首页> 外文期刊>Educational Psychology in Practice: theory, research and practice in educational psychology >Is the restructured initial professional training in educational psychology fit for purpose?
【24h】

Is the restructured initial professional training in educational psychology fit for purpose?

机译:重组后的教育心理学专业培训是否符合目的?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Following changes to educational psychology training, the research aimed to examine whether the new training is considered a??fit for purposea??, using a mixed-methods design. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected via semi-structured online questionnaires completed by recently qualified educational psychologists (RQEPs) who completed training programmes in 2009 and 2010, and principal educational psychologists (PEPs). 64 RQEPs and 15 PEPs responded to the online questionnaires distributed through the Educational Psychology Network (EPNET) and the National Association of Principal Educational Psychologists (NAPEP) forums, as well as via all initial professional training providers in the UK (excluding Scotland). Frequency counts were calculated for quantitative data. Thematic analysis was employed to analyse the qualitative data. Findings suggest that RQEPs gain skills and competencies that are used and valued by services, specifically, professional and interpersonal competencies to face demanding roles. Gaps were identified in relation to providing RQEPs with therapeutic competencies that they and PEPs would value. Discrepancies between the training provided and the realistic educational psychologist (EP) role were highlighted, in addition to the impact these seem to have on RQEPs. Facilitators and barriers to implementation of training were identified. The restructured initial professional training appears to have provided RQEPs with relevant training that is used and valued by services. It seems that some level of a??mismatcha?? in training and job requirements will remain until a consistent educational psychology identity can be formed, either through the profession itself or due to enforced Government changes to the role. Recommendations for RQEPs, Educational Psychology Services, including PEPs, and future programme providers are presented.View full textDownload full textKeywordseducational psychology, doctorate, initial professional training, recently qualified educational psychologists (RQEPs), principal educational psychologists (PEPs), perceptionsRelated var addthis_config = { ui_cobrand: "Taylor & Francis Online", services_compact: "citeulike,netvibes,twitter,technorati,delicious,linkedin,facebook,stumbleupon,digg,google,more", pubid: "ra-4dff56cd6bb1830b" }; var addthis_config = {"data_track_addressbar":true,"ui_click":true}; Add to shortlist Link Permalink http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02667363.2012.725976
机译:随着教育心理学培训的变化,该研究旨在使用混合方法设计来检验新培训是否被认为是“适合目的”。通过半结构化在线问卷收集定量和定性数据,这些问卷是由最近合格的教育心理学家(RQEP)和主要教育心理学家(PEP)完成的,他们分别于2009年和2010年完成了培训计划。 64个RQEP和15个PEP对通过教育心理学网络(EPNET)和全国主要教育心理学家协会(NAPEP)论坛以及英国(不包括苏格兰)的所有初始专业培训提供商分发的在线问卷进行了答复。计算频率计数以获得定量数据。采用主题分析法对定性数据进行分析。研究结果表明,RQEP获得了服务所使用和重视的技能和能力,特别是专业和人际交往能力,以应对要求苛刻的角色。在为RQEP提供他们和PEP会重视的治疗能力方面,存在差距。强调了提供的培训与现实的教育心理学家(EP)角色之间的差异,以及这些似乎对RQEP的影响。确定了实施培训的促进者和障碍。经过重组的初始专业培训似乎为RQEP提供了相关的培训,服务对其进行了使用和重视。似乎某种程度的“不匹配”?在培训和工作要求方面将一直保持,直到通过职业本身或由于政府对角色的强制改变而形成一致的教育心理学身份。提出了有关RQEP,教育心理学服务(包括PEP)和未来计划提供商的建议。查看全文下载全文关键词教育心理学,博士学位,初始专业培训,最近合格的教育心理学家(RQEP),主要教育心理学家(PEP),看法相关的变量addthis_config = “ var addthis_config = {“ data_track_addressbar”:true,“ ui_click”:true};添加到候选列表链接永久链接http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02667363.2012.725976

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号