Please see the attachment for task description. Please note the assignment needs to talk about a placement of social work done in a psychology clinic organisation.The placement was done in a clinic setting, Managing clients on one to one sessions, clients for different backgrounds and the use of interpreting services were usually needed. Dealing with stakeholders as centrelink, Jobs victoria,etc.Please make sure to use all the references mentioned on the suggested readings.someTitle 09:05:31:07:07 Page 43 Page 43 4 The critical reflection model and process This chapter aims to: • provide a broad overview of the design of our critical reflection model, including – the design of the model – the specific principles that inform it – the features of the design that are based on these principles (i.e. the specific purpose, structure, content and process) • explore what you need to consider in starting critical reflection, particularly using this model; more specifically – the influence of organizational context – how to promote critical reflection – participation issues – voluntary or involuntary – composition of critical reflection groups – practical issues in planning workshops. Introduction In the foregoing chapters we have outlined the broad theory behind our model of critical reflection, and the issues that need to be considered and addressed before establishing a critical reflection programme. This chapter divides into two sections: first we present a broad overview of the design of our model, and second we explore what you need to consider in introducing critical reflection into your organization. In subsequent chapters we describe the detail of spe- cific aspects of the design. This chapter also serves to outline the ‘blueprint’ of the model, if you like. Understanding the blueprint and the thinking behind it will allow readers to modify or change the blueprint in particular ways, which we will also discuss in this chapter. The blueprint model we present here ideally involves a small group of voluntary participants, who either all come Fook, Jan, and Fiona Gardner. Practising Critical Reflection: a Resource Handbook, McGraw-Hill Education, 2007. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ballarat/detail.action?docID=332676. Created from ballarat on 2023-09-01 03:09:37. C op yr ig ht © 2 00 7. M cG ra w -H ill E du ca tio n. A ll rig ht s re se rv ed . 09:05:31:07:07 Page 44 Page 44 from the organization that has sponsored the programme, or are individuals from various organizations who have chosen to participate in the programme, which is being run independently of their employing organization. There may of course be many variations on these two options and these will be considered here and in subsequent chapters. Overview of the model What is the broad design for our model of critical reflection? In concrete terms the model involves small groups of critical reflective learners, in which group members assist each individual participant in turn to reflect on specific examples of their practice experiences. This process is structured in two main stages. The first focuses on unsettling the fundamental assumptions that are implicit in their account of their practice experience; the second focuses on how their practice (and the way they understand or conceptualize it) might change as a result of the new awarenesses they have arrived at from the first stage of reflections. The process is managed by a group facilitator, who also introduces the model before the first stage begins. The whole process is undertaken within a trusting and collegiate climate. The membership of the small groups is ideally voluntary, and members have chosen to participate on some kind of informed basis (see below). The ideal maximum is around eight participants, but of course numbers can be varied. Although there are two main stages of reflection, the first is normally preceded by an introductory session, which aims to introduce the model and establish the appropriate group culture. There are, then, usually three sessions in total: an introductory session, followed by stages 1 and 2 of the model. The sessions are normally held about one week apart. In most of the groups we have run, we allow about three hours for the introductory session, and approximately six hours for each of the subsequent sessions. This means that, in a group with eight participants, each will have approximately 30 minutes to present their material for reflection. Each reflection presentation is therefore quite brief, so the process needs to be facilitated in a focused way in order to create an open climate, but at the same time to develop alternative perspec- tives that are meaningful for each participant. While there is a basic structure, the process is open-ended, the guiding principle being to unearth assumptions that are meaningful to the participant. The main principles of the model and their rationale Small facilitated groups are our preferred way of working because: • they allow learning through dialogue and some focus on the 44 PRACTISING CRITICAL REFLECTION: A RESOURCE HANDBOOK Fook, Jan, and Fiona Gardner. Practising Critical Reflection: a Resource Handbook, McGraw-Hill Education, 2007. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ballarat/detail.action?docID=332676. Created from ballarat on 2023-09-01 03:09:37. C op yr ig ht © 2 00 7. M cG ra w -H ill E du ca tio n. A ll rig ht s re se rv ed . 09:05:31:07:07 Page 45 Page 45 communicative process, which is a key principle underlying the idea of critical reflection • they allow enough space for individual reflection, but also provide for the input of multiple perspectives and, additionally, the opportunity for further identification of collective and social thinking, and the links between this and individual experience • the size of the groups can vary – we find that the model may be conducted with as few as three group members (including the facilita- tor) up to as many as twelve; normally, however, each participant needs at least 20–30 minutes to present and reflect on their critical incident, so this factor will guide the size of the group and available time; the model can also be used between two people in supervision, for example, or critical friends (see Chapter 9), or by individuals on their own as part of self-reflection. The direct involvement of each individual participant is important. In our model our preferred option is that each group member (including the facilitator) actually presents some concrete practice experience for reflection. There are several reasons for this. • We find that the learning that can be gained from actually undertak- ing a reflection on one’s own experience is different from (and add- itional to) the learning gained from assisting in reflecting on other people’s experience. In order for people to maximize their learning about critical reflection it is important for them to learn from both perspectives, as both a reflector on their own and other people’s experiences. • This is also an important aspect of establishing the appropriate group climate. The culture is usually more participatory if everyone has a similar role. If everyone knows they will be having a turn in exposing their practice and becoming vulnerable to the group, this sets up a more democratic climate. For example, we often find that people who are aware that they will also be in the ‘hot seat’ will take more care to temper their questions, and will be more sensitive to different per- spectives, and the perspectives of the person currently in the hot seat. • The facilitator modelling the process with their own material at the beginning of the programme contributes to this participatory cli- mate by modelling participation. This also allows modelling of the appropriate types of responses to critical reflective questioning. • We would suggest varying this only if just a short training programme is possible, so that a selected proportion of participants can pre- sent their material. These are usually ‘volunteers’, who have been approached beforehand to agree to present their material, although THE CRITICAL REFLECTION MODEL AND PROCESS 45 Fook, Jan, and Fiona Gardner. Practising Critical Reflection: a Resource Handbook, McGraw-Hill Education, 2007. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ballarat/detail.action?docID=332676. Created from ballarat on 2023-09-01 03:09:37. C op yr ig ht © 2 00 7. M cG ra w -H ill E du ca tio n. A ll rig ht s re se rv ed . 09:05:31:07:07 Page 46 Page 46 often we have called for volunteers on the day. The advantage is that more people may be exposed to the process, but the disadvantages are many: the risk that the model will not be understood or experienced in depth; the associated risk that the model or process will be mis- understood; the risk of not creating the necessary trusting environ- ment; the added anxiety for those presenting. All in all, a shortened model is probably recommended only when the advantages of including a larger number of participants outweigh the risks involved. Using critical reflective questioning is important. By critical reflective questions, we mean questions that are clearly derived from our specific ways of theo- rizing critical reflection. We deliberately devise sets of example questions from the different theoretical traditions of critical reflection and model these to participants (there are examples in Chapter 5). The aim here is twofold: 1. to model the direct connections between the theory of critical reflec- tion and the practice of it 2. to assist participants to experience the direct links between the theory and practice of critical reflection. What is critical here is to use language, and word questions, according to the group and individual participants involved. The main principle at work here is to find a language for wording the questions that is meaningful to the person reflecting. In this sense, the facilitator (and group members with the facilita- tor’s assistance) is trying to communicate the questions in ways that help the person reflecting to see other perspectives in looking for assumptions. Unsettling the fundamental assumptions that are implicit: we deliberately choose terms like ‘unsettle’ for the following reasons. • We are emphasizing that the process aims primarily to ‘shake up’ thinking, but that this does not necessarily provide ready-made solu- tions. In fact we emphasize that the process is not about finding a solution; primarily we are aiming to create a climate (and process) that might assist a person to be open about exposing their funda- mental assumptions, and then open to finding new ways of thinking and acting that incorporate whatever changes are brought about through the process. • The model is process focused, with the outcome being open. In this sense it is not more process than outcome focused, but the outcome desired is open-ended. The model is therefore deliberately designed as a particular communicative process without foreclosing on what the particular outcomes might be for each participant. It is important that 46 PRACTISING CRITICAL REFLECTION: A RESOURCE HANDBOOK Fook, Jan, and Fiona Gardner. Practising Critical Reflection: a Resource Handbook, McGraw-Hill Education, 2007. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ballarat/detail.action?docID=332676. Created from ballarat on 2023-09-01 03:09:37. C op yr ig ht © 2 00 7. M cG ra w -H ill E du ca tio n. A ll rig ht s re se rv ed . 09:05:31:07:07 Page 47 Page 47 the process instead creates an open climate so that possible changes might be as open, flexible and non-predetermined as possible. This principle is important if participants are to be as creative as possible in finding new ways of working. • We are focusing directly on assumptions that are fundamental and implicit. What these are must necessarily be open, since their relative meaning will depend on what theoretical perspective is taken. And since, ultimately, we are trying to develop an understanding of fun- damental assumptions that will be useful to the person in question, then it is important that the process we construct is able to be inclu- sive of many different perspectives. The assumptions unearthed do need to be implicit, rather than those that are within easy reach of the current explicit awareness of the presenter. In our experience, not a great deal that is new is learnt if easily stated assumptions are focused on. In some ways this can be an inhibitor to learning, as the learner is often motivated to defend assumptions that are more explicit. In a sense these are often the more desired assumptions, so the person may have a vested interest in preserving them. Our focus therefore is deliberately on that which is implied rather than stated. It is the focus on the taken for granted that contributes to the power of the learning in critical reflection. • The degree to which the thinking is hidden will vary, as of course will what participants choose to focus on as fundamental to them. This may vary from thinking that is hidden because it is part of the taken-for-granted cultural and social environment, to thinking that is hidden because it is associated with past, often painful, personal experiences. Of course the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but some participants may feel more comfortable about discussing different things in a group environment. Each facilitator (and group and individual participant) will to some extent need to make their own decisions. The use of examples of specific and concrete practice experience. We insist on using practice experience that is described in both concrete and specific terms. This material can be accessed, through observation, case files, reports, and so on. However, for the purposes of focused small group dialogue, we find that the more concrete and brief the account of practice is, the better we are able to focus and delve into it in some depth. Therefore usually we ask people to bring a written description of a critical incident – that is, of something that happened that was important to them (see Chapter 5). For our purposes here, what we are emphasizing is the need