"(Not) knowing what you know": Exploring educators' perceptions of critical thinking in occupational therapy.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q2 REHABILITATION
Jemma Gilfillan, Laura Irvine-Brown, Amelia Di Tommaso, Ana Paula Serrata Malfitano, Lisette Farias
{"title":"\"(Not) knowing what you know\": Exploring educators' perceptions of critical thinking in occupational therapy.","authors":"Jemma Gilfillan, Laura Irvine-Brown, Amelia Di Tommaso, Ana Paula Serrata Malfitano, Lisette Farias","doi":"10.1080/11038128.2024.2405189","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Critical thinking is key for responsible occupational therapy practice. However, the degree to which educators understand critical thinking and the conceptualizations of such concept in teaching remains unclear.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study aimed to describe occupational therapy educators' perceptions and experiences of teaching critical thinking.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Social constructivism underpins the study. Eight participants were included in three online synchronous focus groups. One participant was interviewed in person due to time constraints. Data were analysed using content analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This study reveals a considerable diversity of perceptions and experiences of ambiguity regarding educators' perceptions of what they know about and how to teach critical thinking. Most educators interpret critical thinking in ways that differs from their colleagues. Furthermore, educators encounter divergent expectations pertaining to their role as educators and the readiness of their students.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study reveal a paradox within the occupational therapy profession, where critical thinking is highly valued yet educators experience ambiguity, differing expectations of their role, time constraints, and lack of formal education to support students' development of critical thinking.</p><p><strong>Significance: </strong>This study provides the foundation for further inquiry into the invisible effects and benefits of different understandings of critical thinking on occupational therapy practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":49570,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/11038128.2024.2405189","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Critical thinking is key for responsible occupational therapy practice. However, the degree to which educators understand critical thinking and the conceptualizations of such concept in teaching remains unclear.

Aim: This study aimed to describe occupational therapy educators' perceptions and experiences of teaching critical thinking.

Material and methods: Social constructivism underpins the study. Eight participants were included in three online synchronous focus groups. One participant was interviewed in person due to time constraints. Data were analysed using content analysis.

Results: This study reveals a considerable diversity of perceptions and experiences of ambiguity regarding educators' perceptions of what they know about and how to teach critical thinking. Most educators interpret critical thinking in ways that differs from their colleagues. Furthermore, educators encounter divergent expectations pertaining to their role as educators and the readiness of their students.

Conclusions: This study reveal a paradox within the occupational therapy profession, where critical thinking is highly valued yet educators experience ambiguity, differing expectations of their role, time constraints, and lack of formal education to support students' development of critical thinking.

Significance: This study provides the foundation for further inquiry into the invisible effects and benefits of different understandings of critical thinking on occupational therapy practice.

"(不)知道自己知道什么":探索教育者对职业疗法中批判性思维的看法。
背景:批判性思维是负责任的职业治疗实践的关键。目的:本研究旨在描述职业治疗教育工作者对批判性思维教学的看法和经验:社会建构主义是本研究的基础。八名参与者参加了三个在线同步焦点小组。由于时间限制,一名参与者接受了面谈。采用内容分析法对数据进行了分析:本研究揭示了教育工作者对批判性思维的认识和教学方法的认识存在相当大的差异和模糊体验。大多数教育工作者对批判性思维的解释与他们的同事不同。此外,教育者对自己作为教育者的角色和学生的准备程度的期望也不尽相同:本研究揭示了职业治疗专业中的一个悖论,即批判性思维受到高度重视,但教育者的角色却模糊不清,对自己的角色有不同的期望,时间紧迫,缺乏支持学生发展批判性思维的正规教育:本研究为进一步探究批判性思维的不同理解对职业治疗实践的隐形影响和益处奠定了基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
15.80%
发文量
45
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy is an internationally well-recognized journal that aims to provide a forum for occupational therapy research worldwide and especially the Nordic countries. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy welcomes: theoretical frameworks, original research reports emanating from quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies, literature reviews, case studies, presentation and evaluation of instruments, evaluation of interventions, learning and teaching in OT, letters to the editor.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信