This article was downloaded by: [University of Stellenbosch]On: 29 August 2013, At: 14:03Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Reflective Practice: International andMultidisciplinary PerspectivesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/crep20

Teaching critically reflective analysis inthe context of a social justice courseCarolyn Campbell a & Gail Baikie aa School of Social Work, Dalhousie University , Halifax , NovaScotia , CanadaPublished online: 17 Jun 2013.

To cite this article: Carolyn Campbell & Gail Baikie (2013) Teaching critically reflective analysisin the context of a social justice course, Reflective Practice: International and MultidisciplinaryPerspectives, 14:4, 452-464, DOI: 10.1080/14623943.2013.806299

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2013.806299

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 tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand 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 Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial 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/terms-and-conditions

Teaching critically reflective analysis in the context of a socialjustice course

Carolyn Campbell* and Gail Baikie

School of Social Work, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

(Received 28 August 2012; final version received 15 May 2013)

The authors have designed and taught a course called Advancing Social Justicecentered around four central concepts: world view, social constructs, socialstructures and alternative practices. After briefly describing the course, theauthors discuss the foundational methodology of the course: critically reflectiveanalysis. They share four classroom exercises that have proven to be successfulin teaching the skills of critically reflective analysis and promoting concomitanttransformational learning. Contextual challenges related to implementing thismethodology in a university setting are explored. The authors conclude bysharing a specific Instructional Handout they use to teach critically reflectiveanalysis.

Keywords: critical reflection; transformative learning; experiential education;social justice; social work education

Introduction

A three-year, extensive review/revision of our School’s BSW curriculum resulted ina renewed commitment to the importance of critical reflection in social work educa-tion and practice (Campbell & MacDonald, 2011). This commitment was operation-alized in a variety of ways, one of which was the introduction of a course entitledAdvancing Social Justice. This is a half credit course offered from September toDecember through a series of three and six hour modules for students studying oncampus and via Blackboard Learning System for students studying by distancedelivery. The course is grounded in constructivist instructional design with anemphasis on creating the conditions for reflective learning (Bellefeuille, 2006). Thecourse is rooted in principles and practices associated with coordinated and collabo-rative teaching models (McDaniel & Colarulli, 1997) and was therefore team taughtfor the first two years. Recently there has been one instructor per section, but wehave maintained collaboration with respect to the ongoing development of thecourse. Students take this course during their first semester in the program as itestablishes the foundational perspective and practices that are integral to the pro-gram and to preparation for social justice social work practice. Consequently thecourse is a pre- or co-requisite for all other courses in the BSW program.

*Corresponding author. Email: Carolyn.campbell@dal.ca

Reflective Practice, 2013Vol. 14, No. 4, 452–464, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2013.806299

� 2013 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

4:03

29

Aug

ust 2

013

The course content (and notion of social justice) is structured around fourthemes: (1) the concept of world view, including the various values, assumptions andbeliefs that inform different world views; (2) social constructs such as race, class,gender, sexual orientation, religion, age, ability; (3) political, legal, religious,economic, and professional (especially social work) institutionalized socialdiscourses and structures; and (4) imagining, creating and engaging with marginal-ized values, beliefs, assumptions to develop alternative practices that promotesocially just relations. In addition, the course is understood to be one of the primarysites for enacting the BSW program goal of graduating students who have ‘haveinternalized the principles and processes of critical reflection and analysis’ (Campbell& MacDonald, 2011).

Through our experiences as co-designers and instructors of Advancing SocialJustice we have we have refined our pedagogical approach to imparting a criticallyreflective mindset and skill set: an approach we call ‘critically reflective analysis’(CRA). In this paper we explore the principles and processes of CRA and describeselected pedagogical exercises we have found to be successful in helping studentsinternalize CRA as a foundational component of social justice social work. We alsoexamine some of the contextual challenges we have experienced and conclude bysharing our most recent CRA instructional guide.

Critically reflective analysis

Our particular understanding of, and approach to, critical reflection evolves from ourtheoretical and practice grounding in feminist, experiential, transformative, transcul-tural and indigenous pedagogies (Baikie & Campbell, 2005; Campbell & Baikie,2012), our specific training in, and adaptation of, the Fook/Gardner model of criticalreflection (Baikie, Campbell, Thornhill, & Butler, 2012; Fook & Gardner, 2007)Fook & Gardner, 2007) and our participation in, and critique of, what is commonlyknown as diversity training (Campbell & Baikie, 2009; Kumas-Tan, 2005). Ongoinganalysis and theorizing of these experiences has resulted in a methodology we call‘critically reflective analysis’ (CRA).

CRA is grounded in an epistemology that understands knowledge to be sociallyconstructed and therefore open to deconstruction and reconstruction. Related to thisis the belief that knowledge is positional, i.e. what is known, how a situation isinterpreted, and the meaning made from an experience is influenced by one’s sociallocation. Therefore CRA privileges the asking of contextualized questions and thesearch for provisional and partial knowledge over the provision of definitiveanswers.

CRA emphasizes the need to explicitly surface the fundamental values, assump-tions and beliefs (VABs) that inform personal and/or professional perspectives andbehaviours. In previous work (Campbell & Baikie, 2009) we asserted that one ofthe main failings of standard diversity training is that it focuses on similarities anddifferences in peoples’ behaviours (e.g. eye contact, body language, time manage-ment) as opposed to surfacing similarities and differences in fundamental valuesand assumptions (e.g. the nature of knowledge, the cosmos and time) that give riseto differing behaviours or practices. Similarly, we suggest that multiple socialchange efforts have had limited success in reducing injustice because they focus onanalyzing and changing behaviours rather than fundamental shifts in values, beliefs,and assumptions.

Reflective Practice 453

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

4:03

29

Aug

ust 2

013

CRA makes linkages and interconnections between individualized values, beliefsand assumptions, and those that inform dominant and marginalized world views.This process of making the personal political and the political personal is central toour understanding of critical reflection and is consistent with many social justiceliberation movements.

CRA is informed by a hybrid learning theory we call ‘transformative experien-tial education’. While we rely on the experiential learning cycle initially developedby Kolb (1984), we begin the cycle with experiences that are specifically chosen tofoster disruption and facilitate the transformation of students’ existing ‘habits ofmind’ (Mezirow, 1997). These experiences may arise in the spontaneous ‘here andnow’ of classroom interactions (student to student, students and instructors orbetween instructors) or they may be intentionally structured and facilitated by theinstructors.

While the course processes vary from year to year, we have adapted anddeveloped a myriad of structured exercises that have consistently proven useful inadvancing student learning both in relation to social justice content, criticalreflection and transformation of existing mindsets. While many of these exerciseshave been adapted for distance delivery, we describe a few here in the context offace-to-face instruction.

A social justice collage: constructing, deconstructing, reconstructing andco-constructing knowledge

The course begins with a ‘disruptive’ experience. Students enter the classroom onthe first day expecting the standard arrangement of tables and chairs with theinstructor at the head of the classroom preparing to lecture. In contrast, there are afew tables in the middle of the room with others placed around the perimeter of theclassroom. On the tables is an assortment of arts and crafts supplies. Building on anexercise shared with us by Anna Scheyett (personal communication, ‘Directions forsocial construction class exercise’ 2004), each student receives an 8.5 x 11 piece ofconstruction paper and is invited to use the art materials to individually create animage of social justice. We offer considerable encouragement and support at thisstage to help students overcome their initial anxieties and hesitations about what isperceived to be a ‘non-academic’ and ‘non-professional’ activity.

After 10 minutes students are asked to pass their picture to the person on theirleft and to continue to build upon the image of social justice they have justreceived. This process is repeated twice over the next 10–15 minutes. After eachstudent has contributed to four different images they are asked to take the currentimage and form small groups of four students. They are then instructed to tear eachof their images into four pieces, resulting in 16 small pieces per group. Each groupis given a large piece of Bristol board with instructions to use all the pieces toco-construct one collective image of social justice.

After all groups have finished their co-construction we facilitate a lengthycritically reflective analysis of the exercise, beginning with their immediatefeelings and thoughts about the process. Then each group is asked to describeboth the relevant concepts portrayed in the image and the group co-constructionprocess.

Students express distress at having to let go of their image, of having it changedby others, of possibly being perceived as disrespectful when changing another’s

454 C. Campbell and G. Baikie

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

4:03

29

Aug

ust 2

013

image and at having to ‘destroy’ the images. However, they also express anappreciation for the collaborative dialogue that results in a more comprehensive andintricate collective representation. The embodied act of making, dismantling, sharingand recreating the images is a useful metaphor for orienting students to theepistemology underlying the course. Through this exercise students experience theprocesses of construction, deconstruction, reconstruction and co-construction ofknowledge and meaning making as a social interaction. The exercise also serves asa useful reference point for the rest of the term, encouraging students to engagewith diverse ways of teaching, learning and thinking and to question the ‘taken-for-granted’.

Making the implicit explicit: surfacing values, assumptions and beliefs

The metaphor of a tree has proven useful in helping students to ‘dig deep’ andsurface the implicit values, assumptions and beliefs that support various worldviews and give rise to differential social constructs, structures and relationships.The soil represents values, the roots assumptions, the trunk beliefs, the branchesopinions and the leaves practices. When using this metaphor we give particularattention to assumptions (e.g. ontological, epistemological, cosmological, spiritualand temporal) as the importance of these collective (cultural) assumptions is gener-ally not evident to students.

A group project entitled Enacting Critical Hope (James et al., 2010) furtherengages students in this process of making the implicit explicit. Each group ofstudents chooses a specific social construct (e.g. race, class, gender). In Part 1 ofthe project (recognizing injustice), they begin with the leaves of the tree (practices)and work their way to the roots and soil. To begin, each group member notices andrecords two practices that illustrate social relations of injustice based on theirchosen construct The students share their ‘noticings’ with each other and engage ina collective critical deconstruction of the multiple ‘noticings”. This deconstructionincludes unearthing the shared dominant assumptions that might uphold the noticedillustrations of (unjust) social relations. This deconstruction also entails aconsideration of how each group member individually contributes to themaintenance of injustice through habitual patterns of thoughts, feelings and actions.They then collectively design and prepare a poster display that includes the multiplenoticings and the ‘results’ of their deconstruction process. This collection of postersis presented at the midpoint of the course.

For Part 2 of the project (imagining a just world), students begin with the soiland roots of the tree and work their way up to the leaves. Each group engages in acollective, socially just based critical reconstruction of their construct. In order toachieve this end they first identify alternative assumptions that would give rise tomore just beliefs, practices and relationships. Each group then prepares a creativerepresentation of a practice that might arise from these alternative assumptions.Students have prepared creative and dynamic theatre vignettes, slide shows,collages, spoken word presentations, videos, poems and interactive games. Some ofthe more noteworthy projects included a children’s storybook in which the childrenof a just world were being told of foreign unjust society; a genderless sex educationmanual; and an interactive ‘closet’ within which visitors were asked to chooseclothing pieces comprised of just assumptions, values and beliefs and constructnon-gendered outfits.

Reflective Practice 455

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

4:03

29

Aug

ust 2

013

BabaKiueira: exploring positionality

BabaKiueria (Pringle & Featherstone, 1986) is a satirical film that illustrates thedynamics of colonialism and racism through ‘role reversal’. Each student is‘matched’ with a character in the film and is told that, after viewing the film, theywill be expected to act ‘as if’ they are that character. After the film is shown we, asinstructors, ‘become’ the director and producer of the film and conduct a mockfocus group to determine the thoughts and feelings of each character. This processis often disconcerting to students as they are expected to act in ways that are incon-gruous with their espoused values and beliefs (and what is expected from socialwork students). For example, a young white student may be required to ‘become’the black Minister of White Affairs and adopt a paternalistic and racist approach towhite people. Or a confident white student may be required to ‘become’ the whitefather who, in the film, appears subservient and compliant. Or a quiet First Nationsstudent may be required to act as if she were an oppressive black police officer.

The reflection and analysis of this experience is lengthy and often intense.Students from dominant racialized positions often express embarrassment, confusionand guilt while students from marginalized racialized positions often expresscomplacency, distress and anger. The various reactions and interpretations of thefilm and the mock focus group illustrate the concept of positionality or socialidentity. Students begin to understand that one’s experience of the world variesconsiderably depending upon one’s standpoint. The ‘debrief’ of this exerciserequires extensive time and skillful facilitation; the feelings aroused by the processarise from deep seated racialized assumptions and experiences and the classroominteractions sometimes become strained and uncomfortable. It is at this point thatwe introduce concepts such as the complexity of social justice practice, the differ-ence between dialogue and debate, the notion of being comfortable with discomfort,and how to learn from one’s emotions.

Why are we changing maps? What is truth?

In this exercise we sequentially present four maps of the world, allowing time fordiscussion between each presentation. The first is the Mercator map, the second thePeter’s Projection map, the third an ‘up-side- down’ Mercator map, and the fourthan ‘up- side- down’ Peter’s Projection map. Initial discussion focuses on reactionsto and familiarity with each representation. Students are then invited to examineeach map in more detail and discuss which map is a true representation of theworld and how they have come to know it as true. This discussion is dynamic andinteractive as students wander from one map to the other, comparing reactions andassessing each representation. It quickly becomes apparent that the vast majority ofstudents are comfortable with the Mercator map as a result of previous educationalexperiences. When we first designed this exercise we followed the above discussionwith a mini lecture on the colonial and trade origins of the Mercator map and thegeographical accuracy of each representation. However, two years ago a studentintroduced us to a video clip from the West Wing series entitled Why are we Chang-ing Maps (Sorkin & Buckland, 2000) and this clip has replaced our mini lecture.

Students reactions to this exercise are similar to those portrayed by the WestWing characters: they are ‘freaked out’; they dismiss the information; they are angrythat they have been ‘lied to’; they cannot understand how such misinformationcontinues to be presented as truth. The reflection on this exercise introduces

456 C. Campbell and G. Baikie

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

4:03

29

Aug

ust 2

013

concepts of ontological assumptions (objectivity, truth and interpretation), ideology,hegemony and the power of language and naming. It also serves to concretize thenotion of ‘world view’. In subsequent assignments students refer to this as anextremely disruptive experience that is unsettling and liberating; unsettling in thatthey are now questioning much of what they took for granted as truth and liberatingin that the questioning opens up possibilities not previously known to them.

Contextual challenges

Teaching CRA in the context of a Euro-Western university and society certainlypresents some challenges. In previous work we have explored the interrelated andprevalent discourses that resist transformation when engaging students in criticallyreflective processes (Baikie, Campbell, Thornhill, & Butler, 2012). These discoursesare rooted in fundamental assumptions about education, justice and helping, areinternalized by students and instructors, and are institutionalized in the structuresand procedures of academia.

Foremost is the predominant positivist and modernist epistemology that under-pins academic and professional practice. Students come to their studies wanting tobe taught the ‘true facts’ so that they can gain sufficient expertise in order topractise the ‘right way’. Furthermore, academia devalues affective, spiritual ortranscendental ways of knowing as evidenced by students’ avoidance of speakingor writing in the first person and situating ‘self’ in any analysis. They have beentaught that such ‘subjectivity’ indicates a lack of academic rigour. This lack offocus on self contributes to students adopting an ‘othering lens’. In the context ofsocial justice content this means that they are eager and willing to learn about, andfrom, others who are oppressed or privileged, but are less open to exploring theimplications of their own positionalities.

The Western, neo-liberal ethic of individualism is another discourse thatmitigates CRA. The biomedical and psychological understandings of human behav-iour that have been a significant component of students’ previous academic workand day-to-day popular culture have been rooted in individualism and this focus isre-enforced by most professional practice guidelines. Consequently, studentsstruggle with recognizing and analyzing the impact and meaning of social groupmembership and default to individual interpretations. From this perspectivepersonal struggles or problems are understood to be the result of personal deficits(if clients) or inadequate skill development (if practitioners). The sociological,anthropological, political and educational theories that inform social justice workare perceived as useful only at a macro level, not at a more micro level of individ-ual interactions.

Academia also re-enforces a competitive individualism through specific practicesof reward and punishment. Evaluation practices reward individual student achieve-ment and rank students in comparison to their peers. Faculty workload arrangementsdevalue team teaching and other forms of meaningful instructor collaboration. Thisresults in teaching and learning processes where active engagement takes secondplace to the assessment of knowledge acquisition. Summative evaluation proceduresare privileged over formative evaluation procedures. Finally, burgeoning class sizes,increased tuition costs and reduced faculty complements constrain the possibilitiesand effectiveness of transformative experiential teaching and learning and favourobjectivist over constructivist pedagogical design.

Reflective Practice 457

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

4:03

29

Aug

ust 2

013

The difficultly students have in adjusting to the CRA teaching and learningprocess and to learning the requisite skills continues to surprise us. Every year weare faced with a group of intelligent, motivated and eager young people who wantto learn how to be good social workers, to help people and to improve the world.Most of them are enthusiastic and energetic, appreciate the course content, and areeager to develop their critical skills. But each year we realize that even moreexplicit instruction and guidance is needed to assist students in recognizing,resisting and transforming the ingrained assumptions that are central to theabove-mentioned problematic discourses. Our challenge is to develop instructionalmethodologies and feedback processes that provide this explicit instruction withoutdenying the complexity or epistemological foundation of CRA.

In the first year of the course, somewhat naively perhaps, we assumed thatstudents would learn CRA skills through participation in the critical reflectiondialogue group sessions and class activities. Consequently, while we did prepare arubric that identified and explained four levels of reflection we did not develop aspecific instructional guide. For year two we developed guide called a CriticallyReflective Skills Chart that integrated the course content with CRA processes toidentify five specific skills. Although we consistently focused on skill developmentthroughout the course instruction students still struggled to grasp the basics ofCRA. In preparation for the third year we returned to the literature on criticalreflection (Brookfield, 2005; Fisher, 2003; Fook, 2006; Greenman & Dieckmann,2004; Kondrat, 1999; Larrivee, 2008; Preskill & Brookfield, 2009; Watts &Lawson, 2008) and expanded the Critically Reflective Skills Chart to an instruc-tional guide called Levels of Engagement with Practices for Advancing SocialJustice (LEPASJ Chart). This chart renamed the previously identified five skills as‘practices’ and articulated four levels of engagement with each practice.

The above tools were designed to serve a dual purpose of augmenting otherinstructional processes and as an assessment guide for instructors. As a consequenceof this dual purpose, students tended to approach these tools not as learning aidsbut rather as checklists of what they had to do in order to pass the course.Therefore, as we moved into the fourth year of the course, we chose to furthersimplify the instructional guide and separate it from assessment processes (see theAppendix for a copy of this instructional guide).

Conclusion

Our efforts to embed and embody critically reflective analysis within universitybased professional education have been supported by a ‘critical mass of criticalcolleagues’, supportive leadership and solid theoretical foundations. Every year hasbeen different depending upon the characteristics of the student body, the numberof students and instructors, and other structural factors. As participants in thisdynamic and rewarding learning process we have collectively disrupted standardteaching and learning processes, experienced discomfort and dissent, engaged inmultiple transformational pedagogical experiences, and undertaken extensivereflective analysis of our pedagogical practice. The experience continues tostrengthen our commitment to the importance of critically reflective analysis withinprofessional social work education and practice. We hope that what we have sharedhere will be of use to others who share this commitment.

458 C. Campbell and G. Baikie

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

4:03

29

Aug

ust 2

013

Notes on contributorsCarolyn Campbell and Gail Baikie are professors at the School of Social Work, DalhousieUniversity, Nova Scotia, Canada.

ReferencesBaikie, G., & Campbell, C. (2005). Critical reflection in decolonizing and creating Aborigi-

nal centered social work theory and practice. In Proceedings from the CASSW Confer-ence, London.

Baikie, G., Campbell, C., Thornhill, J., & Butler, J. (2012). An on line critical reflection dia-logue group. In J. Fook & F. Gardner (Eds.), Critical reflection in context: Specificapplications in health and social care. Oxford: Routledge.

Bellefeuille, G.L. (Winter 2006). Rethinking reflective practice education in social workeducation: A blended constructivist and objectivist instructional design strategy for aweb-based child welfare practice course. Journal of Social Work Education, 42, 85–103.

Brookfield, S. (2005). Overcoming impostership, cultural suicide, and lost innocence: Impli-cations for teaching critical thinking in the community college. New Directions forCommunity Colleges, 130, 53–57.

Campbell, C., & Baikie, G. (2009). A process for belonging. In Proceedings from the 6thInternational Conference on Teacher Education and Social Justice, Chicago, IL.

Campbell, C., & Baikie, G. (2012). Beginning at the beginning: An introduction to criticalsocial work. Critical Social Work, 13. Retrieved from http://www.uwindsor.ca/criticalso-cialwork/2012-volume-13-no-1

Campbell, C., & MacDonald, J. (2011). Education for social justice: Designing a coherentand congruent BSW program. In Proceedings from CASWE Annual Conference, Freder-icton.

Fisher, K. (2003). Demystifying critical reflection: Defining criteria for assessment. HigherEducation Research and Development, 22, 313–325.

Fook, J. (2006). Beyond reflective practice: Reworking the ‘critical’ in critical reflection:Keynote presentation at the conference Professional lifelong learning: beyond reflectivepractice, July 3, 2006. Standing Conference on University Teaching and Research in theEducation of Adults, University of Leeds.

Fook, J., & Gardner, F. (2007). Practising critical reflection: A resource handbook. Berk-shire: Open University Press.

Greenman, N.P., & Dieckmann, J.A. (2004). Considering criticality and culture as pivotal intransformative teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 55, 240–255.

James, C., Este, D., Bernard, W., Benjamin, A., Lloyd, B., & Turner, T. (2010). Race andwell- being. Black Point, Nova Scotia: Fernwood.

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and develop-ment. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Kondrat, M. (1999). Who is the ‘self’ in self-aware: Professional self-awareness from acritical theory perspective. Social Service Review, 73, 451–477.

Kumaş-Tan, Z.O. (2005). Beyond cultural competence: Taking difference into account inoccupational therapy. Unpublished master’s thesis: Dalhouise University, Halifax, NS.

Larrivee, B. (2008). Development of a tool to assess teachers’ level of reflective practice.Reflective practice, 9, 341–360.

McDaniel, E.A., & Colarulli, G.C. (1997). Collaborative teaching in the face of productivityconcerns: The dispersed team model. Innovative Higher Education, 22, 19–36.

Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adultand Continuing Education, 74, 5–12.

Preskill, S., & Brookfield, S. (2009). Learning as a way of Leading: Lessons from the strug-gle for social justice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pringle, J. (Producer), & Featherstone, D. (Director). (1986). BabaKiueria. Australia.Sorkin, A. (Writer), & Buckland, M. (Director). (2000). Why are we changing maps [Televi-

sion series episode]. In A. Sorkin (Producer), The west wing. Los Angeles; Warner Bros.Television.

Reflective Practice 459

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

4:03

29

Aug

ust 2

013

Watts, M., & Lawson, M. (2008). Using a meta- analysis activity to make critical reflectionexplicit in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 609–616.

Appendix

Critically reflective analysis. An instructional handoutAdvancing social justice� (Campbell & Baikie, 2012)

Introduction

Myles Horton famously observed that we don’t automatically learn from experience;we learn only from those experiences we learn from. By this he meant thatexperiences don’t teach us anything until we probe deeply into their meaning. To ana-lyze experience is to break it down and examine it in depth so that it is placed insome larger personal and social context. Analyzing experience improves our under-standing, helps us make connections, and sometimes leads to alternative means foraddressing problems. But it just as likely leads to us asking still more provocativequestions: To what extent are our experiences shaped by forces under our control asopposed to forces that transcend our immediate circumstances? How does our under-standing of experiences change as we adopt different lenses for examining them?Which experiences stimulate us to repeat them, and which seem to curtail that desire?(Preskill & Brookfield, 2009, p. 105)

Teaching and learning within Advancing Social Justice is grounded in a process calledCritically Reflective Analysis (CRA). CRA is a method of thinking about and learning fromexperience. CRA promotes active and intentional engagement with experience and drawsupon cognitive, affective, and spiritual ways of knowing. By surfacing contradictionsbetween our stated values, assumptions and beliefs (vabs) and our actual practice, the CRAprocess positions us to intentionally choose how we wish to act in both our personal andprofessional lives.

Figure 1. The CRA Process

460 C. Campbell and G. Baikie

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

4:03

29

Aug

ust 2

013

Critically reflective analysis is a non-linear, dynamic process with no specific end point.However, for instructional purposes we have divided the process into five sub-processes. Eachsub-process requires a practitioner to differentially engage with experience and with self(Kondrat, 1999). As you become more adept at the CRA process you will learn how thesesub-processes meld into a never ending spiral. You will also develop the ability to move fromdescribing an experience (sub-process 1) to critically reflective analysis (sub-process 4)without the need to make sub-processes 2 and 3 intentional and overt. Diagram 1 offers avisual representation of the evolving CRA process.

Sub-process 1: selecting an experience (E)

Experience is the starting point of CRA. The practitioner engages in this sub-process bybeing ‘awake to present realities, noticing one’s surroundings, and being able to name one’sperceptions, feelings, and nuances of behaviour’ (Kondrat, 1999, p. 452). The focus is ondescribing direct experience. The description is ‘what makes both experience and memorypossible; without it, the practitioner would not be able to make accurate observations orcorrect assessments’ (Kondrat, 1999, p. 453).

When selecting an experience to use in practising CRA choose one:

• that was/is meaningful to you;• that is unique and specific as opposed to a broad description of aspect of your life;• that is not so recent that your strong emotions will make it difficult to reflect;• in which you were directly involved, either as a participant or active observer;• that does not have legal or serious professional issues.

When preparing a written description of an experience clearly and succinctly:

• tell the reader what happened by describing the behaviours of all involved (includingyourself);

• describe behaviours and actions, not your interpretations of what happened;• protect the identities and confidentiality of all involved.

Remember that, if the experience describes potential harm to anyone the course instruc-tors may be required to take action.

Sub-process 2: Personal Reflection (PR)

The practitioner engages in sub-process 2 by turning their attention from direct experience tothe self who has the experience. Kondrat (1999) called this reflective self-awareness and sta-ted ‘the self’s behaviours, affect, cognitive content, and accomplishments become the objectsof reflection’ (p. 453). One ‘stands back’ in order to observe and critique the content ofexperiences.

When engaging in personal reflection the practitioner asks questions such as:

• how did I interpret or understand what took place;• who do I think gained or lost in this experience;• how, if at all, was power an issue;• why might this experience have unfolded as it did;• how would I describe the truth of what happened;• what values, assumptions, and beliefs did I bring to this experience;• what values, assumptions, and beliefs might the others involved have brought to this

experience;• what was my contribution to the experience;

Reflective Practice 461

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

4:03

29

Aug

ust 2

013

• what is my positionality (social identity) in the context of this experience;• what is the positionality of others involved in the experience;• how did I feel about the experience;• what did I learn from the experience and from my feelings.

Sub-process 3: Political Analysis (PA)

The practitioner engages in this sub-process by examining various social constructs ofoppression, domination and privilege and considering how multiple social and professionalinstitutions support or resist social justice. To politicize something means to understand that‘nothing is neutral, everything involves struggle over power, resources and affirming identi-ties’ (Baines, 2007, p. 51). Political analysis demands that the practitioner moves beyondthinking of injustice as the result of ‘unfortunate social problems or individual shortcom-ings’ (Baines, 2007, p. 51). During this sub-process one describes and analyzes the cul-tural, political and ideological structures and dynamics that entrench and maintain socialinjustice.

When engaging in political analysis the practitioner asks questions such as:

• what social constructs of oppression, domination, or privilege might have been rele-vant in the experience?

• why do these constructs exist and how are they maintained?• what fundamental values, assumptions, and beliefs might be supporting these social

constructs?• how do these fundamental values, assumptions, and beliefs compare to the assump-

tions supporting dominant or marginalized world views?• what are the historical and current contexts and implications of these social

constructs?• how do various social structures maintain or resist constructs of oppression domina-

tion and privilege?• what fundamental values, assumptions, and beliefs might be supporting these social

structures?• how do these fundamental values, assumptions, and beliefs compare to the assump-

tions supporting dominant or marginalized world views?• how is power exercised within these societal structures?• what emotions might result from differential experiences of oppression, domination,

and privilege?• how has social work contributed to or resisted the practices of oppression, domination

and privilege embedded in social constructs and structures?• what fundamental assumptions might be supporting social work theory and practice?• how do these fundamental assumptions compare to the assumptions supporting domi-

nant or marginalized world views?

Sub-process 4: Critically Reflective Analysis (CRA)

When engaging in this sub-process the practitioner rejects the idea that experience isobjective and moves to an understanding of experience as ‘co-constructed by individualconsciousness in interaction with the social and physical environment and mediated thoughlanguage and culture’ (Kondrat, 1999, p. 459). Individuals are understood to be ‘inextricablyimmersed in society’s structures both as agent and as product’ (Kondrat, 1999, p. 464). Thismeans that one cannot discuss ‘self’ (the personal) without considering society (political); norcan one discuss society (political) without considering the self (personal). ‘The identity of selfis so tied up with the nature of society in which it resides that the former is unthinkablewithout the latter’ (Fay, cited in Kondrat, 1999, p. 460). This is often referred to as ‘linkingthe personal and the political’ (that is linking sub-processes 2 and 3 into sub-process 4.

462 C. Campbell and G. Baikie

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

4:03

29

Aug

ust 2

013

When engaging in Critically Reflective Analysis the practitioner asks questions such as:

• how am I positioned (both historically and currently) in relation to various socialconstructs of oppression, domination and privilege?

• is there anything about my positionality that would have contributed to my under-standing of the experience?

• how might I have contributed to the expression of various social constructs of oppres-sion, domination and privilege?

• what is my relationship to various social structures and how might this relationshiphave influenced my understanding and behaviour related to the experience?

• how was personal and political power exercised in the context of the experience?• how do my fundamental values, assumptions and beliefs compare with the values,

assumptions and beliefs of dominant and/or marginalized world views?• how might my values, assumptions and beliefs have influenced my understanding of

the experience?• what values, assumptions and beliefs of other world views might offer me alternative

understandings of the experience?• how might the emotional responses of those involved in the experience be influenced

by our respective positionality and relationship to various social structures?

Sub-process 5: analysis of practice

Fook (2006) described CRA as ‘the ability to understand the social dimensions and politicalfunctions of experience and meaning making, and the ability to apply this understanding inworking in social contexts’ (p. 10). Sub-process 5 enhances the practitioner’s skill inintegrating the preceding analyses into their personal/political/professional lives. Whenengaging in sub-process 5 the practitioner is able to make intentional choices that may ormay not require changes in their values, assumptions and beliefs and behaviour.

When engaging in Practice Analysis the practitioner asks questions such as:

• looking back on the original experience is there anything I would do differently as aresult of my CRA?

• what can I learn from this CRA that might be of use to me in future experiences?• do I want to change any aspect of my values, assumptions and beliefs or my actions

as a result of this CRA?• how can I be an active agent in promoting change?• how was the contextual nature of social work practice expressed in the experience?• how can I practice in a way that is open to multiple values, assumptions, and beliefs?• what skills to I need to learn in order to act differently in similar situations?• how can I use my emerging and evolving skills to make choices that fit a variety of

practices context?

Challenges and complexities

The CRA process may differ from some of your previous teaching and learning experiencesand these differences may pose some challenges for you. During the years we have beenteaching CRA students have told us that they:

• have been taught to avoid the first person and to write in the passive voice; thereforethey are unaccustomed to, and uncomfortable with, using ‘I’ statements;

• forget to maintain a critical stance and standards of academic rigour when writing inthe first person;

Reflective Practice 463

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

4:03

29

Aug

ust 2

013

• have experienced teaching and learning primarily as a cognitive process and thereforestruggle to use emotions as a source of knowledge and learning;

• understand learning as a process of coming to know the right answers as opposed tocreating knowledge and understanding various interpretations;

• are used to thinking sequentially and linearly;• find it difficult to move from individualist to socio-political interpretations of social

issues;• are comfortable with biomedical and psychological theories that inform practice but

struggle to see the relevance of sociological, anthropological, political and educationtheories at a micro level of practice;

• find it easier to look at ‘the other’ as opposed to ‘the self’ when considering issues ofoppression, domination and privilege;

• are familiar with the rules and traditions of academic debate, not of inter-groupdialogue;

• used to using readings and course material to support an argument or to ‘prove’ athesis.

In contrast, CRA is a complex process that invites you to situate yourself in the contextof rigorous theoretical analysis, embrace cognitive, affective and spiritual learning, searchfor questions, not answers, become comfortable with discomfort, link the personal and thepolitical and engage in dialogue, not debate. It is an exciting journey and we look forwardto sharing it with you.

ReferencesBaines, D. (Ed.). (2007). Doing anti-oppressive practice: Building transformation politicized

social work. Black Point, Nova Scotia: Fernwood Publishing.Fook, J. (2006). Beyond reflective practice: Reworking the ‘critical’ in critical reflection:

Keynote presentation for the conference Professional lifelong learning: beyond reflectivepractice. July 3, 2006. Standing Conference on University Teaching and Research in theEducation of Adults. University of Leeds.

Kondrat, M. (1999). Who is the ‘self’ in self-aware: Professional self-awareness from acritical theory perspective. Social Service Review, 73(4), 451–477.

Preskill, S., & Brookfield, S. (2009). Learning as a way of leading: Lessons from thestruggle for social justice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

464 C. Campbell and G. Baikie

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

4:03

29

Aug

ust 2

013