Harnessing the Potential of Constructive Develop-mental Pedagogy to Achieve Transformative Learning in Social Work Education

Abstract

This project starts with the contention that social work education must challenge students to reframe their knowledge and assumptions to prepare them for working with oppressed groups and develop emancipatory practice. Using transformative learning theory, constructive developmental pedagogy and related approaches, it explored the extent to which students achieved transformative learning in the context of a communication skills module. The learning and teaching components were changed in three ways: by introducing critical reflection seminars; by encouraging students to discuss their assumptions about practice within lectures; and by making immediate use of student observations about their learning needs to reconstruct the pedagogy as the module progressed. Data were gathered using semi-structured questionnaires, a self-efficacy rating scale, and a focus group. The findings highlight problems in measuring and determining causality for transformative learning but indicate that for a majority of students transformative learning in relation to knowledge and assumptions occurred.

Keywords

transformative pedagogy transformative learning critical reflection

Current debates in social work in the United Kingdom and internationally, centre on the perceived erosion of social justice goals within the profession, the extent to which it has become characterised by bureaucratic processes and an overriding concern with eligibility criteria and the management of risk (Ferguson, 2008; Ferguson, Lavalette, & Whitmore, 2005). The worry is that social work has become increasingly administrative in nature, reflecting the influence of a target-driven business culture, at the expense of understanding and actively challenging wider social inequalities and environmental conditions that lead to people being disenfranchised (Jones, 2009). Similar concerns inform debate within other public sector professions, including medicine and nursing, where organisational and cultural norms have militated against health care interventions moving beyond an understanding of patient need in purely “clinical” terms (Wolf, Dekker, Byrne, & Miller, 2011).

Inevitably, these issues also carry over to higher education: whilst also operating within increasingly business-led and economically confined contexts, universities educate social workers, doctors, nurses, and other allied health care professionals measured against prescribed professional standards (Scottish Social Services Council [SSSC], 2003). Unquestionably, all employing agencies need qualifying workers able and prepared to “do the job;” however, they also need professionals with the ability to critically evaluate working practices and ask “awkward” questions, if they are to avoid becoming inured to institutional constraints and entrenched organisational cultures. Thus, social workers, who wish to achieve social justice aims, must understand that at times their goals may differ considerably from their employers. In order to address such professional and personal issues, social workers require the skill of evaluating institutional and resource limitations against issues of social justice, while being willing and able to challenge employers appropriately when the former dictates at the expense of the latter. To manage this complex set of competing demands and roles, social workers need to become highly self-aware practitioners capable of critical thinking and therefore their degrees must equip them to develop these skills. Jones (2009) heralds transformative learning theory (TLT)’s potential for achieving these aims, contingent upon the development of educational practices imbued with explicit transformative intent.

Using action research, this project sought to build upon the debate by developing an educational approach that challenges prospective social workers: one that encourages them to question and critically evaluate their own values, motivations, knowledge, and skills and equip them to work alongside disadvantaged service users, while remaining alert to the pitfalls of forming institutionally-driven practice habits. This requires a pedagogic typology that envisages social work education as a transformative experience, affecting genuine change in students, as opposed to a reductive tick-box process through which engagement in meaningful learning about themselves, or indeed the people they have to support and advocate on behalf of, is severely limited. These aims also align with the standards set by the relevant professional body for the study’s context, the SSSC, which regulates and monitors social work education in Scotland. For example, standard 4.3 requires social workers to be able to manage complex ethical dilemmas using critical reflection, in recognition of the uniqueness of service users’ circumstances and the importance of learning from often difficult and confusing experiences (SSSC, 2003). As such, social workers are required to commit to a process of interrogating their own beliefs and knowledge on an ongoing basis, in order to develop practice that responds effectively to the complexities of people’s lives; consequently, social work education needs to prepare them for this.

To explore the potential for achieving transformative learning in social work education, this project focused on a communication skills module taken by first year master’s degree students in Trimester 1, 2010, at Glasgow Caledonian University. The module choice presented a number of institutional and practical change limitations, consistent with those noted in the literature (Cranton, 2011; Kreber, 2010). It had a preset curriculum design, established assessment and teaching strategies, and learning and teaching environments. Many of these, such as the learning outcomes and summative assignments, could not be altered. The assignments comprised a filmed interview with a service user, in which each student was required to demonstrate effective communication skills. This was followed by a 2,000-word critical reflection on their performance. The learning was facilitated in three environments; lectures, seminars, and skills rehearsal sessions. The latter provided students with opportunities to practice communication skills through role-plays in small student groups and to receive formative feedback from peers and tutors. Informed by the main principles of constructive developmental pedagogy (CDP; Baxter Magolda, 1999), the learning and teaching activities of the module were altered (see below) and the project sought to answer two main questions:

Can the principles of CDP help foster transformative learning for student social workers?

What are the teaching methods required for this type of learning to take place?

Pedagogic Theory and Application to Practice

The study draws upon a number of theories and approaches to address these questions. Together they form a complex pedagogic construct. Each one, however, provides either a conceptual rationale and/or implementation method needed to achieve the project aims, whilst also addressing the organisational and professional requirements of the module. As such, the purpose and interconnectedness of the theory base might be summarised as follows. TLT (Mezirow, 2006) and CDP (Baxter Magolda, 1999) provide the underpinning conceptual framework for the research: TLT defines transformative learning and offers ways of evaluating the extent to which it has happened; CDP proposes specific conditions that might arguably enable transformative learning to take place. Congruent with this theory base, methods from a range of pedagogical traditions were incorporated to develop the learning and teaching approaches and activities that would be used in the classroom. These were critical reflection (Fook & Gardener, 2007) and facilitative and responsive teaching (Brockbank & Magill, 1998; Brookfield, 2006; Jarvis, 2010). In addition, all of the changes made to the learning, teaching, and assessment strategy were assessed against Biggs and Tang’s (2007) constructive alignment model, to ensure they enhanced students’ progress towards meeting the module’s learning outcomes, thereby fulfilling ethical and professional responsibilities in terms of educational provision. The rationale for and challenges presented by these theories is considered in more detail below, alongside examination of how they were applied to change the module and optimise the potential for transformative learning to take place.

TLT

The concept of transformative learning, as developed by Mezirow (2006), describes a process through which a person’s way of understanding is altered and he/she is aware of and consciously engages in that change taking place. The phrase “frames of reference” (Mezirow, 2006) describes how people’s thinking occurs within their own particular contexts, influenced by multiple external and internal factors, including culture and language, which effectively “programme” them to think in particular ways: “Once set or programmed, we automatically move from one specific mental or behavioural activity to another, and we have a strong tendency to reject ideas that fail to fit our mental preconceptions” (Mezirow, 2006, p. 26). The argument is that unless we are aware of our frames of reference and seek to change them, we are consigned to sustaining habits of mind and making assumptions, which will also limit our ability to question knowledge claims. This in turn will limit our ability to develop new behaviours or change professional practices.

TLT is used in support of different ideological positions: from Freire’s work directly linking popular education with emancipatory social action in Latin America (Cranton, 2011), to Mezirow’s focus on individual transformation and his caution against aligning the theory with a particular “movement,” lest it become constrained by the very construct it seeks to avoid (Mezirow, 2006). Notwithstanding these differences in the interpretation of its explanatory power, TLT has much to offer adult and social work education (Jones, 2009). It holds promise for enabling students to develop the understanding and skills needed to become accepting of uncertainty in practice (Fook, 2007), and in lessening the likelihood of decision making based on assumptions or prejudices about service users (SSSC, 2009, 5.5). Both require students to become aware of and receptive to altering their frames of reference which, as Cranton (2011) indicates, is not a straightforward process:

Generally, transformative learning occurs when a person, group or larger social unit encounters a perspective that is at odds with the prevailing perspective. The discrepant perspective can be ignored or it can lead to an examination of previously held beliefs, values and assumptions. When the latter is the case, the potential for transformative learning exists, though it is not called transformative until there is a deep shift in perspective and noticeable changes in actions as a result of the shift. (p. 76)

The project’s aim was thus to precipitate “discrepant perspectives” and the examination and change in attitudes as described. The research design therefore focused on developing learning and teaching activities that would challenge students and assess the extent to which this led to a reevaluation of previously held views; as opposed to learning that might simply be described as beneficial. In relation to the behaviour-change element of Cranton’s definition, given this project was conducted over the course of a class-based module the primary focus had to be on evaluating changes to knowledge and assumptions. As such, it was not possible to follow students into practice to determine whether any attitudinal/knowledge changes resulted in altered behaviours; however, this is a focus for future research.

CDP

TLT thus provided the means of defining the type of learning required and a framework for evaluating it. The project was concerned, however, with exploring CDP’s potential for facilitating transformative learning and how its main principles might help construct alternative learning and teaching activities in the skills module. Developed through longitudinal research by Baxter Magolda (1999), CDP further investigates the key premise of constructivist learning theory which is that people create meaning from their own perspectives, interweaving fresh information with current knowledge to develop new understandings (Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007). Part of the constructive developmental theory paradigm (Drago-Severson, 2004; Kegan, 2000), CDP shares the central concept of self-authorship, which like TLT comprises an evolution in awareness of how knowledge itself is made and the central role of the author in creating it. Key to self-authorship are learners' current views and experiences, which need to be acknowledged before they can be asked to shift their “epistemic assumptions” and “re-evaluate knowledge claims” (Baxter Magolda, 1999, p. 14). The lecturer’s role here is to facilitate a “transitional culture” in the classroom (Baxter Magolda, 1999), which is possible only if he/she can speak the students’ language and understand their “conceptual structures.” Overall, this construct attests to the potential of learning-centred rather than teaching-centred approaches to education.

A wide body of literature supports this contention (Biggs, 2003; Jarvis, 2010; Prosser & Trigwell, 1999). Trigwell (2006, p. 112) contrasts an “information transmission/teacher-focused approach,” with a “conceptual change/student-focused approach,” citing research evidence to highlight the latter’s capacity for facilitating deeper learning experiences. Drawing on her observational research in four learning contexts, Baxter Magolda (1999, p. 63) proposes three principles required for creating such a student-focused or transitional culture: validating the student as a knower; situating learning in the student’s experience; and learning as mutually constructed meaning. The first is derived from a recurrent theme in student feedback about power relations between students and lecturers, where respect, being talked with and not down to, encouraging students to share their views and rewarding them for taking risks in thinking were all highly valued and seen, “as fostering growth in meaning making” (p. 68). The second involves the teacher using language and practice examples that relate to students’ experiences, and encouraging them to tell their own stories through writing and in discussions, thereby facilitating learning by connecting new knowledge with what they already know. The third, which calls for a dialogical approach to teaching and learning, emerged from students placing a premium on taking part in the knowledge-making exercise. This requires teachers to encourage discussion and share leadership with students, not giving up their knowledge but, “introducing it in the context of students’ perspectives” (p. 71) and opening it up to question.

Taken together in this way CDP and TLT offer a potentially rich theoretical framework for facilitating transformative learning; providing both the means for defining and evaluating it and the principles required to foster its growth. The interrelationship between constructive developmental theory and TLT is explored in the literature (Drago-Severson, 2004; Kegan, 2000) and is subject to increasing interest, for example, using the former’s premise of diversity in how adults make sense of their experiences to engage groups disenfranchised by race, class, and gender in transformative learning (Bridwell, 2012). Baxter Magolda’s (1999) typology for CDP does not, however, prescribe the actual teaching and learning interventions required to deliver these principles in practice. Kreber (2010) cites this as a strength in allowing for flexibility in how it is applied. Therefore, exploiting CDP’s flexibility and guided by its principles, this action research project changed the social work skills module by introducing a range of learning and teaching activities designed to facilitate transformative learning; in particular, to engender shifts in assumptions and knowledge. The main methods used were critical reflection, a facilitative and responsive approach, and constructive alignment. The rationale for each of these is discussed below.

Critical Reflection

Conceptually related to both TLT and CDP, critical reflection offers a range of ways for translating their ideas and principles into practice. In particular, it provides a means for situating learning in students’ experiences, for example, by requiring them to engage in written critical reflection on an individual basis. Further, it harnesses the learning potential of the mutual construction of meaning by encouraging verbal critical reflection in group settings. Based on Kolb’s (1984) ideas on the importance of experience for learning and developed by numerous academics from general education (Moon, 2004; Schon, 1987) and specific disciplinary backgrounds (Baldwin, 2004; Fook & Gardener, 2007—for social work), a significant body of evidence has grown to confirm critical reflection’s role in facilitating transformative learning. Taylor’s (2007) review of empirical studies in North America found that critical reflection and discourse with trusted others were essential for transformative learning. Matthew-Maich, Ploeg, Jack, and Dobbins (2010) also identified critical reflection as a necessary agent for transformative learning to occur. The literature details numerous ways of using critical reflection in education and also helpful guidance on how to avoid it becoming a curriculum “filler” (Boud & Walker, 1998). Walmsley and Birbeck (2006) exploited narrative writing’s potential for enabling social work students to better understand their own values and the origins of such. This resulted in a process that challenged students’ preconceptions and went deeper than having professional values inculcated in a homogenised, “taught” fashion (p. 113). Working with experienced social workers, Baldwin (2004) found verbal critical reflection in groups to be an effective means of enabling them to make better sense of complex practice dilemmas and identify more satisfactory courses of action. In view of the evidence for its potential and compatibility with the principles of CDP, this project sought to use critical reflection as one of the key learning and teaching methods for fostering transformative learning.

Facilitative and Responsive Teaching

On its own, however, critical reflection would not have offered sufficient scope to amend the entire pedagogic approach to the social work skills module, which comprised 12 weeks (200 hr) of direct teaching and independent learning. As such, additional methods were required in order to revise the lecturing and assessment components of the curriculum. For the class-based lecturing element, the concepts of facilitative and responsive teaching were employed (Brockbank & McGill, 1998), based on their compatibility with all three of CDP’s principles (Baxter Magolda, 1999) and because they offer arguably powerful methods for engendering transformative learning. Brockbank and McGill (1998) link facilitative teaching to Roger’s person-centred theory, which emphasises the role of relationships for development, in providing the warmth and empathy necessary for learning to occur. They see this as a prerequisite for critically reflective learning, citing the likelihood of students feeling threatened by having their ideas, values, and actions opened to scrutiny and challenge. Light, Cox, and Calkins (2009) discuss the need to relate to students as adults, fostering participation through use of open-ended questions, responding with empathy, and also employing humour; thereby, in CDP terms, validating their ability to know.

Jarvis (2010) notes that adopting a truly facilitative approach is more difficult than might seem apparent, as it involves relinquishing a degree of control over elements such as course content and assessment, which are usually constrained by prescribed institutional and professional criteria. Heron’s (1993) typology for facilitator types goes some way towards addressing this issue of control, by advocating use of a “hierarchical mode” at the beginning of a module to ensure coverage of prescribed knowledge, then introducing a “co-operative mode” to include students in making decisions about method and content. In exploring the value of student control for transformative learning, Brookfield (2006) highlights the role of teacher responsiveness. Essentially, this involves the teacher demonstrating he/she wants to know what and how students are learning. In terms of CDP, responsiveness correlates with the teacher’s task of understanding students’ conceptual structures. Put another way, it provides a method for creating the “transitional culture” students need in order to reevaluate and restructure their views and requires the teacher to engage in, “ … public discussion with learners of how this knowledge affects her own teaching, including the extent to which some elements of the course can be negotiated” (Brookfield, 2006, p. 9). Brookfield (2006) cites Hooks’ (1994) criticisms, however, to caution against conflating responsiveness with the classroom becoming a wholly safe and positive, student-led environment. Similarly, Cranton (2011, p. 82) stresses the need to be alert to institutional constraints, including student ratings, which may encourage the lecturer to sidestep learning activities that make students uncomfortable, thereby avoiding the discordance that is a prerequisite for transformative learning to take place.

In developing the notion of responsiveness, Brookfield (2006) identifies “personhood” as another powerful pedagogic approach with significant transformative learning potential. Personhood entails the use of autobiographical examples to illustrate the theory or point the teacher is trying to make. In terms of TLT, it thus affords teachers opportunities to demonstrate instances where their attitudes, knowledge, and behaviours were challenged and how they capitalised on the learning potential available. In other words, how their prevailing perspectives were unsettled, how this precipitated an examination of relevant values and assumptions and led to a deep shift in perspective, ultimately changing subsequent actions.

This use of self as a responsive approach to teaching is commented upon widely in the literature, covering a range of strategies including modelling and demonstration. In Walmsley and Birbeck’s (2006) exploration of narrative writing, teachers used their own written narratives as exemplars, which they discussed with students in order to make the purpose of the exercise explicit and to reduce power differentials. Whilst not written in the terminology of TLT, the study found students achieved significant learning, which was often challenging and emotionally difficult due in part to the risks involved with self-disclosure. Key to addressing these risks were teachers sharing their stories, which in effect helped establish trust (p. 124). Branch’s (2010) study of medical students’ education found role modelling by experienced doctors, followed by feedback and reflection, helped make transparent the skills required for effective interventions with patients. It demystified the process and fostered transformative learning for the students involved. In addition to showing how to carry out specific tasks, Brockbank and McGill (1998) discuss the importance of modelling “process” for responsive teaching. Here, for example, teachers would reflect-in-action by acknowledging valid criticisms of their teaching practice. They would then discuss the changes required with students and implement them, thereby modelling the process for the student group. In terms of CDP, modelling the process of constructing knowledge is consistent with the principle of the mutual construction of meaning (Baxter Magolda, 1999).

Constructive Alignment

Whilst the project’s aim was to facilitate transformative learning in the skills module, it was clearly necessary to ensure that any changes made to the learning, teaching, and assessment strategy would also enhance students’ ability to achieve the set learning outcomes. Biggs and Tang’s (2007) constructive alignment concept addresses this question, based on the central premise that all learning, teaching, and assessment activities and environments must be designed and linked together to provide a clearly signposted route for students to meet course expectations. This starts with designing the learning outcomes, ensuring they clearly communicate the types and levels of learning required and working backwards to structure the teaching, learning, and assessment components accordingly. This process of approaching learning from the student’s point of view is also congruent with CDP’s emphasis on creating a transitional culture (Baxter Magolda, 1999).

Application to Practice

In short, CDP provides a conceptual framework within which TLT and the other theoretical perspectives and pedagogic methods described, may be powerfully integrated and synthesised with the aim of achieving transformative learning. Utilising this framework, the following changes were made prior to the social work skills module beginning:

The seminar schedule was altered to make space for five critical reflection seminars, to which students were required to bring written critical reflections and discuss them with peers.

The lecture content was amended to incorporate discussion on the role of critical reflection for social work. Thus, the CDP principle of learning as mutually constructed meaning was applied, recognising that transformative learning potential would be lost if students did not understand and engage with the concept and practice of critical reflection.

The level of didactic teaching within lectures was reduced, with more time given to engaging students in critical discussion. For example, in one session, students were asked to discuss the contested nature of social work, that is, whether in its current form it actually met with social justice aims. By encouraging students to identify the purpose of social work as they saw it and open their views to challenge and debate, the aim was to facilitate the discrepant perspectives required for transformative learning to take place (Cranton, 2011).

The lecture materials were also amended to harness the potential of responsive teaching and “personhood” (Brookfield, 2006), which involved incorporating examples from the lecturer’s social work practice. These were chosen to illustrate both positive practice and ineffective practice; the latter affording opportunities to model the process of critical reflection by openly identifying where the lecturer went wrong and how he came to realise and learn from this.

A degree of flexibility was built into the lecture, seminar, and skills rehearsals sessions to allow the lecturer to respond to students’ learning needs as they arose and in turn exploit the facilitative approach of helping students shape the learning environment.

Finally, video cameras were introduced for students to use during the skills rehearsals (role-play) sessions, with the aim of facilitating transformative learning by allowing students to see themselves from different perspectives, including how they appear to others.

As the module progressed, the following additional changes were made in situ, consistent with the principle of teacher responsiveness:

The written critical reflection tool (Fook, 2007) used for seminars was adapted to make the task more easily understood.

To increase their control over the learning process, students were engaged in negotiating the focus of the critical reflection seminars and they identified subject areas they found problematic and wished to explore. One such seminar looked at how they had dealt with discrimination in personal or previous work contexts. Discussion focused on examples that had challenged students and where their perceptions and assumptions were altered by their experiences. As such, this activity sought to make the process of transformative learning explicit, in addition to validating the knowledge, values, and skills students already had.

Finally, modelling was employed by the lecturer as the means to help address increasing levels of anxiety among the student group about the filmed interview. The lecturer thus organised and took part in two filmed interviews; one with a service user and one with another lecturer, and screened and critically analysed them with the class.

Method

An action research methodology informed the design and implementation of the study, consistent with its potential for exploring and evaluating changes to professional practice (Henn, Weinstein, & Foard, 2006). Cranton (2011, p. 84) sees action research as key component in the emancipatory scholarship of teaching and learning, which is about challenging “the underlying assumptions and premises of teaching.” Citing a range of action research findings, Cranton (2011, p. 84) heralds its potential for transforming educational practices but accepts there are institutional barriers to using it. Action research is also methodologically compatible with CDP and TLT, sharing the constructivist premise that we make meaning from our own experiences by interrogating our assumptions and behaviours, and developing new understandings in the process. As a recently appointed lecturer, action research also offered me rich learning opportunities through which to develop a “living theory of practice” (McNiff & Whitehead, 2009, p. 127), specifically about the possibility of achieving transformative change with education.

Data Collection and Analysis Method

The aim of assessing whether transformative learning had taken place necessitated gathering data at the beginning and at end of the module, in order to establish a before and after picture of students’ learning experiences. Henn, Weinstein, and Foard (2006) suggest that measuring change over time enables exploration of relationships between variables and “at times even to infer causality” (p. 63). However, a key problem with this method is participant dropout, and in this study extreme winter weather reduced the number from 38 at the beginning stage to 22 at the end. Data were generated using a mixed-methods approach to capitalise on the potential for indicating not just what, but why any phenomena were happening (Orme & Shemmings, 2010). This comprised a self-efficacy scale developed from Quinney and Parker’s (2010, p. 21) tool, which was issued at the beginning of the module (T1) and reissued along with a semistructured questionnaire at the end (T2; Appendix A), and followed by a focus group with seven students (Appendix B). Self-efficacy describes the effect belief in ability has on performance: the argument being that greater self-belief increases the likelihood of successful accomplishment (Bandura, 1977). Citing U.K. and U.S. research evidence, Quinney and Parker (2010, p. 20) suggest this theoretical premise offers a valuable means of assessing the effectiveness of social work education: increases in students’ confidence can be consistently linked to both the effective teaching and the future ability of students to apply the relevant knowledge or skill in practice.

The self-efficacy scale contained 13 questions, each asking students to rate their confidence levels in areas such as values, knowledge, and skills. They were devised with reference to the learning outcomes, the project questions, and the teaching and learning approaches adopted. The scales alone, however, would not have elicited information about why any change occurred or whether it constituted transformative learning, hence the combined use of a semistructured questionnaire and focus group. Anonymised identifiers were used in questionnaires to minimise the possibility of students providing responses to please the lecturer (Quinney & Parker, 2010). This was more of an issue in the focus group, given the lecturer’s role as facilitator, which was addressed in two ways: first, by emphasising the benefits of honest participant responses before and during the session; second, by structuring discussion around the same topics as the questionnaire, while still making use of this method’s facility for checking out other emerging themes (Barbour, 2007). Ethical approval for the project was granted by Glasgow Caledonian Academy’s Ethics Committee.

Miles and Huberman’s (1994) thematic analysis techniques were employed to analyse the questionnaires and focus group transcription. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used for the self-efficacy rating scale. Questionnaire data were thematically analysed in stages using a series of matrices, initially one for each question, and all corresponding answers, which were explored and coded for key words and emerging themes. Comparisons were then made between questions, allowing for all codes to be tested for applicability across the data. A further matrix was introduced to categorise codes according to prevalence and to combine into related groupings. Throughout, conclusions were verified by checking for cases that contradicted emerging findings (Miles & Huberman, 1994). This process led to the identification of main themes, which were recorded in a final matrix to allow for comparison with the transcription of the focus group and the quantitative results. Although the systematic approach described here is an accepted means of achieving validity in qualitative data analysis, it is not possible to completely rule out researcher bias. Given the writer’s close involvement in every stage of the project, use of an external researcher to analyse the data would have added a further check and balance against bias; however, this was not possible with the resources available. A basic SPSS paired samples t-test was chosen to analyse the self-efficacy scales (Pallant, 2010). The main findings are presented and discussed below.

Findings

Students Reported Increased Understanding of the Knowledge, Values, and Skills Required for Effective Social Work Practice

Twenty of the 22 students reported positive changes to their understanding of the knowledge, values, or skills required for effective social work practice: One noted limited change and another that none had occurred but that she had consolidated prior learning. Ten participants used phrasing denoting significant change, including, “much more,” “greater,” “definitely,” “absolutely.” For example, “My self-reflection and use of self has increased, so I would say that my understanding has increased greatly.”

Specific technical and theoretical language and descriptions of processes consistent with teaching on the module featured heavily in a majority of responses, and were used accurately. This suggests students had genuinely understood them and begun to incorporate them into their own meaning frames, as indicated by the following quote: “Absolutely, I have been made aware that critical reflection of practice skills, coupled with the ability to be reflexive is key.”

Both of these points suggest transformative learning occurred for some students as they describe altered frames of reference and awareness of this having taken place (Mezirow, 2006). This was corroborated by reports of increased awareness of phenomena previously taken for granted, for example, “I realise that I wrongly believed I already knew how to practise effectively” and “It has made me think about the skills, theory, etc. behind even a conversation with someone.” Analysis of the focus group found similar shifts in perspectives: “It’s about learning to listen as well and you kind of take that for granted … you would say it’s common sense, why am I here learning about eye-contact? … things like that you would just dismiss.”

It is difficult, however, to draw specific links between this finding and the alterations made to the teaching and learning activities. Students made positive comments about the critical reflection seminars and the lecturing style, implying they had aided the acquisition of knowledge but without explicitly stating how or why. A link between these is, however, clearer in the third finding below. Notwithstanding the need to find out more about how the learning process occurred, the shifts reported by students in knowledge and values relating to skills is an important outcome, particularly given the centrality of effective communication for empowering practice with vulnerable people (SSSC, 2009).

Students Reported Significantly Improved Self-Awareness and Knowledge of Their Own Communication Skills

Twenty-one of the 22 students indicated that their perceptions of their own communication skills had changed; 21 reported having identified areas for improvement and one indicated no change. The language used suggested a process of self-discovery in relation to skills development: “I realised” “I discovered,” “I became aware,” and “It became more apparent to me.” With many students also making comparisons over time: “[I] previously had a tendency to problem-solve, spending more time thinking of solutions rather than active listening.”

Similarly, analysis of the focus group found consistent reference to self-discovery in relation to communication skills. This finding supports the CDP concept of self-authorship (Baxter Magolda, 1999), demonstrating students taking an active role in making sense of their own learning and in turn altering their perceptions of self, including how they present to others: “ … it’s almost as if my face is saying stuff without me actually saying anything … that is something I will be more conscious of in future.”

Seventeen students reported becoming more aware of their strengths, which is consistent with the CDP principle of validating learners’ ability to know: “I have discovered that I work well within a group and can adapt to working with anyone, challenging or otherwise.” The directive nature of Question 2, which asked students whether they had identified any personal strengths as a result of taking the module, may have been a factor in eliciting this finding. Overall, however, responses were critically reflective in nature, being specific, referring to the self, comparing past with present and seeking reasons to explain behaviour, with some thought given to implications for future practice. As such, they are indicative of learning processes from which significant insights emerged, rather than surface learning experiences.

The focus group helped deepen analysis of the types of learning that occurred, in particular highlighting students’ realisations that they could actually develop new awareness and understandings, and change behaviours. Although experienced as challenging and at times difficult, the process of learning about self was ultimately seen as rewarding. This finding meets the threshold for transformative change, as it describes a shift in understanding of how self-knowledge is created (Baxter Magolda, 1999; Mezirow, 2006), as exemplified by the following quote:

I think that for me that’s been the most important thing on the course … that you can learn these things, you’re not born with these things, you may not be good enough yet, but you can get better and that’s okay … it’s all very empowering and very good for confidence.

Experiential Learning Has Significant Pedagogic Potential and Is Aided by Critical Reflection and Learning From Others

There was strong evidence from the questionnaires to suggest learning activities that encourage the application of knowledge to practice can facilitate transformative learning. While responses in questionnaires did not always specifically refer to the skills rehearsal (role-play) sessions or the summatively assessed filmed interviews, many of them refer to skills development, which is most likely to have occurred in those contexts. For example, “I have learned that I am not naturally a good listener … I have been reassured in learning these specialist skills can be acquired through a sound knowledge of communication skills and critical reflection on one’s practice.” Focus group findings highlighted the importance of learning by doing and being able to watch one’s performance, despite this often being an uncomfortable experience: “It’s really hard … you can be reflective to a certain extent, but to see yourself makes you reflective … this shows you how you really are.”

Eighteen respondents cited the critical reflection seminars as key to developing understanding and new insights, whereas three reported no real benefit. The weight of evidence suggests that they contributed to transformative learning, but as with the findings overall it is not possible to establish causality. Students also consistently made reference to the value of learning from others. Both of these themes would appear to support the CDP principles of situating learning in students’ experiences and mutually constructing meaning for helping foster transformative learning.

Facilitative and Responsive Teaching Helps Establish the Environment Necessary for Transformative Learning to Take Place

Both the questionnaire and the focus group responses support the importance of facilitative and responsive teaching for learning, with many commending the discursory and participatory nature of lectures: “I learned the main points through the combination of interactions with the class and the lecturer drawing on their own experiences to link the material to practice.” Similarly, “I found the interactive nature of the lectures helpful, as it allowed for clarification and also the opportunity to interact with other class members.” Responses also addressed the issue of safety, for example, “Being able to ask questions without reprisal … in a relaxed and calm atmosphere … a lecturer not making the power differential noticeable.”

As such, these findings do suggest a link between the facilitative and responsive strategies employed and the learning achieved, adding weight to Baxter Magolda’s (1999) emphasis on creating a transitional culture. They also attest to the value of use of self in teaching and support the concepts of authenticity (Kreber, 2010) and personhood (Brookfield, 2006).

Constructive Alignment Helps Facilitate Learning

The responses from questionnaires and the focus group support the importance of constructive alignment for achieving learning outcomes. This was evidenced by the high levels of satisfaction recorded with the exemplar filmed interviews provided by the lecturer and the opportunities to practice reflective writing: “I found it impossible to grasp what was required from listening and reading about [the assignments] … the [exemplar] filmed interview clarified these instructions.” This finding also supports other research evidence for modelling as an effective means of achieving transformative learning (Branch, 2010): “It also increased my confidence and I thought I can do that, it’s not impossible or too scary.” Overall, this finding supports arguments for student-centred approaches to learning (Biggs & Tang, 2007; Prosser & Trigwell, 1999), signalling ongoing discussion between lecturer and students as an important component. From this viewpoint, constructive alignment needs to be a live process that is practiced in situ, if it is to address the particular perspectives and learning needs of each individual class.

Self-Efficacy Rating Scale

The mean scores from a paired samples t-test of the self-efficacy rating scale found students’ confidence increased across all subjects from T1 to T2. For each question, apart from two, the results recorded statistically significant increases. Notwithstanding issues with the small sample size and difficulties associated with measuring changes within group learning contexts (Pallant, 2010), these findings provide the strong evidence of students achieving significant learning about values, knowledge, and communication skills for practice. While the findings note increased confidence in critical reflection, they do not establish relationships between this activity and other types of learning that occurred. Overall, however, by revealing changes to understanding and awareness, these results support the contention from the qualitative findings that transformative learning occurred.

Discussion

The findings from this action research cycle provide evidence that transformative learning is achievable. This is illustrated by the reported changes to students’ frames of reference in respect of their attitudes to and knowledge of communication skills. They support the contention that CDP’s principles can help foster transitional learning cultures, which may enable students to achieve perspective-altering learning experiences. Further, they add weight to the evidence base (Brookfield, 2006; Matthew-Maich, Ploeg, Jack, & Dobbins, 2010) for TLT as a potentially powerful pedagogic concept for imbuing education with social justice aims.

The findings also attest to the potential of experiential learning, combined with individual and group critical reflection, for creating environments that appear conducive to transformative learning (Baldwin, 2004; Branch, 2010). While the methodology does not fully account for the range of potential influences, student responses focused overwhelmingly on learning which occurred in the context of practicing, watching, and reflecting on the use of communication skills. This suggests that the module design, which is still weighted in favour of the lecture format, should be changed to make more room for critical reflection, group practice, and feedback sessions.

The project’s conclusions also support the contention (Baxter Magolda, 1999; Brookfield, 2006; Jarvis, 2010) that facilitative and responsive teaching helps foster deep learning experiences. Accepting that there were preset elements in the design of the module which were not directly influenced by CDP, the findings still highlight the key role-played by facilitation and responsiveness in the learning process. In practice, this encouraged ongoing dialogue between the lecturer and the class which, together with a flexible approach to the teaching and learning activities allowed for changes to be made to meet students’ learning needs. Further to this, modelling proved to be an invaluable teaching strategy for helping students understand what the assignment expectations were.

The study is limited by difficulties in devising reliable means of evaluating learning and measuring the extent to which it can be described as transformative. This issue might have been more effectively addressed by asking respondents for qualitative answers at the start as well as at the end of the project, thus capturing more detail about the nature of any changes that occurred. In addition, it does not offer any indication of the length of time changes in knowledge, skills, and attitudes may have lasted. There are other drawbacks with the research design, which restrict the study’s ability to provide conclusive answers to the two main research questions. In particular, whilst CDP and related approaches informed the teaching methods used, and transformative learning occurred for some students, it is not possible to confirm a causal relationship between these two phenomena. Other unrelated factors may have come into play and thus a more flexible and rich data collection method, such as semistructured interviews, might have explored causality more explicitly.

In addition, creating the type of transitional culture advocated by CDP, and tailoring teaching activities to reflect the uniqueness of students’ learning needs (Prosser & Trigwell, 1999), are confined by institutionally and professionally determined criteria and resources (Kreber, 2010). Reflecting this, the project was shaped by the very real pressures affecting teaching in higher education, not least the impact of the current economic crisis on lecturer numbers, which reduced the time available for the project. Further, the strategies proposed here are not straightforward, nor are they without risk. The filmed interview exemplars, apart from being time-consuming to arrange, might well have been ineffective. Nonetheless, my experiences on this project suggest that any potential vulnerability arising from the use of self (Brookfield, 2006) is significantly outweighed by the effectiveness of and appreciation shown by students for this type of authentic teaching.

Conclusion

In summary, this action research project has provided some encouraging results, but these provide provisional rather than conclusive answers to the research questions. The findings indicate that CDP principles, critical reflection, and facilitative and responsive teaching may have helped engender transformative learning for student social workers. Clearly, questions remain about the causal links between these factors, particularly in the face of methodological limitations of the project design including, the preset learning and teaching components that were not explicitly influenced by CDP. Further, the study did not incorporate analysis of the impact of wider factors on learning for students studying for the Masters in social work degree. Among others, these are likely to have included financial hardship, work and family commitments, and mental health issues.

Despite this, it is heartening to see evidence of a high level of active student engagement with the teaching and learning activities, and for some the attainment of transformative learning experiences. A number of implications emerge, including the relevance of these findings for professions beyond social work, encompassing those in health and education where there is a similar focus on the application of skills and knowledge to practice. In addition, the study attests to the importance of using theory explicitly to guide teaching practice. Further, despite institutional and professional requirements and constraints, the findings suggest educators must engage students in genuinely collaborative learning enterprises, if they are to maximise the learning potential available. This necessitates a type of lived teaching: one which is itself critically reflective and welcomes challenge and debate, seeking to change in response to students’ learning needs. In practical terms, it means building flexibility into individual modules and educational programmes. At departmental levels, it requires commitment to developing a shared philosophy of teaching, which although challenging, utilises transformative learning to counter the bureaucratisation of education. Thus, in turn, helping ensure social workers, health, and education professionals are equipped to remain alert to and critically address the constraints of institutionalised practice.

Footnotes

Appendix A

Appendix B

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, 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.

References

Baldwin

(2004). Critical reflection: Opportunities and threats to professional learning and service development in social work organisations. In Gould

Baldwin

, Dr, & Dawsonera (Eds.), Social work, critical reflection, and the learning organization (p. 14). Aldershot, England: Ashgate.

Bandura

(1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.

Barbour

(2007). Doing focus groups. London, England: Sage.

Baxter Magolda

M. B.

(1999). Creating contexts for learning and self-authorship: Constructive-developmental pedagogy. Vanderbilt issues in higher education. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

Biggs

J. B.

(2003). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.

Biggs

J. B.

Tang

(2007). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.

Boud

Walker

(1998). Promoting reflection in professional courses: The challenge of context. Studies in Higher Education, 23, 191–206. doi:10.1080/03075079812331380384

Branch

William T,

Jr . (2010). The road to professionalism: Reflective practice and reflective learning. Patient Education and Counseling, 80, 327–332. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2010.04.022

Bridwell

S. D.

(2012). A constructive-developmental perspective on the transformative learning of adults marginalised by race, class and gender. Adult Education Quarterly, XX, 1–20. doi:10.1177/0741713612447854

10.

Brockbank

McGill

(1998). Facilitating reflective learning in higher education. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.

11.

Brookfield

S. D.

(2006). Authenticity and power. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2006, 5–16. doi:10.1002/ace.223

12.

Cranton

(2011). A transformative perspective on the scholarship of teaching and learning. Higher Education Research and Development, 30, 75–86. doi:10.1080/07294360.2011.536974

13.

Drago-Severson

(2004). Becoming adult learners: Principles and practices for effective development. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

14.

Ferguson

(2008). Reclaiming social work: Challenging neo-liberalism and promoting social justice [electronic resource]. London, England: Sage.

15.

Ferguson

Lavalette

Whitmore

(2005). Globalisation, global justice and social work. Abingdon, England: Routledge.

16.

Fook

(2007). Uncertainty: The defining characteristic of social work? In Cree

V. E.

, (Ed.), Social work: A reader (pp. 227–235). New York, NY: Routledge.

17.

Fook

Gardner

(2007). Practising critical reflection: A resource handbook. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.

18.

Henn

Weinstein

Foard

(2006). A short introduction to social research [electronic resource]. London, England: Sage.

19.

Heron

(1993). Group facilitation: Theories and models for practice. East Brunswick, NJ: Nichols.

20.

Hooks

(1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York, NY: Routledge.

21.

Jarvis

(2010). Adult education and lifelong learning: Theory and practice. New York, NY: Routledge.

22.

Jones

(2009). Teaching for change in social work: A discipline-based argument for the use of transformative approaches to teaching and learning. Journal of Transformative Education, 7, 8–25. doi:10.1177/1541344609338053

23.

Kegan

(2000). What form transforms? A constructive-developmental approach to transformative learning. In Mezirow

Associates (Eds.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 35–69). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

24.

Kolb

D. A.

(1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

25.

Kreber

(2010). Academics’ teacher identities, authenticity and pedagogy. Studies in Higher Education, 35, 171–194. doi:10.1080/03075070902953048

26.

Light

Cox

Calkins

(2009). Learning and teaching in higher education: The reflective professional. London, England: Sage.

27.

Matthew-Maich

Ploeg

Jack

Dobbins

(2010). Transformative learning and research utilization in nursing practice: A missing link? Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing/Sigma Theta Tau International, Honor Society of Nursing, 7, 25–35. doi:10.1111/j.1741-6787.2009.00172.x

28.

McNiff

Whitehead

(2009). Doing and writing action research. London, England: Sage.

29.

Merriam

S. B.

Caffarella

R. S.

Baumgartner

(2007). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide [electronic resource]. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

30.

Mezirow

(2006). An overview on transformative learning. In Sutherland

Crowther

(Eds.), Lifelong learning: Concepts and contexts (pp. 24–38). London, England: Routledge.

31.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

(1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

32.

Moon

J. A.

(2004). A handbook of reflective and experiential learning: Theory and practice. London, England: RoutledgeFalmer.

33.

Orme

Shemmings

(2010). Developing research based social work practice. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

34.

Pallant

(2010). SPSS survival manual: A step-by-step guide to data analysis using SPSS. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.

35.

Prosser

Trigwell

(1999). Understanding learning and teaching: The experience in higher education. London, England: Open University Press.

36.

Quinney

Parker

(2010). Developing self efficacy in research skills: Becoming research-minded. In Burgess

Carpenter

(Eds.), The outcomes of social work education: Developing evaluation methods (pp. 16–25). Southampton, England: Higher Education Academy Subject Centre for Social Policy and Social Work, University of Southampton School of Social Sciences.

37.

Schon

D. A.

(1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. The Jossey-Bass higher education series. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

38.

Scottish Social Services Council. (2009). Codes of practice for social services workers and employers: Employers of social services workers. Dundee, NY: Author.

39.

Scottish Social Services Council, Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, Scotland, & Scottish Executive. (2003). The framework for social work education in Scotland: Scottish Executive. Edinburgh, England: Scottish Executive.

40.

Taylor

E. W.

(2007). An update of transformative learning theory: A critical review of the empirical research (1999–2005). International Journal of Lifelong Education, 26, 173–191. doi:10.1080/02601370701219475

41.

Trigwell

(2006). An analysis of the relations between learning and teaching approaches. In Sutherland

Crowther

(Eds.), Lifelong learning: Concepts and contexts (pp. 24–38). London: Routledge.

42.

Walmsley

Birbeck

(2006). Personal narrative writing: A method of values reflection for BSW students. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 26, 11.

43.

Wolf

S. H.

Dekker

M. M.

Byrne

F. R.

Miller

W. D.

(2011). Citizen-centered health promotion. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 40, S38–S47. doi:1016/j.amepre.2010.09.025