Learn,Expand,Engage: A Model for Teaching Clinical Skills in the Helping Professions

Abstract

Drawing upon foundations in constructivist philosophies, learner-centered and flipped-classroom pedagogies, the Learn, Expand, Engage (LEE) Model for teaching clinical skills across the mental health helping professions is presented. Utilizing and incorporating strengths of multiple helping professions, the goals of this model is to enable postsecondary instructors to create environments for learning which empower students to reach the highest levels of learning described in the revised version of Bloom’s Taxonomy. Implications for use of the LEE model include developmentally appropriate instructional strategies based on mastery of clinical skills, active learning activities, and flexibility to respond to individual student learning needs. The LEE model provides a framework for higher education instruction that directly responds to a recently identified need for competency-based student learning pedagogy in the helping professions.

Keywords

pedagogy helping professions learner-centered constructivist clinical skills

“The LEE model aides instructors in their evaluation of effectiveness by attending to developmental differences among learners and facilitating autonomous student professional growth.”

Introduction

Currently, mental health professions (including but not limited to counselors, social workers, and marriage and family therapists [MFT]) utilize higher education graduate programs that follow a similar structure in training students for their profession. Due to a pedagogical shift to student-centered, competency-based education (Gehart, 2011), academic and clinical training programs for helping professions in higher education settings utilize 2 to 3 academic years to progressively train students in clinical skills acquisition using a mastery approach. For example, students begin their training in content and theoretical courses (specific to “helping” discipline), coupled with initial instruction in basic clinical skill development. Students then move into field experiences appropriate to specialty and discipline (clinic, school, agency, etc.) in the middle and end of the training program(s).

Insofar as clinical skills development occurs progressively, time with and exposure to clients increases as students demonstrate ability and readiness. This progression is developmentally appropriate for students and emphasizes ethical client care (American Counseling Association, 2016; Stoltenberg & McNeill, 2010). Although a meta-analysis of 230 counselor education articles revealed a focus on instructional strategies and assignments (i.e., experiential group encounters, journaling, interdisciplinary collaboration and simulation, use of media, etc.), research on pedagogical practices, such as skills development models, made up just 9% of the sample; research on teaching and learning (i.e., frameworks for adult learning and development) were “relatively rare” (Minton, Morris, & Yaites, 2014, p. 166). As the fields of counseling, social work, MFT, and other helping professions have a mastery approach toward clinical skill development (Perosa & Perosa, 2014; Royse, Dhooper, & Rompf, 2016; Sommers-Flanagan & Sommers-Flanagan, 2015), specifically emphasizing the crucial importance and process of early clinical skill development via a strong pedagogical model for higher education instruction, is essential.

As a number of clinical helping professions identify practicum/field education as their signature pedagogy, described by Boitel and Fromm (2014), the pedagogical shift to competency-based education within the field created significant learning opportunities for students in direct service professions, specifically the mental health professions (Gehart, 2011; Holden, Barker, Rosenberg, Kuppens, & Ferrell, 2011). For example, in the counseling profession, students successfully progress through consecutive practicum and internship experiences via demonstration of mastery of skills and competencies (Council for the Accreditation of Counseling & Related Educational Programs [CACREP], 2015). The emphasis on field education is also apparent in social work programs as students’ experiences in field work are considered the cornerstone educational opportunity for students (Boitel and Fromm, 2014; Homonoff, 2008). Finally, MFT students learn specific core competencies, and demonstrate them within their clinical placement as evidence of their learning and skill set development (Gehart, 2011; Nelson et al., 2007). Although these disciplines compare in education and clinical training/practice, best-practice pedagogical approaches in which clinical skill training occurs before entrance into field/clinical placement have not been synthesized into a coherent model. Furthermore, a flexible model for meeting various accreditation standards, which is applicable within and among the disciplines of counseling, social work, and marriage and family therapy, is absent. This void creates a challenge in applying best-practice teaching pedagogy within a clinical skills classroom (i.e., field, practicum, internship, and practice).

Therefore, a significant gap exists in current teaching pedagogy regarding clinical skills training for students in the helping professions. In a meta-analysis of counselor education pedagogy, Minton and colleagues (2014) found “a clear trend toward publishing regarding specific content or techniques rather than examining teaching and learning in general or larger pedagogical practices within the profession” (p. 172). In addition, Gehart (2011) advocated for a shift in MFT pedagogy, away from content-driven models toward learning-centered and outcomes-based methods to transform the learning process. Furthermore, Boitel and Fromm (2014) identified field education as the signature pedagogy within social work and acknowledged a gap in pedagogical teaching approaches for field instructors. As such, a model that synthesizes learner-centered and outcomes-based pedagogical practices for teaching clinical skills, utilizing the signature pedagogy concept described by Boitel and Fromm (2014), would be a direct answer to the standard proposed by Gehart (2011) for MFT training and the identified need for counselor education as well as social work pedagogy (Boitel and Fromm, 2014; Minton et al., 2014). Finally, a previous review of microskills training models by Ridley, Kelly, and Mollen (2011) revealed limitations including the singular focus on skills development rather than a focus on skills, cognitive, and affective development of the helping professional in training; time limitations of previous models; and the lack of a systematic, competency-based organizational structure. A model that also attends to these limitations is needed to increase the effectiveness of training clinical helping professionals.

In response to these identified needs in higher education pedagogy for mental health helping professions, a conceptual model, including theoretical underpinnings, for best practices in teaching clinical skills courses is presented. As the authors represent counseling, MFT, as well as social work, the conceptual framework represented in this article is the result of a cross-disciplinary approach to address the current gap in best-practice models for teaching clinical courses across the mental health helping professions. Using a comprehensive understanding of how students learn, a conceptual model that details approaches for teaching from an informed and developmental perspective is explored.

The Learning Process

Constructivist philosophy

Higher education pedagogy and theory, which informs the use of classroom techniques, encountered a transition from an objectivist learning structure to a constructivist learning atmosphere (Tenenbaum, Naidu, Jegede, & Austin, 2001). Based on cognitive and behaviorist science, the objectivist teaching pedagogy surmises that knowledge within the instructor is transferred to the learner (Jonassen, 1999). However, constructivist teaching pedagogy theorizes that knowledge is within the learner and the instructor is present to help the learner construct or make meaning of their own knowledge (Jonassen, 1999). Furthermore, instructors and learners join to create, or construct, new knowledge (McAuliffe & Eriksen, 2000). With this viewpoint, the move to constructivist learning reflects a theoretical shift placing value not only on the instructor’s knowledge but also the “perspective that knowledge should be generated by learners, learned in a ‘real world’ context through collaboration and social negotiation” (Chen, 2007, p. 73). To concretely describe constructivist principles, a number of higher education pedagogical best practices are now presented. These include, but are not limited to, learner-centered approaches and the flipped-class model (Cornelius-White, 2007; Huba & Freed, 2000; van Vliet, Winnips, & Brouwer, 2015).

Learner-centered approaches

With constructivist principles at the core, learner-centered approaches embody knowledge creation directed by the learner. The learner-centered philosophy, originally a concept developed in the mental health professions, is noted as effective by a number of scholars (Blumberg, 2009; Cornelius-White, 2007; Kember, 2009). In fact, Blumberg (2009) noted the alignment of constructivist principles and learner-centered approaches. Along with constructivist viewpoints, learner-centered teaching is a hallmark objective within the missions of a number of universities across the country (Webber, 2012). Learner-centered approaches accommodate various learning styles by meeting students where they are and allowing them to make decisions about the learning process, including content, delivery, and evaluative methods (Blumberg, 2009). Also, courses oriented in the learner-centered approach are noted as positive learning experience for higher education students (Kember, 2009).

Flipped-class model

According to van Vliet and colleagues (2015), a “flipped classroom” pedagogy incorporates learning activities that structure student understanding of concepts through activities both before and during class time; and then reinforce students’ learning via review of concepts shortly before exam time. These pre-class learning activities include watching video clips, reading, and preparing/submitting discussion questions as well as class-time activities such as answering questions with clickers, peer-instruction opportunities, and large and small group discussions. The authors suggest that flipped-class pedagogy improves and enhances metacognition, collaborative-learning strategies, and increased components of “critical thinking,” “task value,” and “peer learning.” Van Vliet and colleagues (2015) also suggested “repeated use of flipped-class pedagogy in a curriculum to make effects on deep learning sustainable” (p. 14: ar26). Abeysekera and Dawson (2015) proposed that learning environments created by flipped-classroom approaches were likely to entice students’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivation by satisfying their need for competence, autonomy, and relatedness as well as providing more opportunities for tailored instruction to the student’s expertise.

As seen in the constructivist philosophy, the learner-centered and flipped-class models of higher education pedagogy emphasize the learner’s role to move from passive to active. However, despite current research informing best practices (Freeman et al., 2014; Michael, 2006; Prince, 2004) on the benefits of active learning in higher education (constructivist learning), the predominant model of large lectures (objectivist learning) continues to relegate students to the role of passive recipients of information (van Vliet et al., 2015).

Framework for the Learn, Expand, Engage (LEE) Model

In response to literature detailing the benefits of active learning in higher education (Freeman et al., 2014; Michael, 2006; Prince, 2004), the presently proposed LEE model, which synthesizes previously described best practices, is a valuable tool in creating a learning environment. Students are actively engaged, highly motivated, and ready to embrace autonomy as they progress toward knowledge creation in clinically oriented learning environments within the mental health helping professions. In addition, the LEE model creates a structure for applying these practices within a clinical skills classroom setting. This model is adaptable for educators of all levels of experience across the helping professions. The LEE model also focuses on the applicability of teaching to a competency-based learning outcomes structure, as set forth by a number of helping professions’ accrediting bodies (Commission on Accreditation for Marriage and Family Therapy Education [COAMFTE], 2005; CACREP, 2015; Council on Social Work Education [CSWE], 2015). This model offers preparedness for lifelong learning in which the students continually embrace personal responsibility for higher orders of thinking, knowledge creation, and intentional application within the mental health helping professions.

The LEE Model incorporates constructivist principles and active learning strategies of both learner-centered approaches and the flipped-classroom model. This enables students in the helping professions to learn, apply, analyze, synthesize, and evaluate their own and their peers’ clinical skill development. This leads to greater levels of knowledge acquisition and skill refinement per the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy (Anderson, Krathwohl, & Bloom, 2001). In addition, the LEE model places students in a role that goes beyond passive recipients of knowledge (i.e., listening to lectures) to active generators of knowledge. The LEE model provides learning opportunities that achieve the highest levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy by engaging students in active and interactive learning experiences at each stage while attending to developmental considerations informed by the conceptual framework outlined in the Integrated Developmental Model (IDM; Stoltenberg & McNeill, 2010). In this, the student progresses developmentally on continuums of motivation, autonomy, and self–other awareness. This progression is supported by a focus on dispositions that allow students to be present and actively engaged in the learning process (Spurgeon, Gibbons, & Cochran, 2012). In addition, the LEE model attends to the need for mastery of the basic competencies (i.e., active listening, attending skills, paraphrasing, reflecting, client conceptualization, multiculturalism, ethics, etc.) outlined for helping professionals (Stoltenberg & McNeill, 2010). Due to the emphasis on the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy (Anderson et al., 2001) and the IDM (Stoltenberg & McNeill, 2010), as well as competency-based learning outcomes, the LEE model expands the previously identified singular microskills training models to also include an organized structure of training and students’ self-awareness of their cognitive and affective development as helping professionals, as they progress through the program (Ridley, Kelly, & Mollen, 2011).

The LEE model places instructors in the position to move seamlessly along a continuum of educator, demonstrator, supervisor, and facilitator dependent upon the unique learning needs of students during each class session, all the while being sensitive to and adapting strategies for students’ developmental growth process. Consequently, an opposing parallel process ensues in which the instructor moves from didactic lecturer to learning facilitator. This parallel process aligns with the IDM’s explanation of developmental process of supervisees gaining autonomy whereas the supervisor transitions from an expert role to that of a facilitator and consulting partner (Stoltenberg & McNeill, 2010).

Finally, the LEE model provides opportunities for students in the mental health helping professions to achieve higher order levels of learning by transforming into active participants at every stage of the learning process. In addition to the integration of previously mentioned philosophies and approaches to higher education, the LEE model serves as an evaluative tool regarding students’ learning through the integration of the revised version of Bloom’s Taxonomy (Anderson et al., 2001). Bloom’s Taxonomy enables student achievement of more sophisticated levels of understanding throughout educational experiences. Bloom, Engelhart, Furst, Hill, and Krathwohl (1956) originally included the following six levels of learning: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. According to Bloom’s revised taxonomy (Anderson et al., 2001), the highest levels of cognitive work also include application, analysis, evaluation, and creating.

The revised version of Bloom’s Taxonomy (Anderson et al., 2001) offers a solid foundation for formative and summative evaluation of both students throughout the curriculum over time. As Bloom’s Taxonomy is a standard for student learning, the LEE model incorporates aspects of Bloom’s Taxonomy to ensure that students, instructors, and the curriculum are following a progressive path toward higher levels of learning, application, and knowledge creation. Although the LEE model does not introduce a new way of conceptualizing the teaching/learning interaction, the strength of the LEE model is its ability to give form and guidance to extant ideas regarding clinical skill development in a classroom setting.

Process of the LEE Model

The LEE model is comprised of three components of knowledge acquisition: Learn, Expand, and Engage (see Table 1). The first component, Learn, focuses on traditional knowledge acquisition and roles on behalf of both student and instructor in basic skills and professional orientation courses. Instructors engage students in the earliest levels of learning (i.e., knowledge and comprehension) as outlined in the revised version of Bloom’s Taxonomy (Anderson et al., 2001). Instructors take a very active and directive role; demonstrating their knowledge and expertise via lectures on content and process, facilitating class discussions, and preparing quizzes and other examinations to evaluate students’ knowledge and comprehension. At this stage, instructors also begin a low-stakes transition to the second level of the model, where students have an opportunity to apply and analyze information gained in this stage. Meanwhile, in the Learn stage of the model, students are in a passive role, absorbing information through lectures, class discussion, and demonstrating this knowledge and comprehension through quizzes and examinations. The progression of the shifting of active and passive dynamics between instructor and student are illustrated in Figure 1.

Table 1.

Components of the LEE Model

Component	Instructor role	Learning activities	Student role
Learn (Knowledge Comprehension)	More active, demonstrating knowledge Evaluating and promoting comprehension. Setting up application and analysis (low stakes) Higher level of promoting comprehension and encouraging analysis, synthesis	Lecture	Passive recipients of knowledge
		Quizzes	Demonstration of comprehension
		Discussion	Higher level of comprehension
Expand (Application and Analysis)	Solidify completion of knowledge and comprehension Demonstrating, answering questions, processing	Video	Observing expert application
		Instructor demo of skill	Interactive observation of application
		Peer observation	Observation of application and early analysis
Engage (Application [high stakes], Analysis, Synthesis, Evaluation, and Creating)	Facilitator—Passive Bolstering application and analysis, ensuring a cumulative integration of all levels, modeling continuation of professional development	Student demo of skill	Active demonstration of application
		Transcript	Personal evaluation, analysis, synthesis through conceptualization
		In-vivo feedback from instructor	Analysis, synthesis, evaluation, thinking about thinking (metacognition), adapting feedback based on other- and self-awareness and reflective analysis

Note. LEE = Learn, Expand, Engage.

Figure 1.

A visual representation of movement within the Learn, Expand, Engage model.

During the second stage of the model, Expand, instructor and student roles are parallel insofar as this stage actively engages all participants in the learning and application process equally. Developmentally in this stage, students move into advanced techniques/skills courses, while beginning their field/clinical experiences. Instructors engage students in the middle levels of learning (i.e., application and analysis) as outlined by the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy (Anderson et al., 2001). In this stage, instructors begin the process of not only distribution of knowledge, but also demonstrate clinical skills through live demonstration and/or utilization of videos. Instructors also begin the transition to a traditionally less active role (e.g., lectures and quizzes are eliminated at this stage), and become observers/feedback providers whereas students make their initial attempts at skill application. Through this stage of the model, students are enabled to observe expert application of the skill (by their instructors or videos), and are invited to begin a far more active role in their skill development and learning by applying the skill themselves in role-plays. In addition, they have an opportunity to observe and analyze the skill development of their peers.

Upon entering the concluding clinical field experience, in the final stage of the model, Engage, instructor and student roles are reversed from where the model begins. Moving throughout the model, the instructor transitions from expert giver of knowledge to facilitator of the student’s responsibility for creation of new knowledge and understanding. This transition happens as the instructor utilizes techniques included in the LEE model that are based on the IDM and Blooms Taxonomy. The instructor motivates the student to move from passive learner in the Learn stage, having little autonomy, to engaged creator of personal application and understanding in a way that is more autonomous and less dependent on instructor. Instructors engage students in the middle and highest levels of learning (i.e., application, analysis, synthesis, evaluation, and creating) as outlined by the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy (Anderson et al., 2001). In this stage, instructors’ transition to a passive role is complete. Instead of lecturing, quizzing, and demonstrating, at this stage, instructors are facilitating and observing student skill development and application, supporting/evaluating accurate application and analysis of skills, ensuring cumulative integration of all learning levels, and modeling appropriate continuing professional development. Students at this stage of the model are now actively engaged in generating their own learning and skill development. Students are now in the driver’s seat, synthesizing knowledge gained and demonstrating their advancement through the stages via application of skills, evaluation of their own and peers’ skills through reflective analysis as well as conceptualizing and adapting feedback while creating new knowledge. Table 1 provides a detailed description of each component of the model, as well as descriptions of instructor/student roles and learning activities, all framed within the contexts of the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy (Anderson et al., 2001) and guided by the IDM (Stoltenberg & McNeill, 2010).

In addition, the LEE model’s components of developmental learning and skill acquisition promote flexible structure for instructors as well as program compliance with accreditation bodies that outline a competency-based learning outcomes structure (COAMFTE, 2005; CACREP, 2015; CSWE, 2015). Although accreditation standards may influence core course sequencing, variability in course content (i.e., specific topics, design) and instructional methods (i.e., assignments, evaluations) exists among the helping professions. The LEE model provides a teaching framework for instructors in the helping professions, which focuses on competency-based, student learning outcomes.

Descriptors of Student and Instructor Roles

Student

Considering the student’s role from the beginning of the model to the end, we note their progression through the developmental stages of the IDM (Stoltenberg & McNeill, 2010), while they progress through the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy (Anderson et al., 2001). To effectively progress, students must practice intentional engagement as well as intrinsic motivation while building self- and other-awareness (Stoltenberg & McNeill, 2010). As an underlying current, students are expected to approach learning with a certain set of dispositions, outlined by Spurgeon et al. (2012; for example, commitment, openness, respect, integrity, and self-awareness). Although these personal dispositions are inherently built into the foundation of the LEE model, students and instructors are encouraged to collaborate in discussing strengths and challenges demonstrated by the student. Having this underlying motivation toward personal growth better prepares students to reach the goals of the LEE model.

Instructor

As stated earlier, throughout the LEE model, the roles of the instructor undergo significant changes. Primarily, this can be defined as a transition from active (i.e., “sage on the stage,” all knowledge is generated and flows from the instructor to the students) to passive (i.e., instructor as facilitator and observer of student knowledge and skill generation). The principles and foundations of constructivist learning philosophy support the transitional role of the instructor in the LEE model. Constructivism purports that knowledge is within the learner themselves; with the instructor present to assist the learner in making meaning of that knowledge (Jonassen, 1999). This suggests that knowledge does not need to come from an outside source (i.e., the instructor), but instead is present within the learner. Along with similar training models in helping professions, the LEE model incorporates the best practice of emphasizing the shifting of roles between instructor and student. The instructor is no longer responsible for the dissemination of all knowledge, but rather can work alongside the student to create or “construct” new knowledge in a way that is meaningful and impactful for them (McAuliffe & Eriksen, 2000).

Goals of LEE Model

Students

From the student perspective, learning goals of the LEE model are dynamic. These include ultimately placing students in charge of facilitating their own learning, thereby increasing their level of “buy in” and ownership of their professional development. The LEE model also encourages and enables students to move to the highest levels of the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy (Anderson et al., 2001) by taking them out of a passive-learning mode and placing them into an active, self-directed mode of expanding and engaging with their curriculum, peers, and instructors. Through participating in the activities identified in the LEE module, students learn clinical skills, and additionally have an opportunity to develop increased self-awareness, along with additional personal dispositions such as commitment, openness, respect, and integrity (Spurgeon et al., 2012). The definitive goal of the LEE model is to engage students in a learning process that inspires them to become lifelong learners and developers of their clinical skill sets. This goal is further supported by the understanding of fluctuations in motivation, self–other awareness, and autonomy, as explained by the IDM (Stoltenberg & McNeill, 2010). Instructors and designers of curriculum for students, who learn and apply clinical skills in the helping professions, must be sensitive to the developmental needs of students. This is demonstrated in the LEE model by the progression from structured learning environments, which promotes motivation (L), through a supportive environment to buffer the conflict between autonomy and confusion (Ex), ending with a collaborative environment in which students practice autonomy and utilize self–other awareness to engage in behaviors consistent with lifelong learning styles (En).

Instructors

The LEE model calls for instructors to move along a continuum of, at first, active sharers of knowledge and information, to eventually becoming more passive facilitators and observers of students as they navigate the learning process themselves. This requires that the instructor using the LEE model go beyond lecturing skills to having a primary goal of providing students with a safe, developmentally appropriate, environment informed by the IDM (Stoltenberg & McNeill, 2010) in which they can practice and develop their clinical skills.

For example, one assignment that demonstrates this is “Intervention Techniques Demonstration and Presentation.” Students work in triads to complete the demonstration and presentation based on a presenting problem and population their group is assigned. The students are asked to research evidence-based practice models for their assigned topic and facilitate a 30 min presentation to their peers, which includes the following: a detailed description of their target population and presenting problem, a handout for their peers which includes information of three evidence-based practice models, and a live demonstration of at least two intervention techniques within one of their selected evidence-based practice models. They are required to utilize a visual aide and peer-reviewed scholarly articles in which they ground their presentation. This assignment allows the student to step out of a passive learner role, and move into an active facilitator role, by teaching their peers and demonstrating their own knowledge and clinical skill development.

In another assignment, students engage by presenting a transcripted recording of a therapeutic session with an actual client. As the recording progresses, students offer each other in-vivo feedback regarding their clinical skills and personal reactions to the client and student’s experience during the session. The instructor offers feedback in a way that facilitates deeper conversations and opportunities for vicarious learning. In this way, students are responsible for their learning process in an environment that is safe, challenging, and developmentally appropriate. Students are graded primarily on the insights they gained having the opportunity to reflect on their sessions from multiple perspectives, rather than simply the instructor’s perspective.

By providing an environment in which students become more than just passive recipients of knowledge, and instead are active generators of their learning and development, instructors will find themselves better able to observe students and provide the constructive, in-vivo feedback and supervision that is so crucial to skill development. In addition, the LEE model also positions instructors to attend to developmental differences and needs among individual students. This allows instructors the ability to make beneficial adaptations within the curriculum over time to meet individual student needs within the classroom setting.

Implications

As the helping professions have shifted to a competency-based approach for student learning outcomes, significant pedagogy scholarship regarding competency- and outcomes-based education exists. However, there lacks a standardized model for teaching to a competency-based student learning outcomes framework. In terms of mental health helping professions (counseling, marriage and family therapy, social work), the LEE model is directly applicable to the learning environments within each of these disciplines. As each discipline promotes the development of clinical skills, the LEE model allows flexibility for the instructor’s utilization of learning activities, while adhering to the core components of the model that promote active learning and student participation. This is crucial in that the instructor is given a clear path to allow learner-centered educational opportunities to organically develop, based on individual student needs, without pushing the instructor to relinquish all control of the classroom.

Moreover, the LEE model is beneficial for higher education, clinical helping professions, as it contains tenets of active learning activities based on constructivist, learner-centered, and flipped-class approaches, while expanding these concepts. For example, constructivism purports that knowledge is within the learner, and the instructor’s role is to pull out and expand the learner’s knowledge. However, this philosophy does not explicitly attend to various learning styles. In addition, the learner-centered approach toward knowledge acquisition places students in a much more active role within the learning environment. Yet, often the student is placed solely in charge of the content, application, and evaluation of knowledge creation (McAuliffe & Eriksen, 2000). Furthermore, the flipped-class approach is successful in the short-term for “enhancing critical thinking and collaboration strategies that are important for reaching deep learning” (van Vliet et al., 2015, p. 9). However, the effects of this approach were not long lasting. The LEE model addresses these gaps by attending to developmental needs and dispositions of students in the classroom, promoting the progression of learning from a passive learner to an active learner, and emphasizing activities that enhance higher levels of thinking based on the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy (Anderson et al., 2001). The model’s flexibility allows the instructor to utilize a number of activities to individualize student learning based on their developmental level within each component of the model. As the instructor does this, the learner is progressing to a more active role within the learning environment, while utilizing higher levels of learning throughout this process. This progression from passive to active learner is the goal of the LEE model.

Utilizing the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy (Anderson et al., 2001) and the IDM (Stoltenberg & McNeill, 2010) as both formative and summative evaluation of student learning, the LEE model can promote measurable learning and professional growth. This enables students to think critically, analyze, evaluate, and synthesize information to “think on their feet” in real-world settings. This skill is critical for clinical helping professionals. The LEE model facilitates this by increasing student buy in (through their movement into an active learner), and the motivation to move toward higher levels of autonomy, independence, and self-awareness (through the Engage component of the model). Awareness regarding underlying personal dispositions (Spurgeon et al., 2012) is a valuable collaborative tool for instructors and students in the helping professions. In addition, the LEE model aides instructors in their evaluation of effectiveness by attending to developmental differences among learners (through the flexibility of learning activities), and facilitating autonomous student professional growth (measured by the learner’s progression from passive to active).

Future Suggestions

The authors presented the LEE model with intentions for educators to apply the conceptual framework across their curricula in early core courses through advanced clinical practice in internship experience. Future work is needed to focus on the application of the LEE model: specifically to supervision in both practical and internship courses, considering input from faculty, group supervisors, field directors, and site supervisors. Future research aims to measure the short- and long-term effectiveness of the LEE model within and across helping professions such as counseling, social work, and MFT courses and disciplines. Specifically, future development of an evaluation tool that can be utilized for course and syllabi analysis will be beneficial to instructors of all levels of experience. Doctoral training programs across the helping professions would also benefit from utilizing the LEE model for the training of future academicians.

Finally, the LEE model can be conceptualized into a model for supervision of clinical skill development. The Learn, Expand, Engage–Supervision (LEE-S) model (in progress) utilizes similar philosophical underpinnings of Bloom’s Taxonomy, constructivism, in addition to incorporating the IDM to support supervisors in higher education settings as well as enhancing the development of student supervisees as they progress through clinical field experiences and postgraduation transition.

Footnotes

Conflict of Interest

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Dorea Glance, PhD, is an assistant professor and director of the School Counseling program in the Department of Counseling, Social Work, and Leadership. She is a certified school counselor and serves as vice president for Secondary Schools in the Kentucky School Counselor Association.

Alessandra Rhinehart, PhD, is an assistant professor of counseling in the Department of Counseling, Social Work, and Leadership. She engages in research on clinical supervision and is active in Chi Sigma Iota and the Association for Counselor Education and Supervision.

Amanda Brown, PhD, is an assistant professor of social work in the Department of Counseling, Social Work, and Leadership. As a licensed practitioner in social work and marriage and family therapy, she is a research-informed practitioner and a practice-informed researcher. Currently, she is president-elect of her professional association state division, and is passionate about professional development of students and beginning clinicians.

References

Abeysekera

Dawson

(2015). Motivation and cognitive load in the flipped classroom; Definition, rationale, and a call for research. Higher Education Research & Development, 34, 1-14.

American Counseling Association. (2016). Code of ethics. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Anderson

L. W.

Krathwohl

D. R.

Bloom

B. S.

(2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY: Allyn & Bacon.

Bloom

B. S.

Engelhart

M. D.

Furst

F. J.

Hill

W. H.

Krathwohl

D. R.

(1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Cognitive domain. New York, NY: McKay.

Blumberg

(2009). Developing learner-centered teaching: A practical guide for faculty. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley.

Boitel

C. R.

Fromm

L. R.

(2014). Defining signature pedagogy in social work education: Learning theory and the learning contract. Journal of Social Work Education, 50, 608-622.

Chen

S. J.

(2007). Instructional design strategies for intensive online courses: An objectivist-constructivist blended approach. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 61, 72-85.

Commission on Accreditation for Marriage and Family Therapy Education. (2005). Marriage and family therapy core competencies. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Cornelius-White

(2007). Learner-centered teacher-student relationships are effective: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 77, 113-143.

10.

Council for the Accreditation of Counseling & Related Educational Programs. (2015). 2016 CACREP standards. Alexandria, VA: Author.

11.

Council on Social Work Education. (2015). Educational policy and accreditation standards for baccalaureate and master’s social work programs. Alexandria, VA: Author.

12.

Freeman

Eddy

S. L.

McDonough

Smith

M. K.

Okoroafor

Jordt

Wenderoth

M. P.

(2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111, 8410-8415.

13.

Gehart

(2011). The core competencies and MFT education: Practical aspects of transitioning to a learning-centered, outcome-based pedagogy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 37, 344-354.

14.

Holden

Barker

Rosenberg

Kuppens

Ferrell

(2011). The signature pedagogy of social work? An investigation of the evidence. Research on Social Work Practice, 21, 363-372.

15.

Homonoff

(2008). The heart of social work: Best practitioners rise to challenges in field instruction. The Clinical Supervisor, 27, 135-169.

16.

Huba

M. E.

Freed

J. E.

(2000). Learner centered assessment on college campuses: Shifting the focus from teaching to learning. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 24, 759-766.

17.

Jonassen

D. H.

(1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In Reigeluth

C. M.

(Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 217-239). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

18.

Kember

(2009). Promoting student-centred forms of learning across an entire university. Higher Education, 58, 1-13.

19.

McAuliffe

Eriksen

(Eds.). (2000). Handbook of counselor preparation: Constructivist, developmental, and experiential approaches. Chicago, IL: SAGE.

20.

Michael

(2006). Where’s the evidence that active learning works? Advances in Physiology Education, 30, 159-167.

21.

Minton

C. A.

Morris

C. A.

Yaites

L. D.

(2014). Pedagogy in counselor education: A 10-year content analysis of journals. Counselor Education and Supervision, 53, 162-177.

22.

Nelson

T. S.

Chenail

R. J.

Alexander

J. F.

Crane

D. R.

Johnson

S. M.

Schwallie

(2007). The development of core competencies for the practice of marriage and family therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 33, 417-438.

23.

Perosa

L. M.

Perosa

S. L.

(2014). Evaluating supervisees’ systemic core competencies with instruments. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2e28/ba65087351c614e2e80388aebbaff6e8d7f1.pdf

24.

Prince

(2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93, 223-231.

25.

Ridley

C. R.

Kelly

S. M.

Mollen

(2011). Beyond microskills: Toward a model of counseling competence. The Counseling Psychologist, 39, 825-864.

26.

Royse

Dhooper

S. S.

Rompf

E. L.

(2016). Field instruction: A guide for social work students. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

27.

Sommers-Flanagan

(2015). Counseling and psychotherapy theories in context and practice: Skills, strategies, and techniques. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

28.

Spurgeon

S. L.

Gibbons

M. M.

Cochran

J. L.

(2012). Creating personal dispositions for a professional counseling program. Counseling and Values, 57, 96-108.

29.

Stoltenberg

C. D.

McNeill

B. W.

(2010). IDM supervision: An integrative developmental model for supervising counselors and therapists. Chicago, IL: Routledge.

30.

Tenenbaum

Naidu

Jegede

Austin

(2001). Constructivist pedagogy in conventional on-campus and distance learning practice: An exploratory investigation. Learning and Instruction, 11, 87-111.

31.

van Vliet

E. A.

Winnips

J. C.

Brouwer

. (2015). Flipped-class pedagogy enhances student metacognition and collaborative-learning strategies in higher education but effect does not persist. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 14, 1-10.

32.

Webber

K. L.

(2012). The use of learner-centered assessment in US colleges and universities. Research in Higher Education, 53, 201-228.