Journal of Teaching in Social Work Professional Co-Development ...

This article was downloaded by: [Universite Laval] On: 02 May 2014, At: 07:55 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Teaching in Social Work Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wtsw20

Professional Co-Development Groups: Addressing the Teacher Training Needs of Social Work Teachers a

b

Valérie Roy , Sacha Genest Dufault & Joanie Châteauvert

a

a

School of Social Work , Université Laval , Québec , Québec , Canada b

Social Work Program , Université du Québec à Rimouski , Rimouski , Quebec , Canada Published online: 30 Jan 2014.

To cite this article: Valérie Roy , Sacha Genest Dufault & Joanie Châteauvert (2014) Professional Co-Development Groups: Addressing the Teacher Training Needs of Social Work Teachers, Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 34:1, 29-45, DOI: 10.1080/08841233.2013.863816 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2013.863816

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 34:29–45, 2014 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0884-1233 print/1540-7349 online DOI: 10.1080/08841233.2013.863816

Professional Co-Development Groups: Addressing the Teacher Training Needs of Social Work Teachers VALÉRIE ROY School of Social Work, Université Laval, Québec, Québec, Canada

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 07:55 02 May 2014

SACHA GENEST DUFAULT Social Work Program, Université du Québec à Rimouski, Rimouski, Quebec, Canada

JOANIE CHÂTEAUVERT School of Social Work, Université Laval, Québec, Québec, Canada

This article reports on a professional development initiative organized by two junior university social work teachers. Along with three experienced colleagues, the two teachers experimented with a professional co-development group. The purpose of this group modality, which has much in common with peer supervision, is to reflect on professional teaching practice with a view to improving it. The co-development group approach is outlined here, and then two case examples are presented. The benefits and pitfalls of the group initiative for the teachers are examined, and the degree to which the approach meets the continuing professional development and support needs of university social work teachers is discussed. KEYWORDS professional development, teaching, teachers, social work, group

Social work teachers must be able to foster student learning of both theory and practice. They also must train students to use their critical faculties (Echterling et al., 2002; Fook & Askeland, 2007; Moffatt, 1996; Ringel, 2004; Address correspondence to Valérie Roy, School of Social Work, Université Laval, 1030 Avenue des Sciences-Humaines, Pavillon Charles-De Koninck, Québec, QC GIV 0A6, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]

29


30

V. Roy et al.

Taylor & Rafferty, 2003) and get them to take a step back and think reflectively about their practice (Schön, 1996; Taylor, 2006). To achieve these ends requires specific teaching skills, in particular the ability to take a critical view of one’s own teaching. Yet beyond their academic and professional training and, for some teachers, their clinical experience as practicing social workers, very few academics have any teacher training that could help them improve their students’ learning experience (Langevin, Grandtner, & Ménard, 2008). Many university professors also have trouble reconciling their many teaching and research duties, are under a great deal of stress (Dyke & Deschenaux, 2008), and often find themselves isolated, having no one with whom they can discuss their teaching issues (Bourque et al., 2007). The purpose of this paper is to examine the experience of two university social work teachers who experimented with a professional co-development group approach (Payette & Champagne, 2010) as a means of addressing their professional development and support needs. Following a brief review of the literature on the topic, two case examples and a discussion of them by the professors involved are presented. Last, the results of the project, especially the benefits and pitfalls of the co-development group approach, are discussed.

ORIGIN OF PROJECT The project initiated resulted from a working meeting at which two social work teachers discussed their teaching concerns, especially with regard to group dynamics in group work method classes. The professors exchanged views on various problems they encountered, such as managing conflict situations, the impact of” negative leaders,” and more broadly on development of their own teaching style. They were starting out on their academic careers and work at two different universities in Quebec. They both taught courses on social work with groups, one at the BSW level and the other in an MSW program. Though they worked at two different institutions, the university culture at each with regard to teaching seemed to be similar. No mentoring, co-teaching, peer group supervision, or formal means of support was available at the time the two professors were starting out on their teaching careers. Given the problems they were experiencing and the lack of institutional resources available to them, the two instructors shared views on their support needs as well as concerns about their professional development as teachers. Following informal discussions, they decided to structure their thoughts in a more organized fashion. First, in an effort to gain a better understanding of their problems, they focused on documenting university teaching issues. Subsequently, they explored various modalities that could address their professional support and development needs.

Co-Development Groups

31


From Social Work Practice to Social Work Teaching Some of the problems encountered in teaching social work may in part be explained by the belief that social workers can become sufficiently competent teachers simply by transferring their clinical skills to the classroom (East & Chambers, 2007). Some of a social worker’s clinical competencies can indeed be applied to teaching. For instance, empathy, active listening, cultural sensitivity, and conflict mediation can facilitate a transfer of knowledge and skills (Norton, Russell, Wisner, & Uriarte, 2011). Nonetheless, simply transferring these clinical competencies to a classroom is not enough. Teaching social work takes more than that. First, it not only involves meeting distinct intervention objectives but also requires specific knowledge, know-how, and social skills. Second, on a pedagogical level, it requires a knowledge of adult learning theories and how to apply them (East & Chambers, 2007). Yet even the most experienced social workers sometimes have not fully assimilated the concepts of adult learning theories (Strom-Gottfried & Dunlap, 2004; Sussman, Stoddart, & Gorman, 2004). While there are definitely some shortcomings in the teacher training of social work professors, the situation of doctoral students who give courses is a source of even greater concern. The students are more often aware that they lack the required teaching skills, have little confidence in their ability to teach (McGranahan, 2008), and suffer a great deal of anxiety and frustration (Sussman et al., 2004). In addition, they are sometimes perplexed by the different roles they must take on and by the boundaries they must set between them (Sussman et al., 2004). Unfortunately, there are very few formal venues where teachers, whether they are just starting out on their careers or have some experience, can discuss these issues and seek or offer support. Moreover, very few professional development activities are available to help them improve their instruction, think about their role as teachers, and build on their experience in a supervised, systematic way. Although a number of universities have been offering teaching advice and support services since the 1990s, these services are not always adapted to the specific discipline being taught (Langevin et al., 2008), which can make teachers reluctant to use them (Jenkins, 1996; Quinlan, 2002). Other realities related to academic culture also can hinder the use of teaching services. One such factor is the tendency of universities to value research more highly than teaching (Marginson & van der Wende, 2007). Belcher, Pecukonis, and Knight (2011) argue that this tendency, in fact, constitutes a threat to the quality of university teaching. In a Quebec survey (Dyke & Deschenaux, 2008), university teachers acknowledged they do not have enough time to carry out all their academic duties and that therefore it is impossible for them to maintain a high standard in all areas of their work. Frey and Overfield (2002) note that a heavy workload hampers teacher participation in professional development programs. Given this context and


32

V. Roy et al.

the fact that so little formal support is available (Langevin et al., 2008), teachers feel somewhat isolated and left to deal with their teaching problems on their own. Nonetheless, those who are sincerely interested in developing their teaching skills do get together informally to discuss problems and offer one another support (Ferman, 2002), and the review by Langevin et al. (2008) indicates that such collaborative arrangements are the preferred means of professional development. Teachers generally choose activities that are conducted with them rather than for them (Langevin et al.). In this respect, it comes as no surprise to see the degree to which both junior teachers (Feiman-Nemser, 2001) and more experienced ones (Kraft & Palmer, 2000) prefer activities that focus on reflective development and learning. Yet most professional development activities offered in universities do not include this reflective thinking component (Sussman et al., 2004). However, some innovative projects have demonstrated the benefits of collaborative, reflective approaches (East & Chambers, 2007; Norton et al., 2011). The experience of a collaborative working relationship between a doctoral student and a senior social work professor provides insight into the advantages of this kind of initiative. Through a structured action-reflection process, the two colleagues engaged in a productive dialogue that helped both of them become better teachers (East & Chambers, 2007). Another experiment, which took the form of a peer group, also yielded convincing results. The group’s objective was to promote reflective techniques, peerto-peer dialogue, and visualization for new teachers. Benefits derived by the participants included support, strategies for improving their teaching, and ways to reconcile their research-teaching workload, without feeling as though they were in competition (Norton et al., 2011). Other approaches could be considered as well and adapted to meet the continuing professional development and support needs of social work teachers. The professional co-development group (Payette & Champagne, 2010), an approach similar to peer supervision, is worth further examination. For instance, two groups of education instructors at the Université du Québec à Chicoutimi already have experimented with it (Université du Québec à Chicoutimi, 2011). In 2008 and 2009, 23 problem situations encountered by teachers when supervising student practicums were discussed at meetings of professional co-development groups. Participants reported that the project gave them an opportunity to share their experiences within the group, expand their repertoire of ways to provide better guidance to students in training, and improve their expertise and teaching skills – while strengthening their sense of professional identity and feeling of belonging to their community of practice (Université du Québec à Chicoutimi). Given that their respective universities offer very little in the way of teacher support or training, the two junior social work professors opted for the co-development group approach because of the advantages it offers: it


33

involves peers who know the social work field and the teaching context, and it requires only a limited number of participants and few financial or other resources. Through a process of structured, collaborative reflection among teachers, a co-development group has the potential to further mastery of the roles of the teacher by establishing a framework that fosters a process of mutual support toward a goal of improved teaching.

Professional Co-Development Groups


Professional co-development groups are an approach to training that relies on the group and on the interactions between group participants to help achieve the fundamental objective, which is to improve professional practice. The group is a learning community that shares the same goals and agrees on a method: careful study of a situation experienced by a participant, and sharing of practical “know-how,” primarily, as well as theoretical knowledge when needed. (Payette & Champagne, 2010, 7)

The concept of professional co-development groups originated in the 1980s, when Quebec public administration professor Adrien Payette set up a management training group for master’s students in public administration. The educational aim of the group was to prompt the students to reflect collectively on their management practices. In the late 1980s, industrial psychologist Claude Champagne adapted the approach to the health care system, setting up a pilot project in a hospital. On seeing how successful the approach was, Payette and Champagne got together to launch a codevelopment group for trainers and wrote an initial practical guide in 1994. Since then, a number of professional co-development groups have been run by managers in a variety of settings, including public institutions in the health care and social services system and private companies (Payette & Champagne, 2010). The same approach has been taken in a number of disciplines, such as psychosociology (a social sciences discipline mainly oriented on human interactions in small groups) and education. However, aside from the initiative at the Université du Québec à Chicoutimi reported here, there is not much in the teacher training literature on professional codevelopment. The approach is still being explored in the social sciences and, to our knowledge, has not yet been formally evaluated.

Description of Process The professional co-development approach essentially seeks to improve professional practice and strengthen participants’ sense of professional identity. The specific objectives of professional co-development groups are to learn


34

V. Roy et al.

to be more effective by devising new ways to think, feel, and act in one’s practice, develop a sense of belonging to a group, and learn to help and be helped. A seven-step structured process is proposed for this purpose. It typically begins to unfold within a single meeting, which can last from 45 minutes to 3 hours (Payette, 2007). Given that the approach originally was developed by management experts, three types of roles are played by group participants: client, consultant, and facilitator. The person who asks for help is called the client. He or she presents to the group an unsatisfactory professional situation that is to serve as the starting point for a critical analysis of his or her teaching practice. The purpose of the analysis is to derive more general lessons with a view to improving the client’s teaching practice. The others in the group act as consultants. Bringing their own experience and knowledge to bear on the problem situation, they prompt the client to think about the issues involved and consider possible alternatives and their consequences. One person also acts as facilitator, helping the group to stay on course and to progress toward the learning objective (rather than a therapeutic objective, for instance) and ensure that what is learned stems from the sharing of group members’ experiences. A professional co-development group should have at least five participants (which includes one person acting as the client and one as the facilitator, as well as the three consultants), but can also function with a larger number. Ideally, the group should meet regularly, at whatever frequency the members decide on, and the roles of client and consultants should change at each meeting. The group can meet for just a few sessions or regularly over several years. The seven-step process should remain the same, however. STEP 1: CLIENT

CHOOSES AND PREPARES SUBJECT OF CONSULTATION

Before the meeting, the client thinks about a problem situation he or she has faced in professional practice. The client can write up a short outline of the situation. In some cases, this step can even be done at the very beginning of the meeting, while participants are present. STEP 2: CLIENT

SETS OUT PROBLEM , CONCERN , OR PROJECT

The client explains the situation while the consultants listen closely. The idea is to convey as much information as possible so that the group members can work together on the problem set out by the client. In many cases, the client learns a considerable amount at this early stage simply by being compelled to give an objective account of the situation. STEP 3: GROUP

CLARIFIES PROBLEM BY ASKING QUESTIONS

The consultants ask questions to clarify the situation explained by the client, who answers by providing as much detail as possible. The consultants keep


35

their hypotheses and suggestions to themselves for the time being and concentrate instead on understanding the situation. STEP 4: GROUP

DRAWS UP A CONSULTING CONTRACT

With respect to the problem situation, the client sets out his or her expectations and makes a clear request for assistance that will further his or her professional development. The consultants then are asked to restate their understanding of the request. If necessary, they can focus on what the client considers to be his or her top-priority need. The two parties, client and consultants, agree on and draw up a contract.


STEP 5: CONSULTANTS

OFFER THEIR REACTIONS , COMMENTS , SUGGESTIONS

Bringing their expertise and experience to bear, the consultants share their thoughts and ideas about the request with the client. A broad range of viewpoints is the best way to give the client a maximum number of possible options for dealing with the situation. At this point, the client should be actively listening, being careful not to fall into the trap of trying to justify what he or she did or did not do, which would simply make it harder to find a solution. STEP 6: CLIENT

PREPARES SUMMARY AND ACTION PLAN

The client summarizes what the group has said and chooses one or two suggestions for addressing the problem that meet his or her needs and are doable by the next meeting. The client will draw up an action plan and present it at the next meeting, with the results helping the other group members to learn, as well. STEP 7: PARTICIPANTS

IDENTIFY WHAT THEY HAVE LEARNED AND DO AN

EVALUATION

All the participants—the client, the consultants, and the facilitator—now state what they have learned during the consultation. They also evaluate the group process, so any necessary adjustments can be made.

Co-Development Group Experience For this first initiative, the two junior professors sought out three university colleagues who were interested in taking part in a professional co-development group. It was agreed that the group would include colleagues experienced in teaching group work and in whom the two junior

36

V. Roy et al.

professors had complete confidence. One of them, who served as the facilitator, also had the task of teaching the co-development group process to the participants. Two working meetings were held, one at each of the two campuses, focusing on a case example involving one of the teachers. The meetings were held 6 weeks apart, and each one lasted 3 hours. The two group meetings are described below.

THE CASE OF SACHA


The situation that Sacha prepared and presented to the co-development group occurred in an undergraduate class. He explained it as follows: After the screening of a film on end-of-life care, I held a class discussion on what the students felt about the film. I asked them to think about a moment or a person in the film that had affected them. A discussion got going—touching, genuine, moving. Some students tended to talk more than others, and that’s okay. (I didn’t force anyone to speak.) Following the discussion about the film, we got on to other topics that were less emotionally involving, such as social work theory. From that point on, virtually no one said a word. I waited for a while and then decided to talk to them openly about how the change in tone in the class made me uncomfortable and that I was trying to understand what was happening. The students said they were tired, they were thinking about the work they had to do after class. I said I understood, but at the same time I was annoyed and told them they had a responsibility to participate in class. There are only 10 of them, so it’s more like a seminar, and it’s a course that only meets once a month. I said they had to put some effort in, even if they were tired. One student piped up to say that class participation in the group was usually good. She was right. Even though most of them didn’t say much, class participation was generally pretty good. Then the class went silent again. I asked them to explain to me, so I could understand why they had stopped talking. And as I was saying that, I realized I was missing something. I’d had similar experiences in other classes. I’m not satisfied with myself. I’ll stop here.

Following the client’s short presentation, the consultants asked questions to clarify the situation and make sure they had fully understood the problem: “What did you expect from your students? How had your group agreed the class should function? What do you know about the learning styles of your students? Had you seen the film before?” In preparing and giving his presentation, and then as he hesitated in answering the consultants’ questions, Sacha became more aware of his own high expectations about active student participation in class. The co-development process took its course, and the client made two requests for possible assistance. The first concerned ways of adapting his



37

expectations regarding his students’ class participation. The second request involved examining how he should react when he finds himself in this kind of situation, instead of getting angry and venting. The facilitator tried to guide the client by asking him to choose which of the two requests was the more significant to him, here and now, which one he would find more useful in his teaching. Sacha opted for the second request and summed it up in a statement. Then came the step where the consultants shared their thoughts and hypotheses with the client. For his part, Sacha concentrated on listening rather than on trying to justify what he had done or not done in the situation. The consultants told him what they had experienced personally in similar situations and what they had done, such as putting effort into maximizing the quality of the remainder of the class, rather than worrying about activities that did not go as planned. One consultant pointed out that what is important is to see who or what is disturbed by the lack of class participation: Is it the teacher, the students, or the learning? Another suggestion—given that Sacha repeatedly had a very strong reaction when he found himself in this situation—was for him to think about the deeper, personal reasons that make these situations difficult for him. Another idea was for him to try to listen to what more than one or two people had to say about the situation and not just focus on one student and assume the rest were all feeling and thinking the same thing. At the end of the step, Sacha chose an initial course of action that he deemed more doable in the short term and that could have an effect on his next few classes, which was to think about the different styles of learning among the students in his class. In the longer term, he wished to examine the reasons why this type of situation is hard for him to deal with. The co-development facilitator then asked participants to identify what they had learned from the group. Among other things, they mentioned the courage and confidence to tell others about teaching problems, the creative aspect of the process that helps the client to take responsibility for his or her own professional development, and the questions they were asking themselves about their own situation when they heard their colleague explain his problems. Last, the facilitator went back over the expectations of group members and concluded the session by introducing the subject of the next meeting.

THE CASE OF VALÉRIE The second co-development meeting began with a follow-up to the first meeting. Sacha described what steps he had taken and what he thought about the situation now. The facilitator reminded participants about the steps, roles, and rules of the group proceedings. Valérie, who was the client this

38

V. Roy et al.


time, then explained her situation, which had occurred in a master’s level course on group work. As part of a master’s seminar, I started a new educational project in which I proposed that the students set up a group with foreign students at the university, run the group sessions, and then evaluate the group. The students in the class were not too keen on the idea. The proposal was accepted in the end, but there were clearly two subgroups: a silent majority that agreed with the project and a minority, with two negative leaders, that clearly was against it. I tried to get a discussion going on the atmosphere that had prevailed in the first class, but I was met with indifference, even a passive refusal to talk about it. I didn’t insist, telling myself that it was too early. For a month, the atmosphere in the class was oppressively difficult. The group wasn’t engaging, wasn’t participating, and the two negative leaders were becoming aggressive. For a variety of reasons, I chose not to bring up the topic of the class atmosphere again, and instead tried to mobilize the silent majority—which remained silent—until a class when the two negative leaders were absent. The atmosphere improved then, though hesitantly. One of the two negative leaders later dropped the course. The other negative leader found himself a little more isolated, but he didn’t change his attitude. From then on, the class atmosphere improved, but only very slowly. Out of 15 classes, there were maybe 2 really interesting ones.

After Valérie had outlined the situation to the group, her first concern was to reflect on how far you can go, in a teaching (rather than clinical) situation, to get a group to examine its own dynamics. Moving to the next step in the group co-development approach, the consultants asked her questions to clarify the situation in their own minds—about what made her unsure about her proposal for the new project, about the students’ initial reaction, about the project itself and the time and energy it required (of her and of the students), and about the underlying educational purpose of the project (working on social attitudes and skills). By re-experiencing the emotions involved in the unsatisfactory situation, becoming aware of her own reactions (e.g., resistance) to the consultants’ questions, and clarifying some of the choices she made in the situation, Valerie realized that other requests were worthwhile considering. After answering the questions, she formulated three requests: the initial request, about just how far one can push a class to examine its own group dynamics; a second one about how to cultivate students’ interest in developing their own social skills and attitudes; and a third on how to deal with negative leaders by seeing them as potential allies. In the end, on being asked by the facilitator to choose the request that would help the most in her teaching, she opted for her initial request: how to get a class to examine its own group dynamics.



39

The consultants’ reactions and comments focused on analyzing the factors to be considered when deciding whether or not to get a group to examine its own dynamics. A number of points were raised: personal variables respecting the teacher in question (personal situation, heavy workload); her perception of her role as a teacher (does she regard working in the here-and-now in the classroom as a fundamental part of the course or as exceptional teaching material); the type of course (group work, advanced social work course); students’ perception of the course and of what they are learning (do they see themselves as a group); the purpose (what is the educational objective); the right time to tackle the issue of group dynamics (when the dynamics interfere with giving the course, in the view of the professor or the students), and how to tackle it (by putting hypotheses to the group, for instance). Following this reaction stage, the client was asked to summarize the consultants’ feedback. She said that the main issue concerned the educational objective and the reality that she shouldn’t take for granted that students are open to examining classroom dynamics and learning from that. The consultants’ questions and comments prompted her to draw a parallel with her own experience as a clinician, in which she had less of a tendency to take clients’ motivation to work for granted. In class, she realized that she should concentrate on creating conditions that will foster frankness among students. The consultants chipped in with what they had learned, which was primarily the importance of working to promote openness among students. The session concluded with a discussion about where the group should go next.

DISCUSSION These two professional co-development group meetings had benefits for both professors, chiefly with respect to problem solving and a more critical examination of what an instructor’s role is. However, the approach does have some drawbacks and pitfalls: its apparent simplicity, the diversity of perspectives, its restricted scope with regard to professional identity, and its use in a university context.

Benefits A first immediate benefit for the two professors was that the group gave them support and helped to some extent with solving the problem brought for discussion. Both teachers said they felt welcomed and supported in dealing with their problems and vulnerabilities. For Sacha, the experience helped him structure his teaching. In the next class, with the same group, he spoke about his recent co-development experience. The students were surprised and interested to hear their teacher talk about how he had felt vulnerable in the preceding class and how he was trying to improve his teaching methods.


40

V. Roy et al.

His frank admission made the students feel more at ease about speaking out, although very few had done so thus far. They then looked back at the last class with some remove and shared their experiences of it. This discussion changed the atmosphere in the group and, in the process, turned a potential conflict into a collective learning opportunity. The experiment with the professional co-development group also enabled Sacha to determine how much importance he should place on oral participation in class, relating it to his own experience as a student. The process also helped him gain a better understanding of the learning styles of students who do not say much in class. Even though the problem Valérie raised in the co-development group concerned a course that had already finished, the experience had an immediate positive effect in her other courses. In an undergraduate social work course, she was guiding a group of students who were having serious problems working as a team. What she learned from the professional codevelopment group helped her remain focused on her role as a teacher, be better attuned to her students’ pace of learning, create conditions in which they could explore their problems, situate their exploration with respect to the course objectives, and get them to make connections with the material covered in class. More generally, this process took her back to the very fundamentals of group work and basic social work skills. Her professional competence and experience were useful (Norton et al., 2011), but the setting (academic versus clinical), the goal (pedagogical versus therapeutic), and the role of “group leader” (educator versus facilitator) were different. Although these differences may seem fundamental, teachers still need to be taught what the implications are in concrete situations (Sussman et al., 2004). In this sense, the reflective approach of the co-development group became a key factor (Feiman-Nemser, 2001; Kraft & Palmer, 2000). One less immediate (but no less relevant) benefit over the longer term was having a forum for reflecting on the role of a professor and the conditions under which the role is performed. In comparison with peer mentorship, this forum was sustained by the participation of people having different experiences of and perspectives on teaching. The three senior colleagues stated that they, too, benefited from the experience and appreciated being given the opportunity to pass on their knowledge and to think about their own teaching experiences. Sacha and Valérie felt the initiative had helped them develop their knowledge and pedagogical know-how. They also pointed out that talking to others about the problems they encountered had given them both greater insight into themselves as instructors. For Sacha, dialoguing with another university teacher and three other trusted people with experience in social work and teaching gave him a chance to reflect on his teaching practice and improve it significantly. Like those in the experiment described by Norton and colleagues (2011), he felt supported, and learned strategies to improve



41

his teaching but also came out of it with a renewed vision of how to reconcile the two main aspects of a university professor’s workload—research and teaching—by re-emphasizing his teaching. For Valérie, the approach helped her to make better use of the class as a group itself as part of her teaching strategy. Just as the use of the class group requires student involvement, the co-development group clearly required a real investment on the part of the teachers if they were to gain any benefits. The experience also gave the two professors the opportunity to take a critical look at the lack of support and training offered to university teachers while at the same time prompting them creatively to find supportive resources. As he continued teaching, Sacha came to recognize his responsibility to make time and space to reflect on his job but also to see the potential support available to him. Yet the support was available only if he asked for it, which is not always easy to do, especially in a competitive environment like a university. Since then, Sacha has set up a teaching discussion group using co-development and similar techniques and has invited all his colleagues—teachers, researchers, and lecturers—to join. That is his way of giving back and helping provide a place where peers can support and learn from one another.

Pitfalls It should be made clear that the professors did not conduct a formal evaluation of their initiative, and that is a limitation of this paper. Certain pitfalls of the professional co-development group model nevertheless can be identified from a practical perspective in which the focus is on generating knowledge from experiences (Trevithick, 2008). One of the pitfalls is certainly the model’s apparent simplicity. As Payette and Champagne (2010, p. 75) point out, “The challenge of this approach lies in its simplicity.” Indeed, each step can be implemented without investment and long-term commitment on the part of participants. On the one hand, it is up to the clients to raise a professional situation that really bothers them and to talk about it as openly as possible. In other words, the clients must be genuinely motivated to learn from the professional situation they have raised and not simply want to air the problems they have encountered. At the same time, the commitment of the consultants to making serious efforts to help the client is equally as essential. If the consultants interact to reassure, comfort, or protect the clients rather than reflecting with them, the processes’ potential becomes limited, or even distorted. Commitment, therefore, must be reciprocal, and the level of investment of one depends on what he or she perceives as the openness of the others. For Sacha and Valérie, the issue of commitment came up even before the group began, with the choice of situation: Do I dare talk to colleagues about my experience? Are they going to judge me? Sacha feared that his students’ reluctance to speak in class might be due


42

V. Roy et al.

to a lack of vitality on his part. Valérie’s fear was that her group facilitation skills might be found wanting. The importance of openness and investment is key to the success of the co-development process. Some questions asked by consultants as well as some of their comments can be perceived as confrontational, and it is tempting for the clients to close up or try to justify their actions. At step 3, for instance, Sacha was asked who or what was disturbed by the lack of class participation—the teacher, the students, or the learning? This question prompted him to think about how he framed the situation and the fact that other ways of understanding it were possible. The diversity of ways of understanding and acting is another potential pitfall of the co-development group approach. Some participants may not share the same view of the problem situation. While this diversity of points of view may be regarded as enriching the process, it also may pose a challenge. It is common at step 4 for the group members to make differing proposals about which request should be addressed in order to help the client the most. For instance, following the initial steps in the process, both Sacha and Valérie had more than one potential request to make. In Sacha’s case, it would have been possible to work on his expectations for student participation in class, but also on concrete ways of overcoming this dilemma when encountered first hand. In Valérie’s situation, concerning the implementation of a new educational project, steps 2 and 3 led to the formulation of two other requests, in addition to the initial one. Someone external to the process could have given preference to several other, equally relevant angles of analysis, such as that of authority. The request chosen should, first and foremost, be the one that makes sense for the client. In the two situations presented, the facilitator helped the group to make a choice by underscoring the fact that the request must address the client’s concerns as they relate to his or her current context. Moreover, the request must be defined precisely enough that it can be examined by the group. A further limit of the model concerns its modest scope with respect to the development of professional identity. Although the professors noted benefits in terms of gaining a clearer idea of their role, work on a sense of professional identity would have required more meetings over a much longer period of time. Last, the use of co-development groups in a university setting raises additional questions. It is conceivable that this model may be more suitable for smaller programs with few senior professors, or programs where senior faculty members’ time is taken up with other responsibilities (administration, research, etc.). The co-development group was run in a safe setting, on a completely voluntary basis, but questions to do with self-disclosure and the fear of judgment nevertheless arose for both Sacha and Valérie. The matter of creating conditions for effective use of this teaching strategy needs further thought. With colleagues at the same university or in other disciplines, concerns about self-disclosure and the fear of judgment (and even competition)


43

might have put a brake on learning. Furthermore, the opportunity to talk freely to peers in the same discipline, but at different universities, bringing different levels of experience, clearly was a factor that favored the teachers’ learning (Walkington, 2007).


Conclusion University teachers appear to have a real need to reflect on their teaching in the context of mutual support, yet unfortunately there are very few opportunities for them to do so. Given this fact, the professional co-development group has proven to be functional and appropriate. Aside from the benefits discussed here and the positive impact reported by other instructors who have tried the approach (Université du Québec à Chicoutimi, 2011), its collaborative structure corresponds to the type of activity most valued by today’s teachers (Langevin et al., 2008). The co-development group also allows them to learn through reflective methods, which are recognized as appropriate by experts in training teachers (Feiman-Nemser, 2001; Kraft & Palmer, 2000). In addition, the method is fairly simple to understand and use, due to its explicit structure, which is easy to tailor to different situations and settings. Furthermore, in light of the fact that teachers report having little interest in training workshops not adapted for their discipline (Jenkins, 1996; Quinlan, 2002), the initiative demonstrates the several advantages of bringing together colleagues in the same field to discuss their experiences. Other initiatives of the same type need to be carried out and evaluated so that the approach can be formalized, resulting in the creation of additional professional development opportunities for university teachers. Given their expertise in intervention, social work professors can and should play a leadership role in creating these opportunities. Yet it goes without saying that the universities themselves also have a role to play in the professional development and effectiveness of their teachers. They should support the organization of such activities, given that these methods have the advantage of being adaptable to participants’ needs.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to thank Jean-Marc Pilon (UQAR), Jocelyn Lindsay (Université Laval), and Isabelle Côté (UQAR) for their participation in the project.

FUNDING This research was supported by a grant from the Fonds Simone-Paré.

44

V. Roy et al.


REFERENCES Belcher, J., Pecukonis, E., & Knight, C. (2011). Where have all the teachers gone? The selling out of social work education. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 31, 195–209. Bourque, J., Akkari, A., Broyon, M.-A., Heer, S., Gremion, F., & Gremaud, J. (2007). L’insertion professionnelle des enseignants: recension d’écrits [Professional integration of teachers: A review of the literature]. In A. Akkari, L. Solar-Pelletier & S. Heer (Eds.), L’insertion professionnelle des enseignants [Professional integration of teachers] (pp. 11–33). Bienne, Suisse: Editions HEP-BEJUNE. Dyke, N., & Deschenaux, F. (2008). Enquête sur le corps professoral: faits saillants et questions [Survey of university teaching staff: Highlights and questions]. Montréal, Canada: Fédération québécoise des professeures et professeurs d’université. East, J., & Chambers, R. (2007). Courage to teach for social work educators. Social Work Education, 26, 810–826. Echterling, L. G., Cowan, E., Evans, W. F., Staton, A. R. V. G., McKee, J. E., Presbury, J., & Stewart, A. L. (2002). Thriving: A manual for students in the helping professions. New York, NY: Lahaska Press. Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). Helping novices learn to teach. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 17–30. Ferman, T. (2002). Academic professional development practice: What lecturers find valuable. International Journal for Academic Development, 7, 146–158. Fook, J., & Askeland, G. A. (2007). Challenges of critical reflection: ’Nothing ventured, nothing gained’. Social Work Education, 26, 520–533. Frey, B. A., & Overfield, K. (2002). Action research and professional development faculty. Canadian Journal for the Study of Adult Education, 16(1), 20–33. Jenkins, A. (1996). Discipline-based educational development. International Journal of Academic Development, 1, 50–62. Kraft, R., & Palmer, P. (2000). Teaching excellence and the inner life of faculty. Change, 32(3), 48–53. Langevin, L., Grandtner, A.-M., & Ménard, L. (2008). La formation à l’enseignement des professeurs d’université: Un aperçu [Teacher training of university professors: An overview]. Revue des sciences de l’éducation [Review of Education], 34, 643–664. Marginson, S., & van der Wende, M. (2007). To rank or to be ranked: The impact of global rankings in higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11, 306–329. McGranahan, E. (2008). Shaking the “Magic 8 Ball”: Reflections of a first-time teacher. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 28, 19–34. Moffatt, K. (1996). Teaching social work as a reflective process. In N. Gould & I. Taylor (Eds.), Reflective learning for social work (pp. 47–62). Farnham, England: Ashgate Publishing. Norton, C. L., Russell, A., Wisner, B., & Uriarte, J. (2011). Reflective teaching in social work education: Findings from a participatory action research study. Social Work Education, 30, 392–407. Payette, A. (2007). Le codéveloppement professionnel [Professional codevelopment]. In L. Mandeville (Ed.), Apprendre autrement. Pourquoi et



45

comment [Another way to learn: Why and how] (pp. 81–102). Québec, Canada: Presses de l’Université du Québe. Payette, A., & Champagne, C. (2010). Le groupe de codéveloppement professionnel [Professional co-development group]. Québec, Canada: Presses de l’Université du Québec. Quinlan, K. M. (2002). Scholarly dimensions of academics’ beliefs about engineering education. Teachers and teaching: Theory and practice, 8, 42–64. Ringel, S. (2004). The reflective self: a path to creativity and intuitive knowledge in social work practice education. Journal of Social Work Education, 23, 15–28. Schön, D. A. (1996). Le tournant réflexif. Pratiques éducatives et études de cas [The reflective shift: Educational practice and case studies]. Montréal, Canada: Les Éditions Logique. Strom-Gottfried, K., & Dunlap, K. (2004). Talking about teaching: Curricula for improving instructors classroom performance. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 24, 65–78. Sussman, T., Stoddart, K., & Gorman, E. (2004). Reconciling the congruent and contrasting roles of social work teacher student and practitioner: An experiential account of three doctoral students. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 24, 161–179. Taylor, C. (2006). Narrating Significant experience: Reflective accounts and the production of (self) knowledge. British Journal of Social Work, 36, 189–206. Taylor, I., & Rafferty, J. (2003). Integrating research and teaching in social work: Building a strong partnership. Social Work Education, 22, 589–602. Trevithick, P. (2008). Revisiting the knowledge base of social work: A framework for practice. British Journal of Social Work, 38, 1212–1237. Université du Québec à Chicoutimi. (2011). Productions issues des groupes de codéveloppement professionnel. Retrieved from http://www.uqac.ca/ formation-ea/?ref=productions-de-la-communaute.php Walkington, J. (2007). Improving partnerships between schools and universities: Professional learning with benefits beyond preservice teacher education. Teacher Development, 11, 277–294.