Sustaining skills of critical reflection on practice: a pilot project

ABSTRACT

In this paper, a teaching and research team discusses the importance of teaching, and supporting, critical reflection on practice (CRoP) skills to graduate level social work students within a Canadian university context. They describe the CRoP model, which is taught in a 12-week course and then integrated into practicum integration seminars and present the results of a pilot project. Using an online survey, they asked students to reflect upon what assisted and hindered their sustainment and integration of CRoP skills into their placement settings and what they thought might assist them in further sustaining their skills post-graduation. The use of a thematic analysis approach resulted in the development of the following themes which will be discussed fully: 1) The wholistic nature of CRoP as it is used for both personal and professional development; 2) The need for an academic grounding in CRoP followed by support for the natural integration of CRoP into ongoing social work practice; 3) The benefits of small group collaboration for learning and sustaining CRoP; and 4) The need for supervisory support of CRoP.

KEYWORDS:

• Critical reflection on practice
• MSW curriculum
• transformative learning
• practicum integration
• sustaining skills

Teaching and sustaining skills of critical reflection on practice (CRoP) with social work students represents one way in which we are responding to calls to ensure that social work education ethically responds to the need to respect Indigenous, Black, and People of Colour’s perspectives. This requires us to critically consider the context of local communities’ lived experience, moving away from dominant mainstream approaches that have minimized alternative ways of knowing (Absolon, 2016). Morgenshtern and Schmid (2022) stress the importance of locating this form of social work education in Fook’s (2002) postmodern critical social work paradigm. They argue that this paradigm, that underpins the CRoP process (Béres & Fook, 2020) and which we will be discussing in this paper, ‘legitimizes and includes difference, multiple perspectives and marginalized voices […] through stressing multiplicity, contradictions, fluidity, contextualizing and change’ (Morgenshtern & Schmid, 2022, p. 891). Building upon Fook’s (2002) original description of critical reflection and Fook and Gardner’s (2007) two-stage process of engaging with critical reflection, Béres and Fook (2020) have expanded the original four theoretical lenses to include a fifth: that of spirituality. The five theoretical lenses will be described below. Béres has more recently also stressed the need to ensure that CRoP’s critical perspectives include decolonizing and critical race theories (Béres & Foneska, 2023; Foneska & Béres, 2023).

One challenge identified by Morgenshtern and Schmid (2022) is the need to develop communities of practice and solidarity between educators committed to incorporating critical reflection and power analysis into social work education. After all, it is difficult to teach (and learn) critical reflection in a stand-alone course if other faculty members are not assisting with the integration of these critical reflection skills across other courses and into practicum settings. We have found that CRoP skills need to be sustained beyond the one course in which they are taught in our Canadian university School of Social Work context, supporting their ongoing use within practicum integration seminars. We will explain the background to a pilot project that is informing an ongoing study and will discuss our initial findings and implications. Our discussion will focus upon the following themes: 1) The wholistic nature of CRoP as it is used for both personal and professional development; 2) The need for an academic grounding in CRoP followed by support for the natural integration of CRoP into ongoing social work practice; 3) The benefits of small group collaboration for learning and sustaining CRoP; and 4) The need for supervisory support of CRoP.

Teaching CRoP to Master of Social Work (MSW) students is an important first step in providing future social workers with the theory and skills necessary to maintain ethical practices and an approach to constantly develop their skills. Without this capacity to critically reflect, social work students ‘may become technicians who are unable to see beyond their immediate job to the wider ethical implications and social context of their work’ (Morley & Macfarlane, 2014, p. 341). However, as Whitaker and Reimer (2017) point out in relation to students in their Australian Bachelor of Social Welfare and Master of Social Work programs, students may grasp the use of critical reflection, but its emancipatory potential is not always fully realized. There are challenges in sustaining critical perspectives and reflection within organizational contexts post-graduation (Brown & MacDonald, 2020; Fook, 2004, 2022; Jindale-Snape & Holmes, 2009), and there has been limited research regarding whether critical reflection is maintained post-graduation (Booth & Nelson, 2013; Fisher et al., 2015; Griggs et al., 2018; Lay & McGuire, 2010). This literature suggests that CRoP needs to be more fully supported so that it might become a ‘habit’ or ‘informal […] everyday practice’ (Fook, 2022, p. 4) for social workers. In beginning to research how we can improve our teaching, and sustainment, of critical reflection skills, our hope is that social workers graduating from our program will be more prone to engage in both critical reflection on practice when incidents warrant a formal CRoP process and also to informally maintain a critically reflective stance toward all aspects of their work (Fook, 2022).

Background and context

During the process of developing a new MSW program, faculty members within our School of Social Work decided to focus our program on direct practice. To ensure a commitment to critical perspectives and honoring of practice-based evidence alongside evidence-based practice approaches within the curriculum, I (Laura) developed a critical reflection course to teach students the theory and practice of Fook’s (2002) model of critical reflection. At that time, I (Laura) consulted with both Jan Fook and Fiona Gardner (personal communication, February 2015) about how to restructure the presentation and practice of their model from the workshop format they describe (Fook & Gardner, 2007) to conform to the expected structure of a 12-week university course. Although CRoP had been taught in universities in Australia, we believe this was the first time it was taught in a course format within a Canadian university context in 2016. Jan Fook and I (Laura) conducted a small research project regarding that process of teaching CRoP in this context, resulting in the expansion of Fook and Gardner’s (2007) four theoretical lenses to the five (Béres & Fook, 2020) we have continued to use since then.

Students coming into the 12-week CRoP course have often commented on previous experiences in higher education, where they are asked to critically reflect without having been taught a model of this. Previous post-evaluation CRoP course surveys and student feedback have illustrated that despite learning the process of CRoP in this course, it was difficult for students to sustain these skills if they were not supported in continuing to practice them during their placements and associated practicum integration seminars. The students were previously encouraged to use an ASPIRE (Assess, Plan, Intervene, Review, Evaluation) model (Sutton, 2006) for reflecting on their practice in seminars. However, this model did not contain the critical perspectives and transformative learning elements associated with CRoP, and so their new skills in CRoP were not supported nor sustained in the practicum seminars. We, the first four authors, formed a teaching and research team, advocated for the inclusion of CRoP as a key learning objective within the practicum integration seminars and began facilitating these seminars. We became our own community of practice through which we met regularly to support one another in further developing our skills in teaching and sustaining the practice of critical reflection within the seminars. Our more informal approach to integrating CRoP in the seminars developed after consulting with J.B. Barna and Jan Fook (personal communication, 14 December 2021) about their attempts to also integrate CRoP informally into seminars at the University of Vermont, USA.

CRoP: a practice and theory

As stated above, Fook and Gardner’s (2007) work presents four theoretical perspectives within CRoP, while Béres and Fook (2020) have revised and expanded these to five theoretical perspectives: reflective practice; reflexivity; post-structural thinking and postmodern narrative practice; critical perspectives; and spirituality. These theoretical perspectives are used within a two-stage CRoP process whereby a person is first assisted in deconstructing an incident from their practice, and then reconstructing their understanding of that incident. As we have continued developing our teaching of this process, we have ensured ample time to first develop a condition of ‘critical acceptance’ (Béres & Fook, 2020; Fook & Gardner, 2007; Salomons, 2020) and have also included a more purposeful pause, or ‘ma’, in between stage one and two (Béres & Foneksa, 2023). ‘ma’ is a Japanese term to represent the space between two elements which allows a person to experience each more clearly (Greve, 2011). Completing all elements of the CRoP process can result in the development of theory from practice; a recommitment to social justice, personal values and meaning-making; self-care; or the awareness of the need to protect oneself from the power of hegemonic discourses. CRoP is also aligned with Mezirow and associates’ (2000) concept of transformational learning, which involves the meaningful shift of perspectives. CRoP is a best practice (Fook et al., 2016), and the literature contains inspiring transformative accounts of the results of engaging in CRoP (Cornejo, 2020; Hickson, 2011; Pockett & Giles, 2008), while also admitting the challenges associated with it (Elsie McKendrick, 2020; Fook & Askeland, 2007).

In the CRoP course, students are taught the theory and practice of CRoP and provided time to work in small groups of 5 through both stage one and two of critically reflecting upon an incident from practice. They have commented that this can seem like a very structured process, yet it provides them the opportunity to learn the process in depth. Now that we have also included CRoP in the integration seminars, we have integrated it more informally, and the students are supported in being critically reflective generally in their bi-weekly seminars—thus increasing the chances of sustaining their CRoP skills in the seminars. If an incident occurs that could benefit from a more formal/fulsome CRoP process, we have supported students through this outside of seminar.

Methods

Research design and questions

In this current paper, we report on a pilot research project in which we examined students’ reactions to our incorporation of the CRoP model into practicum integration seminars beginning in the winter term of the 2021–22 academic year. The pilot project received internal funding and research ethics approval, reports on qualitative survey data, and used a pretest-posttest-follow-up design (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). The following research questions guided the pilot project: 1) What was useful in supporting learning and sustaining CRoP as a habit in the practicum integration seminar following completion of the CRoP course? and 2) What were the barriers to the development of CRoP into an ongoing habit for MSW students? The analysis in turn has informed how the CRoP course and practicum integration seminars were presented in the following academic year, which is the focus of an ongoing research project. In the ongoing research project, we will replicate the pilot project and add a follow-up survey one year post-graduation.

As a teaching and research team, we (all six authors) engaged in an integrated knowledge translation (IKT) approach to examine how to sustain and transfer the CRoP skills from the initial course, across the practicum integration seminar and into practice. Generally, IKT involves active participation, collaboration, and exchange between knowledge users and researchers throughout the process to produce knowledge that is relevant and usable (Denis & Lomas, 2003; Graham & Tetroe, 2007; Preyde et al., 2013). Consistent with this approach, the knowledge users were members of the research team, and we (the first four authors) identified an opportunity to fill a gap in our teaching of CRoP and were in a position to act. The application of IKT is consistent with a constructivist approach, and a praxis paradigm in which knowledge is derived from practice and practice is informed by knowledge in a continuous process (Cordeiro et al., 2017; Nguyen et al., 2019; Pascal & Bertram, 2012; Zuber-Skerritt, 2001).

Participant recruitment and other data sources

The MSW program is structured across three-terms, beginning in September, and ending in July. All 20 MSW students in the one-year Advanced Standing year (with a BSW degree) and all 18 MSW students in the second year of the two-year MSW (with a nonsocial work undergraduate degree) who completed the required CRoP course in the Fall 2021–22 academic year were invited to participate in the pre-survey, and those who completed the subsequent practicum integration seminars in the Winter/Spring 2021–22 academic year were invited to participate in the post-survey (students were in placement three days/week for 26 weeks, attending practicum integration seminar every other week for a total of 12 seminars). In the last class of each section of the CRoP course and the four seminars, instructors presented information on the project and provided a link to a Qualtrics survey through e-mail and the online course announcements. Instructors invited students to participate and explained that their participation was completely voluntary and anonymous, which was explained again in the information and consent forms at the beginning of the survey.

From the possible 38 students, 35 (n = 35/38, 92% response rate) completed the pre-survey in December 2021 and from a possible 35 students, 21 (n = 21/35, 60% response rate) (three students shifted to extended studies or took a leave of absence) completed the post-survey in June 2022.

Participant demographics

Focusing upon the student demographics for the post-survey, 82% of participants identified as women, 15% as men, and 3% as gender fluid or non-binary. Fifty-three percent were under 30 years of age, 30% were ages of 31–40 years, 10% between 41–50, and 7% were over 50 years. Seventy-six percent identified as White, while others were equally distributed between having identified as Black, Middle Eastern or Indigenous, with two respondents preferring not to answer. Sixty-two percent identified as heterosexual, 25% as LGBTQ2S+, and the rest chose not to answer. Thirty-three percent identified as spiritual, not religious, 25% as Christian, 14% as having no religion or spirituality, 1% as Muslim, 1% influenced by all religions, and the remaining chose not to answer. Twenty-eight percent indicated having more than 11 years of work experience, 20% 6–10 years, 43% 1–5 years and 9% less than one year.

Researcher description

Four of the coauthors/researchers are faculty members and course instructors (Laura, Stephanie, Jane and Rosemary): We each came to academia after many years of clinical social work practice. Two of the coauthors are students and research assistants on this study (Victoria and Ben). Laura and Stephanie have each taught one section of the 12-week CRoP course, while each of the faculty members has facilitated one of four practicum integration seminars that met every other week for 26 weeks while students were in practicum, committing to attempt to integrate CRoP’s approach and questions informally within the seminars.

Data collection

All data collection was done virtually. Student surveys were completed through the online Qualtrics program. Questions in the pre-survey asked students how prepared they felt to begin integrating CRoP into their placements and what they thought might assist with this. Results from this pre-survey were reviewed to assist the seminar facilitators in supporting students with integrating CRoP into their practice and final course assignment, a reflective practice project (RPP). The results below focus on themes from students’ post-surveys. Questions in the post-survey asked students what their experience had been of CRoP being integrated into their practicum integration seminars and into their placements, and what they thought might assist them in continuing to use CRoP. This resulted in students highlighting what they had experienced as useful and as barriers to incorporating CRoP.

Data analysis

Qualitative data were analyzed through reflexive thematic analysis (TA) in line with Braun and Clarke’s (2022) six steps of TA, as it is an appropriate method for organizing, analyzing, and conceptualizing patterns (themes) within the data set and is consistent with our philosophical and theoretical approach. As per the first step of TA, two research team members (Victoria and Ben) familiarized themselves with the data. During step two, the Qualtrics survey responses were line-by-line coded by these two independent coders. The focus was on identifying inductively emerging coding categories, although the nature of the online survey resulted in themes that naturally centered around the open-ended survey questions. In step three, codes and potential themes were identified for each subset of data. In the fourth step, themes were reviewed, further refined, and inconsistencies were discussed. In the fifth step, the team collaboratively defined and refined the identified parent themes and co-occurring subthemes of the entire data set with the study objectives and research questions in mind. As per step six, the analyses were finalized in the current manuscript. In the current analysis the student post-surveys were prioritized therefore the generated themes reflect this data. Trustworthiness and credibility were heightened by the prolonged engagement of the research team having collectively been involved in education and practicum seminar delivery for over 30 years and with extensive social work clinical experience in not-for-profit child and family mental health contexts (Singleton & Straits, 2010).

Results

What was useful in supporting learning and sustaining CRoP as a habit

The four facilitating elements below were identified in the data as being motivating and useful in learning and sustaining the practice of CRoP.

CRoP as personal and professional empowerment/development

Some students saw CRoP as a framework that empowered them to enhance their personal and professional development, a view which ultimately led to stronger integration of CRoP into their practice. One student believed the CRoP framework vastly improved their reflexivity on their practice through the promotion of self-awareness: ‘It allows us to reflect deeper on our practice, it ensures we are reflecting on our learnings to be more self-aware and mindful practitioners’ (PP2.009). Another student understood their practice to be more impactful with the utilization of CRoP, stating, ‘It helps me become a more effective practitioner’ (PP2.012). CRoP was widely considered to be beneficial and useful by many student participants. One student stated that CRoP provided them with a range of perspectives to reflect on their practice: ‘The CRoP framework has given me a diversity of lenses upon which to reflect and understand a situation/incident’ (PP2.018).

Consistent with these comments, as seminar facilitators reviewing students’ placement learning contracts, we (Laura, Stephanie, Jane and Rose) noted some students indicated CRoP could be utilized as an inquiry approach to improve their professional practice, while other students used CRoP for self-care and personal reflection. Some included CRoP in both these areas of their learning contracts. This suggests that CRoP may be providing students with a wholistic tool allowing them to develop skills in both personal and professional development.

Academic learning as a basis for natural integration of CRoP

The students noted a positive influence from learning CRoP in the classroom context and then integrating it into the seminar setting. One student reported, ‘Our facilitator allowed CRoP to be integrated naturally which felt like a good fit. Since we have the baseline knowledge of CRoP, I think it was best integrated through natural discussion as peers shared their placement experiences’ (PP2.015). Some students reflected on their experiences of implementing CRoP into their practicum, stating that learning the material in seminar with the ability to incorporate it into practicum was beneficial, as substantiated by the following comment regarding what helped them integrate CRoP, ‘How frequently it was discussed over the course of the program, having many opportunities to practice engaging with CRoP’ (PP2.009).

Small group collaboration

As students engaged in small groups within the classroom to practice their skills of critical reflection and then were involved in small seminar groups, collaboration was a theme that naturally emerged from the data. Many students also suggested ideas for the ongoing support of their CRoP skills post-graduation, such as ongoing connection to the university setting for assistance or the development of peer support groups for professionals who engage in CRoP. One student stated, ‘Having a network of professionals also interested and invested in continuing CRoP, i.e. a CRoP peer supervision group’ (PP2.018) may be a beneficial approach to encouraging the use of CRoP beyond graduation. The importance of peer support throughout the learning journey was evident, as students spoke to the fact that ‘it felt natural and helped to have discussions with peers’ (PP2.002).

Practicum supervisor’s support of CRoP in placement

Some students stated there was an integration of CRoP into their placement, as a result of their supervisors’ willingness, and they described these as successful and positive experiences. One student stated, ‘Always during supervision. My field supervisor is a social worker through and through and welcomed my attempt to incorporate it’ (PP2.005). Another student stated, ‘Personally I was very lucky to have a supervisor that was generous with their time and spent a good portion of supervision reflecting on the impact of all components of CRoP’ (PP2.007).

Barriers to learning and sustaining CRoP as a habit

Three barriers to integrating CRoP into ongoing practice were also evident in our analysis.

Lack of practicum supervisor’s support of CRoP in placement

Some students indicated they had difficulties integrating CRoP into their placements if their supervisors did not attempt to integrate critical reflection into their supervision. Some students discussed feeling like their placement supervisor made using CRoP difficult, ‘Lack of time or possibly lack of interest from the placement supervisor’ (PP1.009). Other students discussed a similar experience, noting that their biggest challenge was, ‘Supervisors who are not trained in CRoP’ (PP1.015), and ‘No attempts were made by field instructors to learn about CRoP that I am aware of (as they told me they were not familiar with it). My supervisors did not engage in reflecting on practice in any way as they focused on work getting done’ (PP2.021). Students expressed that they felt it was their responsibility to integrate CRoP into their placement: ‘It was solely my responsibility to incorporate CRoP into my placement setting. I do believe my supervisor was receptive and at times inclined to bring in reflective practices and many of the lenses’ (PP2.010).

Busy schedule/lack of time

Some students expressed concern about a lack of time to implement CRoP into their practice, and the need for others to have time to assist them with critically reflecting, saying they had trouble ‘Finding the time and people to reflect with’, and experiencing problems with ‘Having enough time, large caseloads, other social workers not always being aware of what CRoP is’ (PP2.019). This resonated with our experience as facilitators of the practicum integration seminars, since seminars were scheduled for only two hours alternate weeks and often became busy with generic check-ins about how placements, learning contracts, and various assignments were progressing.

Organizational culture/few people familiar with CRoP

Organizational culture appeared to present some additional obstacles for students. One student expressed that their biggest barriers to using CRoP in placement were ‘Systems. Poor supervision. Multidisciplinary team where you are the only social worker’ (PP2.005). As another student noted, it was hard to engage in CRoP if it was a foreign concept in their work context, saying, ‘Others in the working environment not being familiar with CRoP’ (PP2.018) was a challenge. One student discussed apprehension about trying to use CRoP, as it may be ‘bringing something into the field that is new and possibly unwelcomed by other professionals’ (PP1.015), while another student noted a significant barrier: ‘The business culture of the organization may not always facilitate such a broad way of viewing the work’ (PP2.027). Students also felt there was a ‘lack of willingness for others to engage to make the process possible’ (PP1.011), and that barriers in the placement were related to ‘who fellow workers are and the culture of the agency’ (PP1.013). While one student mentioned a barrier was ‘not having anyone to practice CRoP with’ (PP2.023) other students expressed that they felt these barriers could be overcome with small changes, as in ‘Hav[ing] others to use CRoP within practice would be helpful’ (PP2.013).

Discussion of themes

This pilot project has only begun the process of filling a gap in the research regarding what might sustain social workers’ skills of critical reflection from their learning of the theory and practice of CRoP within a classroom-based course to the more fluid integration of CRoP throughout a practicum supported by an integration seminar. The social work students/research participants provided some ideas for how these CRoP skills could potentially be supported as a ‘habit’ or ‘informal/everyday practice’ post-graduation. The maintenance of CRoP skills (or not) will be explored in our ongoing research with a follow-up survey one year post-graduation. However, here we reflect upon the facilitators and barriers to sustaining CRoP discussed above, and the four themes that we identified as emerging through our analysis of the pilot project data.

Wholistic nature of CRoP for personal/professional development

Nussbaum proposes that education should not only prepare people for citizenship and employment, but also prepare them ‘for meaningful lives’, which requires ‘cultivated capacities for critical thinking and reflection’ (2010/2016, pp. 9–10). This resonates with the inclusion of the spirituality lens within CRoP, where social workers are asked to consider what personal values they have uncovered through the CRoP process and what that implies gives them a sense of meaning and purpose. Therefore, it follows that students described CRoP as being useful for both personal and professional development, and that CRoP could be considered a wholistic process, fostering awareness of the various elements of the whole self: emotions, cognitions, physical well-being, spiritual well-being, and professional skills.

Following the completion of the pilot project, in response to this particular theme and previous student feedback about the place of the body in CRoP (Botelho, 2020), we (Laura and Stephanie) have included literature about the role of mindfulness in the CRoP process in our class-based course (e.g. Le Pértel et al., 2020; Webster-Wright, 2013). In addition to this, we invited Ericka Tymkin, an Indigenous social worker who had previously completed the CRoP course and seminar to describe her experience of the CRoP process. Drawing upon Bell’s (2014) description of the application of the Medicine Wheel for wholistic pedagogy, Ericka related moving around the quadrants of the medicine wheel to progressing through the various elements of CRoP as we have presented it in the course. Given the continued interest in mindfulness and the importance of Indigenizing the curriculum, it will be important to continue to clarify how to ensure that CRoP is taught and supported as a wholistic process. The inclusion of spirituality as a fifth theoretical lens (Béres & Fook, 2020) appears to have assisted with these commitments.

Need for academic grounding in CRoP, and support for practice integration

The theme related to students needing to be taught the theory and practice of CRoP and also needing to be supported in beginning to integrate the skills of CRoP more naturally was interesting to find in the data. Professional programs are structured around academic courses and practicum placements, and while faculty and field instructors acknowledge the need to integrate theory into practice, how to support this transitional process is rarely described in detail. Archer-Kuhn et al. (2021) examined the literature regarding field education and indicated it has drawn heavily upon Kolb’s (1984) reflective learning model in the past, but has far less often explored how to support transformative and critical approaches in experiential learning, which is what we have been attempting by exploring the CRoP process. Archer-Kuhn et al. (2021) findings are also consistent with ours in relation to the need to better support the transition of theory to practice through clear and consistent messaging between classroom and field learning, and how this was particularly required to support critical reflection and transformational learning.

Ebadi et al. (2016), writing regarding critical reflection and teachers’ professional development, highlight the importance of social constructionism related to this theme of academic grounding and the ongoing process of critical reflection. An interesting element of their study involves drawing upon Vygotsky’s (1978) social learning theory, Bruner’s (1960) learning theory and Bandura’s (2001) social cognitive theory, which ‘all posit that social interaction and contextual involvement are central to learning’ (Ebadi et al., 2016, p. 2). Consistent with our constructivist approach in our research is the recognition that the agentive experiential learning we have been attempting to facilitate for students is socially and relationally supported; this has occurred in the classroom-based course, seminars and placements. As Bandura (2001) points out, theorists have come a long way from understanding learning as simply input-output, going on to state, ‘the human mind is generative, creative, proactive, and reactive’ (p. 4). Nardo (2021) explains that to fully understand the significance of Vygotsky’s contributions, it is important to remember the importance of the dialogic pedagogical relationship and the significance of the learner’s agency. The importance of remembering the cognitive and social complexity of the learner, as Bandura (2001) has argued, overlaps with the first theme described above and also leads to the third theme that we discovered in the data, as we noted the manner in which students described the benefits of small groups in learning and sustaining CRoP.

Benefits of small group collaboration for learning/sustaining CRoP

Our identification of small group collaboration as a theme reflected not only the important role that group work with peers played in students’ learning of CRoP, but also how valuable students viewed the support they received from their peers during the CRoP process. Indeed, the role of groups has been essential to the CRoP process—through assigned small groups of five students each in the CRoP courses (which are generally made up of anywhere between 18 and 24 students in total) and then in larger groups of 10 to 12 students assigned to each seminar (Baird et al., 2023). By spending time on the development of critical acceptance during initial stages of groups in the CRoP courses, students have an opportunity to create an atmosphere in their small groups that later allows for vulnerability and sharing their experiences (Béres & Fook, 2020; Fook & Gardner, 2007). The peer support students provide to each other during the learning of CRoP provides mutual aid (Baird et al., 2023), as defined by Shulman (2016) as a small group process where group members help each other as they share similar concerns. Our findings were consistent with Fook’s (2017) previous discussion about the advantages of the small group process in critical reflection, with students indicating that the small groups provided an opportunity to foster and maintain connections with peers that were essential to CRoP.

The findings of this pilot project also provided a new dimension to our understanding of the role of small group collaboration in potentially sustaining CRoP. Specifically, we developed a more in-depth understanding of how students saw the continued support of peers as essential in helping them continue with CRoP moving forward, with students indicating that they saw CRoP peer supervision groups as something that they hoped to continue post-graduation. We saw this theme as not only reflective of how important students felt the relationships with their peers during CRoP were, but how students hope to continue to foster the connections they have built with each other in an ongoing manner. Although Gardner and Hanlon (2022) have previously described the advantages of peer supervision within organizations, this is an important area for further research, which leads into our final theme of the need for supervisory support.

Need for supervisory support of CRoP

Another theme identified was the need for supervisory support of students’ CRoP skills during field placements and the assumption that this would continue to be required post graduation in the workplace. Supervision is recognized as a cornerstone of social workers’ practice and professional development and reflecting on their experience is a primary way of developing knowledge and practice skills (Hair, 2013; Vito, 2015). Despite this, Fook argues that critical reflection and supervision are not the same thing. She states, “If critical reflection is limited to what happens in supervision, then ‘an individual focus is unwittingly upheld, since individualized forms of supervision tend to predominate’ (Fook, 2022, p. 4). Davys and Beddoe (2021), on the other hand, argue that supervisors’ roles can shift around knowledge, power and expertise in order to become critically reflective. Despite these seemingly differing opinions regarding the connection between supervision and critical reflection, students suggested supervisors are pivotal to ensuring that they develop their CRoP skills. One way supervisors can begin to facilitate this learning is through reflective supervision models. Reflective supervision involves asking workers questions to draw out their thoughts and feelings and increase their awareness of possible biases surrounding challenging client situations that may be impacting their practice (Vito, 2015). Davys and Beddoe (2021, p. 109) propose the ‘Reflective Learning Model of Supervision’, which comprises the cyclical stages of Event (experience) to Exploration (impact/implications), to Experimentation (action plan) and Evaluation (goal review). Although this model closely resembles the ASPIRE model (Sutton, 2006) mentioned above and Kolb’s (1984) traditional model of reflection, it also aligns with Schön’s (1983) reflecting-on-action and may be used by supervisors to support part of the reflective practice lens within the CRoP model (Béres & Fook, 2020; Fook & Gardner, 2007). More consistent with CRoP is Rankine’s (2017) ‘Four-Layered Practice Model of Reflective Supervision’ (pp. 69–70), which includes layers of self/role, organization, relationships with others, and socio-political and socio-cultural context. This model aligns with the following four of the five theoretical lenses within the CRoP model: reflective practice; reflexivity; post-structural and postmodern narrative practice; and critical perspectives (Béres & Fook, 2020; Fook & Gardner, 2007), and might be an effective model for supervisors interested in also incorporating CRoP.

One of the barriers identified to learning and sustaining CRoP as a habit was supervisors’ lack of integration of critical reflection in supervision during student placements, due to either a lack of interest or training. However, on a broader scale, organizational culture was also listed as a barrier to CRoP for some students, as organizations and staff were not familiar with/welcoming of this concept, and it conflicted with the business culture of organizations. The market culture, which prioritizes accountability, efficiency, and outcomes, is dominating organizations currently (Hair, 2013; Noble & Irwin, 2009; Vito, 2015). This culture constrains the availability and quality of supervision, resulting in a lack of time for critical reflection on practice and a negative impact on professional development (Davys & Beddoe, 2021; Hair, 2013; Noble & Irwin, 2009; Vito, 2015). In contrast, promoting an organizational learning culture, where supervision is prioritized and mistakes are valued as learning opportunities, will support workers’ reflective and practice-grounded learning (Davys & Beddoe, 2021; Noble & Irwin, 2009) and, potentially, CRoP skills.

Implications

Students within this pilot project have reinforced what many of us teaching social work already believed about the importance of placement settings, and the role practicum integration seminars and placement supervisors have in reinforcing and supporting the integration and sustainment of classroom learning into ongoing practice. Students have indicated that while it is important to have stand-alone courses that teach theory and practice skills of critical reflection, these skills require further support to be integrated and sustained as natural habits within ongoing practice. They have suggested that facilitators of their bi-weekly integration seminars have supported this by ensuring appropriate critically reflective questions are asked within seminar discussions, and by requiring critical reflection to be integrated into learning contracts and assignments like their reflective practice project. They have suggested that peer-support for these ways of analyzing their ongoing practice is helpful, and they have been grateful for supervision that supported these ways of thinking when it was available. Perhaps most significantly, the students also suggested they believed CRoP was beneficial in supporting both their personal and professional development. Certainly, if they had not experienced CRoP as beneficial in this manner, they would not have been interested in finding ways to sustain their skills of CRoP. Our hope is that as more of our graduates move on into practice and become placement supervisors themselves there will be more opportunities for future students to benefit from supervision that incorporates or encourages critical reflection, thereby creating the supports for social workers to continue to engage in personal and professional development through CRoP.

In the meantime, those of us teaching the formal CRoP course have adjusted our final classes to ensure we assist students in beginning to think at that point about how they might develop peer-support for critical reflection and integrate personal commitments to mindfully engage in critical reflection themselves. We have included further readings about the links between mindfulness and critical reflection and how these approaches support both self-care and practice inquiry. Indeed, CRoP offers a wholistic approach to analyzing the social construction of practice knowledge and does not shy away from examining the role of the self in the process of practice and reflection. As we have argued, CRoP involves transformative learning (Mezirow et al., 2000) which includes the exploration of the self, values, and social justice in addition to practice effectiveness.

Regarding the students’ comments about supervision and the usefulness of small group collaboration, one implication of these themes is that it could be beneficial to assist social workers in developing peer-group supervision for CRoP. Peer supervision offers practitioners the opportunity to lead a less structured group, as opposed to group supervision led by a supervisor, although both group formats have a clear purpose of reflection and learning to enhance professional practice (Beddoe & Davys, 2016).

Strengths and limitations

While the current qualitative pilot project is not intended to be generalizable given the small sample size and limited response rates (Creswell & Creswell, 2017), the findings are consistent with other existing literature and provide direction for our own ongoing project and future research. It is hoped that future research will provide opportunities for deeper understanding of the experiences of increasingly diverse samples of students and what supports them in sustaining skills in both the formal process and more informal habits of critical reflection.

Conclusion

We have presented findings from a pilot study which have informed our ongoing project of understanding how to best teach and sustain the skills of critical reflection on practice with graduate-level social work students. These initial findings are encouraging as they highlight that students experience this model of critical reflection as offering them the skills to support both their personal and professional development. We have also been reinforced in our understanding of the need to purposefully develop the curriculum with a focus on succession planning that provides the theory of critical reflection followed by a series of opportunities to practice critical reflection in group formats that transition from highly structured (in the CRoP course) to more informal, fluid and individual at times (through the practicum and seminar opportunities). Vygotsky’s (1978) description of zones of proximal development may offer possibilities for further considering what supports students in integrating classroom learning into practicum integration settings and beyond into their ongoing professional careers. While the importance of small groups and peer support were noted, the important role field instructors and supervisors play was also highlighted, providing further incentive for us to develop greater skills in sharing information about the benefits of CRoP with field instructors and to offer more opportunities for them to engage in training in reflective supervision and CRoP if they are interested. We acknowledge the challenges facing supervisors and supervisees in the workplace and wish to support their work and well-being rather than impose expectations that they attend this type of training. However, as indicated above, as more students graduate with skills in CRoP, they will eventually move into supervisory roles and can support the next wave of social work students in integrating and sustaining their CRoP skills.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge receiving funding from King’s internal research grants committee and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council’s Insight grant program. Our institution is developing a research data management process.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by King’s University College at Western University [N/A]; Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada [435-2022-0420].

Notes on contributors

Laura Béres

Laura Béres MSW, RSW, MA, PhD is Full Professor and Graduate Programme Coordinator in the School of Social Work at King’s University College at Western University. She has been engaged in direct social work practice and psychotherapy for over thirty years and has been teaching for twenty years. Her teaching, inquiry and writing interets are related to narrative practices, critical reflection on practice and spirituality.

Jane E. Sanders

Jane Sanders, MSW, PhD, RSW is Assistant Professor in the School of Social Work at King’s University College at Western University. She has over thirty years of clinical experience with children, youth and families. Her research falls within two areas: 1) clinical social work eductaion and practice, and 2) early trauma and expanded forms of adversity with a focus on the systemic reponse within education, child welfare, mental health and housing.

Stephanie L. Baird

Stephanie Baird, MSW, RSW, PhD is Assistant Professor in the School of Social Work at King’s University College at Western University. Her research interests in trauma, intimate partner violence, and social work education have been informed by two decades of direct social work practice experience.

Rosemary Vito

Rosemary Vito, BASc, MSW, PhD, RSW is Associate Professor in the School of Social Work at King’s University College at Western University. She has been engaged in direct clinical practice and supervision for over twenty years and has been teaching social work for ten years. Her teaching and research interests include leadership. supervision, organizational culture/change, mental health and field education.

Victoria Lewis

Victoria (Tori) Lewis, BA, BSW completed her Psychology and Social Work undergaraduate studies at King’s University College and is currently pursuing her MSW at the University of Windsor. Tori has been a research assisatnt for the CRoP reearch for the past two years. She is currently employed in both medical and gerontological social work fields.

Ben Csiernik

Ben Csiernicl, BHSc, DC is a master’s student in the faculty of Health Sciences at Ontario Tech University. His areas of interest include the evaluation and application of self-report measures, education and pedagogy and research methods.