................
........................................ ..............................
........................................ ..............................
........................................ ..............................
........................................ ..............................
........................................ ..............................
........................................ ..............................
........................................ ..............................
........................................ ..............................
........................................ ..............................
www.seminarium.hu.nl
Professionals in their mirrors, Seminar for Orthopedagogics, University of applied Science Utrecht,
FORM 6 PSYCHOLOGICAL CLOSENESS WITH REGARDS TO THE

STUDENTS
Amount 0,1,2,3,4 scores per student
Name student teacher/me
0 1 2 3 4
........................................ ..............................
........................................ ..............................
........................................ ..............................
........................................ ..............................
........................................ ..............................
........................................ ..............................
........................................ ..............................
........................................ ..............................
........................................ ..............................
........................................ ..............................
........................................ ..............................
........................................ ..............................
........................................ ..............................
........................................ ..............................
51
........................................ ..............................
52 Professionals in their mirrors, Seminar for Orthopedagogics, University of applied science Utrecht, www.seminarium.hu.nl
STEP 7 PORTRAITS OF PUPILS
Outcome
The aim of this step is to make the significance and scope of descriptions of constructs and opposite poles
tangible. This is done by combining pupils’ scores (on the positive constructs and their opposite poles) with the
significance of these scores.
Method
Proceed as follows:
• Select a pupil on Form 1 from the pupils you marked as being ‘demanding.’ Now find the copy of Form 4 that
refers to this pupil.
• Repeat the procedure for a pupil you experience as being ‘easy’ to deal with, with whom you have a good
connection.
• Put Form 3 (construct descriptions and descriptions of opposite poles) together with these forms.
• Before you continue, read through the example below of Josien, a pupil of teacher Pieter Weeda.
This example of Form 4 shows the scores that Pieter Weerda gives to his pupil Josien for two constructs.
EXAMPLE
Form 4 - Scoring pupils for constructs
Name: Pieter Weeda m/f

Name pupil: Josien m/f
Date of birth pupil: 23-04-2004
Class: 5
Positively experienced construct Never applicable Always applicable
1. Understands quickly 0 1 2 3 4
The example of Form 4 shows the definitions that Pieter Weerda formulated for two pairs of constructs.
EXAMPLE
Form 3 – Description of construct pairs
Name: Pieter Weeda
Positive construct Description Opposite pole Description
1. Understands quickly Needs little time to Slow thinker Needs more time than
understand what is being the average before
explained. understanding an
explanation.
Participant Pieter Weeda’s first positive construct is ‘understands quickly.’ Pieter’s definition of this is on Form 3,
and reads: ‘Needs little time to understand what is being explained.’
Participant Pieter has given his pupil Josien a score of 4 for the construct ‘understands quickly’ (you can
see this on Form 4). According to Pieter, then, the construct is always applicable to Josien. Sentences in the
portrait start with: ‘I experience... I think..In my opinion...’ etc. So, the first sentence in Josien’s portrait is:
I think Josien understands quickly. In my opinion, she always needs little time to understand what is being
explained.
The second sentence about Josien is based on the negative construct since she scored 0 on the positive
construct ‘solving problems verbally’ (see Form 4). This score indicates that the negative construct is always
applicable to Josien. So, the second sentence in Josien’s portrait reads:
I experience Josien as someone who solves problems by fighting. In my opinion, she always becomes
physical in conflicts.
The above procedure is repeated for every construct score, until all the positive constructs or their opposite poles
have been dealt with. The scores on Form 4 determine the content of the portrait. Below, we explain the scores
again:
• Score 0: The positive construct is never applicable. Your choice is for the definition of the opposite
pole which, due to the score of 0, is always applicable to the pupil.
• Score 1: The positive construct is hardly ever applicable. Your choice is for the definition of the
opposite pole which, due to the score of 1, is regularly or often applicable to the pupil.
• Score 2: The positive construct a n d the opposite pole are equally applicable. In this case, you
choose the positive definition and indicate that it is sometimes applicable to the pupil.
• Score 3: The positive construct is usually applicable. Your choice is for the definition of the
positive construct which, due to the score of 3, is regularly or often applicable to the
pupil.
• Score 4: The positive construct is always applicable. Your choice is for the definition of the
positive construct which, due to the score of 4, is always applicable to the pupil.
Room to note down you reflections after completing step 7
56
Professional in the Mirror (Professional in de Spiegel)
Dpt. of Special Education (Seminarium voor Orthopedagogiek), Hogeschool Utrecht: www.seminarium.hu.nl
Utrecht

Workbook Professional in Their Mirrors

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Workbook Professional in Their Mirrors

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WORKBOOK PROFESSIONALS

1. Professionals in their mirrors: background 6

2. Professionals in their mirrors: working method 14

Chapter 3: Work materials: 23

The development team

4 Professional in de Spiegel, Seminarium voor Orthopedagogiek, Hogeschool Utrecht, www.seminarium.hu.nl

Teacher at a primary school

8 Professional in de Spiegel, Seminarium voor Orthopedagogiek, Hogeschool Utrecht, www.seminarium.hu.nl

2 Behavioural problems: situational, relational, relative and fluctuating

2.1 Behavioural problems: the situational aspect

2.2 Behavioural problems: the relational aspect

2.3 Behavioural problems: the relative aspect

2.4 Behavioural problems: the fluctuating aspect

1 For ‘he’ you can of course also read ‘she’.

Professional in de Spiegel, Seminarium voor Orthopedagogiek, Hogeschool Utrecht, www.seminarium.hu.nl 9

10 Professional in de Spiegel, Seminarium voor Orthopedagogiek, Hogeschool Utrecht, www.seminarium.hu.nl

5 Intuition, theory and reflection

Professional in de Spiegel, Seminarium voor Orthopedagogiek, Hogeschool Utrecht, www.seminarium.hu.nl 11

Theoretical thinking Intuitive thinking

7 Conclusion and discussion

12 Professional in de Spiegel, Seminarium voor Orthopedagogiek, Hogeschool Utrecht, www.seminarium.hu.nl

About the authors

Professional in de Spiegel, Seminarium voor Orthopedagogiek, Hogeschool Utrecht, www.seminarium.hu.nl 13

Some reactions from participants of the method

16 Professional in de Spiegel, Seminarium voor Orthopedagogiek, Hogeschool Utrecht, www.seminarium.hu.nl

2 Goal of Professionals in their mirrors

3 Professionals in their mirrors: the basic steps

Step 1: Gathering personal constructs and antipoles

Name participant: Joris ten Cate Group: 7, primary school De Kameleon

Figure 1 the personal constructs and antipoles of Joris

Step 2: Experiencing personal constructs

Professional in de Spiegel, Seminarium voor Orthopedagogiek, Hogeschool Utrecht, www.seminarium.hu.nl 17

Figure 2 the personal constructs and antipoles listed by Joris

Step 3: Giving a personal meaning to a construct and antipole

Step 4: Scoring students based on the positive constructs of the participant

Name participant: Joris ten Cate

Figure 3 Scores that Joris gives to student Josien

Step 5: Arranging personal constructs in seven areas of attention

Areas of attention Personal constructs

Figure 4 Personal constructs arranged by Joris in the areas

18 Professional in de Spiegel, Seminarium voor Orthopedagogiek, Hogeschool Utrecht, www.seminarium.hu.nl

Step 6: Psychological closeness between teacher and his students

4 Professionals in their mirrors: process steps

Step 7: Relating de construct definitions to scores of two students.

Step 8: Combining antipoles with types of behavioural problems

Step 9: Combining positive constructs with strong characteristics

Professional in de Spiegel, Seminarium voor Orthopedagogiek, Hogeschool Utrecht, www.seminarium.hu.nl 19

Step 11: Writing a personal professional portrayal of someone

5 Role of the trainer

Professional in de Spiegel, Seminarium voor Orthopedagogiek, Hogeschool Utrecht, www.seminarium.hu.nl 21

22 Professional in de Spiegel, Seminarium voor Orthopedagogiek, Hogeschool Utrecht, www.seminarium.hu.nl

In which aspect are these two students most similar?

Your name:……………………..……………................. m/f

First name: Reason:

First name: Reason:

First name: Reason:

First name: Reason:

First name: Reason:

Professional in de Spiegel, Seminarium voor Orthopedagogiek, Hogeschool Utrecht, www.seminarium.hu.nl 25

Personal constructs Personal antipoles

26 Professional in de Spiegel, Seminarium voor Orthopedagogiek, Hogeschool Utrecht, www.seminarium.hu.nl

Professional in de Spiegel, Seminarium voor Orthopedagogiek, Hogeschool Utrecht, www.seminarium.hu.nl 27

28 Professional in de Spiegel, Seminarium voor Orthopedagogiek, Hogeschool Utrecht, www.seminarium.hu.nl