Critical Thinking, Undergraduates and Intellectual Resourceshttp://www.critical.soton.ac.uk

Brenda Johnston, Rosamond Mitchell, Peter Ford and Florence Myles

University of Southampton

British Educational Research Association ConferenceSeptember 2003

Introduction..................................................................................................................4

Two theoretical frameworks.......................................................................................4

Criticality: levels, domains and critical being (Barnett 1997)..................................4

Resources needed in order to be able to function critically (Bailin et al. 1999).....5

The criticality project: the merging of theory and data...........................................7

Contextual matters.......................................................................................................7The project.................................................................................................................7The case study student...............................................................................................7Katy’s assignment......................................................................................................7

The analysis in this paper............................................................................................7

Resources......................................................................................................................8Background knowledge..............................................................................................8

Pre-existing personal background knowledge.......................................................8Academic background knowledge.........................................................................8Reading..................................................................................................................8Externally acquired knowledge..............................................................................9The knowledge building process............................................................................9Evidence of knowledge building............................................................................9Issues of time........................................................................................................10Making links between different types of knowledge...........................................10Background and Bailin et al. (1999)....................................................................11

The context of justification......................................................................................11Tutor's comments.................................................................................................12Structural problems..............................................................................................12

Overall comments on Katy's essay...........................................................................13

Return to earlier questions........................................................................................13

Questions relating to Barnett (1997)........................................................................13Domains...................................................................................................................13Levels.......................................................................................................................14Connections between the domains...........................................................................14

Questions relating to Bailin et al. (1999)..................................................................14Resources.................................................................................................................14The context of justification......................................................................................14Other problems.........................................................................................................14

Possible reasons for these difficulties.......................................................................15

2

Do problems with context of justification matter?..................................................15

Back to the initial quotation......................................................................................16

List of references........................................................................................................16

Appendix Katy’s essay..............................................................................................17

3

Critical Thinking, Undergraduates and Intellectual Resources

Brenda Johnston, Rosamond Mitchell, Peter Ford and Florence Myles

B.H.M.Johnston@soton.ac.uk, R.F.Mitchell@soton.ac.uk, P.K.Ford@socsci.soton.ac.uk, F.J.Myles@soton.ac.uk

University of Southampton

I’ve actually been very disappointed with those essays … I’ve been very disappointed simply at the level of essay writing skills, ability to structure, to organise one’s argument into paragraphs, to write sentences, to provide referencing, those sorts of skills, I’ve been quite troubled about it really. In terms of the understanding of the material, well I suppose there, again it’s a basic skills problem, there were quite a lot of essays that really didn’t answer the question, didn’t focus on the question sufficiently. (Comment by Social Work lecturer in interview)

IntroductionThis paper will explore the resources necessary for student criticality to take place. It will do this by investigating the shape and nature of criticality and then the resources necessary for criticality to happen. In order to achieve this, it will use the lens of theoretical frameworks and a case study student as she tackles an assignment during her undergraduate degree.

We should point out that we are at the start of our analysis. What we will discuss in this paper is an interim theoretical and analytical position. The analysis will probe how useful the frameworks are for understanding what is happening as the student works through an assignment. In the course of the discussion, some of the issues raised by the quotations above will be raised.1

Two theoretical frameworks

Criticality: levels, domains and critical being (Barnett 1997)

The first relevant theoretical framework is that of Barnett (1997). This framework provides a theoretical conceptualisation of criticality. Barnett suggests that criticality should be understood over a range of domains (reason, self and the world) and over a

1 The research project on which this analysis is based is funded by the ESRC, Project number R000239657, Development of criticality in two academic disciplines. See http://www.critical.soton.ac.uk/

4

range of levels, ranging from instrumental criticality through to transformatory critique. Criticality thus provides a broader conceptualisation than critical thinking. This provides a useful framework for conceptualising criticality, although it is doubtful if universities could enable students to reach the higher levels in all three domains in the average undergraduate degree.

Levels, domains and forms of critical beingDomains

Levels of criticality

Knowledge Self World

4 Transformatory critique

Knowledge critique

Reconstruction of self

Critique-in-action (collective reconstruction of the world)

3 Refashioning of traditions

Critical thought (malleable traditions of thought)

Development of self within traditions

Mutual understanding and development of traditions

2 Reflexivity Critical thinking (reflection on one’s understanding)

Self-reflection (reflection on one’s own projects)

Reflective practice (‘metacompetence’, ‘adaptability’, ‘flexibility’).

1 Critical skills Discipline-specific critical thinking skills

Self-monitoring to given standards and norms

Problem-solving (means end instrumentalism)

Forms of criticality

Critical reason Critical self-reflection

Critical action

Source Barnett (1997, p.103).

If we are to take this framework seriously, it does raise various issues and questions. Should universities be seeking to develop student criticality across the three

domains? If so, to what extent and in which ways are they doing it? If not, what should

they be doing? In which domains does our case study student seem to be working? Why?

Why not? To what extent? Should universities be seeking to develop student criticality at the different

levels? At what levels, does the case study student seem to be working? Why is she

operating at that level?

5

Resources needed in order to be able to function critically (Bailin et al. 1999)The other theoretical framework we will look at today is that proposed by Bailin et al. (1999). The focus of this framework is on the intellectual resources needed to achieve critical thinking/criticality. The authors argue that typically, critical thinking is discussed in terms of lists of skills and attitudes displayed by critical thinkers and required by students, with little indication of how they might achieve these skills or how far they can be expected to do so. As Bailin et al. point out “such lists imply nothing about the psychological states, capacities or processes that enable critical thinkers to have the requisite accomplishments, and nothing about the kinds of instructional procedures that are likely to be efficacious in bringing them about” (p.290). As part of their remedy for these deficiencies, Bailin et al. suggest a range of intellectual resources necessary for critical thinking to take place and also make some comments about instructional approaches to encourage the development of these resources. Students will possess these resources to a greater or lesser extent. This notion of resources is very useful for identifying where criticality difficulties arise with students and how to address them.

Bailin et al. suggest that someone has to have access to the following intellectual resources in order to be critical:

Background knowledge (what someone knows or can find out about an issue)

Knowledge of critical thinking standards in a particular field (knowledge of relevant standards and principles (e.g. the credibility of statements made by authorities), including ability to use in a non-mechanical way)

Possession of critical concepts (being able to identify and work with e.g. assumptions, arguments, implications of arguments, statements, definitions)

Knowledge of a wide range of strategies or heuristics useful in thinking critically (e.g. trying to think of counter-examples, discussing a problem or issue with another person)

Certain habits of mind (commitments such as respect for reasons and truth, an inquiring attitude).

Source: Bailin et al. (1999)

The big question is how a student can be enabled to have these resources. Bailin et al. suggest that teaching critical thinking should involve three components:

Engaging students in dealing with tasks that call for reasoned judgement or assessment,

Helping them develop intellectual resources for dealing with these tasks, and Providing an environment in which critical thinking is valued and students are

encouraged and supported in their attempts to thinking critically and engage in critical discussion (p. 299)

Bailin et al. (1999) have not mapped their ideas directly on to Barnett’s framework above, but what they say is highly relevant and can be adapted. Their ideas belong mainly to the left hand column of what Barnett is suggesting, although they could be adapted to the self and action domains.

6

Bailin et al.'s framework raises some questions which we should address in analysing our data.

To what extent and in which ways does the case study student have access to the types of resources described by Bailin et al.?

How far is the framework a useful tool for analysing our data?

So how can the framework proposed by Bailin et al. be applied to our case study student?

The criticality project: the merging of theory and data

First some background about the project and the case study student.

Contextual matters

The projectIn this ESRC-funded research project, we are looking at the development of criticality in two university departments at a university, known in the study as Westford. The two departments are Social Work and Modern Languages. The project involves classroom observation of a range of courses and the development of case studies based on individual students in different years of study in the two departments. We also have a wide range of documentary evidence at the national, university, faculty, departmental and unit level.

The case study studentThe case study student discussed in this paper is Katy. She is a 35 year old Social Work student who entered university through an Access course and with one A level. She says she comes from a working class family and that she is the first generation of her family to enter higher education. She has had a varied career, working as a dancer, working in hotels, working as a part-qualified accountant. She has also done work in the last few years as a support worker with MENCAP, the Samaritans and with drug addicts and autistic children. She had previously studied Psychology at another university, but had given up the course as she did not like the focus of the course on science and animal experiments. Katy works quite hard. She is probably a 2:1 candidate. She is not local to Westford, the location of the university.

Katy’s assignmentKaty is doing a task typical of what second year students are asked to do in her department. Katy is doing an essay as one of a large group of 70 or so made up of students from two different undergraduate years and a masters group. Each year group is given a slightly different set of essay tasks. Katy’s assignment is to choose one essay title out of six and to write a 3,000 word essay. The essay title she chose was:

Working with experiences of grief and loss is common in social work with adults. What skills and resources might the social worker need?

7

The essay was to be handed in at the end of semester, with a few other assignments, but was distributed some months in advance.

The analysis in this paperThe analysis examines data from four out of the five interviews with Katy, one of the essays she wrote, her lecturer’s written comments on her essay, an interview with the lecturer (not specifically about Katy) and two lectures which are relevant to the essay topic.

Examination of how Katy tackled this assignment and the outcomes in terms of comments from her tutor and mark relate mainly to Barnett’s first column, but also to the second and third column in that she has to relate her essay topic to action and personal and professional experience. Let’s look to see how data about her essay and how she tackled it relate to the resources suggested by Bailin et al. (1999) and then later at the domains and levels suggested by Barnett (1997).2

We will not discuss the frameworks exhaustively because of space and time constraints. Instead we will focus on two significant aspects. We will look first at one major area that Bailin et al. (1999) discuss and then at one major area which they do not appear to address.

Resources

Background knowledgeIt is useful to unpack this idea of background knowledge, one of the resources suggested by Bailin et al. (1999) as necessary for criticality to take place. What kinds of knowledge can we see Katy bringing to bear in her assignment?

Pre-existing personal background knowledgeKaty has some personal background knowledge about her essay topic. Indeed, this is one of the reasons she chooses to write this essay:

The others looked awful. There was one on youth and crime I think and I don’t really know much about youth and crime because I’ve never, well, I think I’ve worked with children for an agency, and so I don’t really know much, unlike Mark [a fellow social work student] that works on the streets, so I just felt that, you know, with my experience and … my what I know about psychologists. She’s [colleague/friend who can get her material for the essay] been working with traumatic brain injury patients for years and years. … From the guy that I work with, with the traumatic brain injuries, she’s actually his psychologist, so I can use that resource. And I mean initially I was going to do palliative care, but like I said, I perhaps thought that was too close for comfort and it would probably end up to be quite a negative essay, so I decided against that, and so now I’m actually going to use traumatic brain injuries as an example and how it has the effect on family and incorporate the grieving processes. (Katy Interview 4)

She has also had personal experience of grief and loss, with several people in her family and one close friend dying of cancer.

Academic background knowledgeShe also has some academic background as she attended two lectures on two different courses (Psychology Throughout Life and Adult Social Work) which explored grief

2 See Appendix for a copy of Katy’s essay.

8

and loss issues. References to the theory and criticisms of the theory presented in the lectures are present in her essay.

Reading In order to build on this initial knowledge base, she reads further:

Katy: Well all the information the psychologist [colleague/friend who can get her material for the essay] is going to get for me on the research side of things, any studies that have been done, because the theory of loss and grief, apparently from a professional point of view and from what was flagged up in the lectures, has got quite a lot of arguments against it, and the one that seems to be used professionally even now is the Margaret Stroebe one so hopefully I will be able to get some research on that to incorporate as well, and also and Bowlby’s attachment, I’ll put that in as well. I’ll put in about different voluntary agencies as well, such as Cruse and different counselling methods.

Brenda: So, you’re going to get information from the psychologist? Where else are you going to get information from?

Katy: I’ve got about 10 books.

Brenda: What, on grief and loss?

Katy: On grief and loss, social work books, psychology books.

Brenda: Are they your own books or did you get them from the library?

Katy: I think some are my own and most are from the library. And then whatever Mary, the psychologist, brings for me as well. (Katy Interview 3)

Externally acquired knowledgeShe also orders supplementary materials from external organisations:

And I’ve actually ordered some stuff as well, well it actually came the other day, leaflets on some organisations like Cruse, and incorporate what a social worker’s role would be and the sensitivity that would be needed because the question is what skills and resources might the social worker need (Katy Interview 3).

The knowledge building processShe reports in a later interview how her reading plan actually went:

Katy: I did a lot more reading. I actually obtained quite a lot. The guy I work with with brain injuries he’s got his own psychologist, and she actually gave me quite a few readings and papers, so that’s quite good, so I read all those over Christmas and, which is why I think my adult essay is more in depth than my other two essays.

Brenda: What, because you had more time to do it?

Katy: Because I had more time to read and because I had specifically focused papers and easier access as well from the psychologist.

Brenda: What, did she give you the papers?

Katy: She did, yes. And I photocopied them and gave them her back and whatever, but it was specific to traumatic brain injury and how people cope with grief and loss and somebody with brain injury, so it was quite good actually, and plus there was not just English research findings because there tends to be not a lot of research into traumatic brain injury, so a lot of it was American, which would obviously be quite difficult to get hold of for me, so that was quite good. (Katy Interview 4)

9

Evidence of knowledge buildingIn her essay, we can see evidence of Katy’s knowledge building. As well as discussing theorists mentioned in her lectures (Kübler-Ross 1969; Murray Parkes 1986; and Stroebe 1994), she examines the claims of Douglas (1990), a source she had found for herself, who writes about the five stages of family response to Traumatic Brain Injury, although she forgets to reference the source at the end of her essay.

Issues of timeTime spent by Katy on reading for the essay is considerable. Katy estimated in her third interview that she had already spent 3-4 hours in the library finding the books and an hour and a half on the essay plan. In her fourth interview, she reported that she had spent two and a half to three weeks reading off and on for the essay over Christmas. It was not clear exactly how long she had spent writing it, but she reported spending 8-10 hour working days over a period of a week for another essay.

We can conclude that Katy built up a considerable background knowledge, especially given her pre-existing personal knowledge. It will be interesting to contrast this later with students who tackle assignments with far less background knowledge of the topic they are writing about and who perhaps spend far less time building up their background knowledge.

Making links between different types of knowledge We can see here evidence of Katy making links between personal experience, the question she has been asked, theory to which she has been exposed in her lectures and reading and practical actions and knowledge a social worker should have. As she explained about her essay in an interview:

What I try and do is sort of like try and focus on one area … I’d give a brief case study of the guy that I’m working with with traumatic brain injury and how this essay is relevant to him. I’ve then said that I’m going to go through the different academics and different theories that I’m going to be using so then I tend to sort of like focus on one area, so I started with how my essay is relevant to C, the guy with traumatic brain injury, in relation to how they are coping, how his family is coping with the grief and loss, the trauma, obviously he’s not the person that he was and the aspirations that his family had for him are completely lost now so they’re going through like a living bereavement, whereas somebody who’s died, it’s more final. They’ve now got a son that is still alive, but is not the old son, he’s like a totally different person now. And I tend, when I write essays I try and sort of like restrict, try and focus on one area. A couple of hours to do that and I’ll do that this day and then the following day I’ll hopefully move on, so then I’ve sort of like covered Kübler-Ross theory and Murray Parkes, all the different types of theory, I’ve tended to do and then I move on to the … family response to traumatic brain injury, which is pretty much, that was found in connection with traumatic brain injury specifically, whereas Murray Parkes is more like somebody dying, somebody with cancer or whatever. And then I’ve sort of like said how this is in relation to a social worker and what skills they would need to incorporate good practice with regards to grief and loss and specifically somebody with traumatic brain injury in their family. And then I’ve sort of like put in a few practical issues about different agencies that are out there to support people, and then just conclude … (Katy Interview 4)

In the text of her essay we can see Katy making links between theory and her case study client. She explains her use of C and theories which can be applied to his case:

The case study example that I will use is of a client (whom throughout this essay will be know has C), has suffered Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and is now a totally different person to what he was prior to the injury, and now needs 24 hour outside support as well as support and care from his family, leaving his family grieving for the loss of the person that was prior to the

10

injury. … I will work through this essay and in conjunction, with the Kubler Ross’s 5 stages of grief and loss, (1969) with arguments for and against his stages. I will also include the ‘Dual Process model of coping with Grief’ by Margaret Stroebe 1994) and say why this modern and more up to date model is more flexible than Kubler’s Ross stages of grief and loss. I will also bring in the 5 stages of the family’s emotional reaction (Douglas 1990) to having a family member suffering from TBI and how the stages are linked. (Katy’s essay on grief and loss, Paragraph 3)

We can see Katy evaluating her sources. Several evaluations she takes from the lectures, but we can see evidence of her own personal evaluation beyond this. For example, Katy’s criticism of Kübler-Ross’s theory are pretty standard criticisms, as developed in the two lectures she had had on grief and loss, and it may be impossible to extend in this well trodden territory. However, the application of the criticisms to her own case study is Katy’s idea. We can see movement from standard criticism to her own personal application in the following quotation:

One of the main problems with Kubler Ross theory (1969) is that the stages are unlikely to happen sequentially and some people may never experience some of the reactions at all or may stay in one stage indefinitely as C’s father who is still in the anger stage after 4 years post injury. (Katy’s essay on grief and loss, Paragraph 9)

Her evaluations although somewhat crude, are often her own: I tend to disagree with stages processes as I feel that this is labelling people. However, from a professional point of view with regards to C his family certainly went through these stages and from a personal point of view whilst my Mother was in intensive care I too went through the stages of shock of all the machines my mother was on and then expectancy of a full recovery. I feel these two stages are the only two that may come together, however long you stay in these two stages may well depend on how long the patient is in hospital. Also some of the stages might not be experienced obviously depending on how well the patient as recovered. (Katy’s essay on grief and loss, Paragraph 9)

Background and Bailin et al. (1999)Significant points to note are that:

Katy uses various types of background knowledge, more than mentioned by Bailin et al.

Use of these different types of knowledge and the effect it has is significant in that many students for many assignments will not be able to bring personal knowledge and the information that a friendly psychologist can give to bear.

It is clear that this type of knowledge enables Katy to make sense of and critique the theories she is presented with in her lectures. In Barnett's terms, she has knowledge in the domains of the world and the self and this assists her in processing the knowledge in the domain of reason. The knowledge she acquires from theories of grief and loss, enables her to understand and evaluate what she sees in her work with C.

In addition to background knowledge, Katy displayed evidence of having access to various of the other resources discussed by Bailin et al. We will not discuss this evidence in this paper because of lack of space.

However, during the analysis it became clear that a large part of the data on Katy was not addressed by the categories that Bailin et al. suggest. We will now discuss one of those areas.

11

The context of justificationAt the stage of presenting a reasoned case, the “context of justification”, Katy has considerable difficulties. Her essay text tends to be disjointed. Her arguments are a little confused. It is unclear whether she supports the ideas of staged theories of grief and loss or not. A considerable part of her essay consists of regurgitating lectures (showing she has been to lectures). It is perhaps useful to remember at this stage the quotation from the lecturer's interview about the essays of this cohort in general.

Kahane (1980) and McPeck (1981) discuss the concept of two contexts which are relevant to this division we see in Katy's work. The “context of discovery” is the inventive, creative part, and the “context of justification” is the presentation of an argument (cited in Walvoord and McCarthy 1990, p.13). Walvoord and McCarthy call these two aspects “solution searching” and “rationale building” (p.13). We will argue that while Katy seems to be progressing well in the context of discovery, she appears to be having problems in the context of justification.

Tutor's commentsKaty received a mark of 55% for this assignment. Her tutor commented as follows on her essay:

This essay covers most of the essential points for a consideration of the skills and resources needed in social work with grief and loss. The use of a case example to illustrate the issues is helpful and focusing on one example of grief and loss, TBI [Traumatic Brain Injury], should enable a deeper analysis of the issues. Reading this essay I have found the argument difficult to follow. There are several reasons for this. (1) The case is presented in a confusing way, with information scattered throughout. It would be clearer if AFTER the overall introduction to the essay which explains how you will tackle the question, you introduce C. This would include all the information you feel the reader needs to know about C’s story and his family. You can then refer to the case in your discussion of theoretical models, resources etc without confusing the reader. (2) There isn’t enough signposting – points that indicate to your reader the steps you are taking your arguments. So, for example, there is a single paragraph ? all the way from p.3-p5 in which it is often unclear what points you are ? Lot of semi-digested theory need much more critical unpicking and explaining. (3) The essay needs careful reading through. Often it is in note from and doesn’t really make sense. There are also lots of typos which will not be picked up by a spell checker. A particularly irritating one is the transposition of “has” and “w”. (4) Some references are missing from your list e.g. Lloyd (2002) and Douglas (19??). (Tutor comments on students’ essays)

To start with the most technical of these problems, that is (3) and (4), Katy’s essay certainly does have many basic syntax and spelling mistakes. For example:

Today’s society is a multicultural one and the theoretical model of social work according to Lloyd (2002) doesn’t allow for social and cultural differences as cultural has only just come into focus.

The discerning reader may well have noticed various other problems in the extracts quoted in this paper. For example, Katy bolds her references in the text, as above. Some references are certainly missing from the list of references at the end of her essay.

Structural problemsTo move to structural issues, not necessarily the ones mentioned by Katy’s tutor, sometimes Katy’s paragraphs are internally jumbled as in the following example:

Firstly as said in my introduction, grief and loss does not have to be about dying but is something that we all go through many times in our life course both personally and professionally as a social worker where we will encounter many types of grief and loss. A change of circumstances can according to Marris (1986) cause similar reactions and feelings as

12

a bereavement or loss for example divorce, redundancy, or being a victim of crime, however the example of the case study of C whom has traumatic brain injury after a motorbike accident, for C and his family this was a traumatic event and caused permanent change for C and his family. Therefore, good practice for a social worker would be an awareness and sensitivity, which must be taken into account whilst practising. However according to Philpot (1989) social workers can not work with grief and loss situation without facing their own anxieties, fears and the fact of their own mortality, therefore as a social worker you need to be very clear about your own attitudes and values with regards to grief and loss and this will depend on your academic training, work and experience and most of all your personal experience. (Katy’s essay on grief and loss, Paragraph 5)

In this paragraph, Katy starts off talking about grief and loss and how it does not necessarily have to be associated with death. She gives the example of C to illustrate this. This is smooth and logical development. Katy then jumps to saying that social workers should be aware and sensitive and develops the paragraph along lines not connected with the first few sentences, shifting to the personal problems of social workers working in grief and loss situations and the importance of training and personal experience. It is hard to follow her logical processes with jumps like this.

Sometimes the links between paragraphs are not clear. For example, the second paragraph of the essay (see Appendix) is about the importance of environmental factors in grief and loss processes. This is an important point, but does not easily connect to the previous paragraph, the introduction, or the following paragraph on theories of grief and loss.

Overall comments on Katy's essayThe impression one has after reading the essay is that Katy has most of the raw ingredients for answering the question in her essay – theory, practical information, personal experience related to theory – but that these elements have not been sufficiently blended together to answer the question fully and coherently. Katy is still struggling in some basic areas. She is having difficulty with manipulation of theories (as distinct from regurgitation), expressing ideas logically, addressing the question fully and conforming to academic rules of presentation.

Return to earlier questionsHow does this analysis relate to the questions which arose out of the theoretical frameworks discussed at the beginning of the paper? Questions relating to Barnett (1997)

Should universities be seeking to develop student criticality across the three domains?

If so, to what extent and in which ways are they doing it? If not, what should they be doing?

In which domains does our case study student seem to be working? Why? Why not? To what extent?

Should universities be seeking to develop student criticality at the different levels?

At what levels, does the case study student seem to be working? Why is she operating at that level?

13

DomainsIn terms of domains (Barnett 1997), Katy is working mainly in the knowledge domain because of the nature of the assignment she is doing, but the assignment requires her to make links with the world of action, that is to think through how a social worker might function in a grief and loss context. The assignment also allows her to reflect on her own practice and relate it to theory.

LevelsIn terms of levels, Katy is certainly having problems with Level 1 criticality in the knowledge domain in that she is struggling with discipline specific critical thinking skills. In the domain of the self, she is engaging in reflecting on professional experiences she has had. She is doing or close to doing more than Barnett suggests for Level 1 in this domain which is “self-monitoring to given standards and norms” (p.103). Rather she is operating at Level 2 which requires her to reflect on her own projects. In terms of levels in the action domain, Katy is not operating as a mere problem solver, Barnett’s Level 1. Rather she is reflecting on her practice.

Connections between the domainsWhat is perhaps most remarkable about what we see in Katy in that she is making extensive, if sometimes somewhat inarticulate connections between theory, reflection on her own practice and action she has taken and argues that social workers will need to take. The connections she makes between domains appear to encourage her development over the three domains in that critique in one area leads to insights in another.

What should also be noted is that her essay title allows her to make these explorations. The essay title encourages the student to make connections between the three domains and allows the student to answer at various different levels. It does not assume pre-given norms of behaviour to which the student should be measuring up.

Questions relating to Bailin et al. (1999) To what extent and in which ways does the case study student have access to

the types of resources described by Bailin et al.? How far is the framework a useful tool for analysing our data?

ResourcesIn terms of resources, Katy has access to various of these. She has personal and professional background knowledge to call upon and bolsters this further by reading. She works hard at making connections between theory and her background knowledge. At times, her connections are still somewhat ragged and crude. She uses various heuristics, displays appropriate habits of mind and so on.

The context of justificationIt is mainly in the strategies related to the context of justification, to which Bailin et al. do not even refer, that she has problems. She has problems of a technical nature, related to spelling, grammar and referencing. She has problems at a structural level with appropriate structuring of paragraphs and so on.

14

Other problemsThere is a third group of problems and it is difficult to know how to assign those. These are problems such as including sections where she more or less regurgitates lectures in a kind of ritual to show she has attended the lectures and the fact that her answer does not directly answer the question as asked. Do these problems arise because she does not have full control over the kind of resources Bailin et al. are talking about or because she does not have adequate control over the strategies necessary for functioning in the context of justification.

Possible reasons for these difficultiesWe might speculate as to whether Katy has particular difficulties in the context of justification. Potential explanations are:

Katy is a non-traditional student who may have greater difficulty with written academic conventions. Later analysis of traditional students will explore whether problems with academic conventions are greater with non-traditional students or not. Perhaps they all have problems in this area.

When I spoke to Katy recently about her tutor’s comments on the essay, some months after she had received these comments, she said that she had been very pressed for time when doing the essay, not an impression I had had in the earlier interviews, and now felt very embarrassed about the problems with the essay, but another potential explanation for the problems we can see in this essay.

Another possible explanation is that it is fundamentally very difficult to make connections between theories, practice and self-reflection and that Katy is not capable of it, especially without careful coaching in how to do so, something she is unlikely to receive in the large lecture groups her university education has often consisted of. Or perhaps the tutor's comments will enable her to clarify her next essay.

Another possibility is that the essay script is as far as she can reach on her own at the first attempt. With appropriate input and feedback of one kind or another from an expert or more expert peer, the could perhaps move further forward. Vygotsky talked about

However, in typical British higher education tradition, apart from informal readings from presumably peers of an inexpert peer, she will receive no opportunities for feedback and growth of that nature. Vygotsky (1978) talked about the zone of proximal development which he defined as:

the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers (p.86).

Vygotsky argued that the learner, through structured learning activities undertaken in interaction with the teacher or more capable peers, would progress through the zone of proximal development which would become the level of actual development, whereupon the learner could then proceed through his/her new zone of proximal development. As Vygotsky (1962) wrote, “What the child can do in co-operation today he can do alone tomorrow” (104). In writing, therefore, “... students must be engaged in social interaction that centre on writing tasks they cannot accomplish alone but can accomplish with assistance” (Freedman 1995, p.76). This educational scaffolding involves structuring tasks through instruction, modelling, questioning, and

15

feedback until the learner can operate independently (McCarthey and Raphael 1992, p.17-18).

Do problems with context of justification matter?Do these problems with the context of justification, that is correct academic presentation matter? It depends on your purposes. Barnett’s purpose is to suggest a critical being. Katy can make good knowledge/world/self connections considering she is a second year undergraduate. But is she perhaps limited in that more connections could be explored if she had greater control over the exploration of knowledge. What exactly are the connections between the development of deep and clear thinking and serious analytical writing. Are there connections? Katy herself comments on the usefulness of essay tasks in general:

So that helps as well, like with the grief and loss essay, the different theories of grief and loss and the stages that people go through when they are suffering grief and loss. And it is relevant and you do tend to learn a lot more by writing essays as well, rather than just reading, because sometimes you just switch off, don’t you, by just reading a book, you read it and you think, what did I read? Whereas, if you’ve got something to focus on and a question that you’re trying to answer. (Katy Interview 4)

We also have to consider the dimension that Katy wishes to become a social worker. Which resources and strategies is it more useful to nurture in her?

Back to the initial quotationHow would we view the comments the lecturer made in the initial quotation in this paper? What context would we want to place it in?

List of referencesBailin, Sharon, Roland Case, Jerrold R Coombs and Leroi B Daniels.

Conceptualizing Critical Thinking. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 1999, Vol. 31, no., p.285-302.

Barnett, Ronald. Higher Education: A Critical Business. Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press, 1997.

Vygotsky, Lev. S. Thought and Language. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1962.

Vygotsky, Lev S. Mind in Society: the Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Ed. M. Cole, et al. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978.

16

Appendix Katy’s essay

Title: Working with experiences of grief and loss is common in social work with adults. What skills and resources might the social worker need.

In today’s society, grief and loss is common to us all and doesn’t just have to be about death. The case study example that I will use is of a client (whom throughout the essay will be know as C), has suffered Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and is now a totally different person to what he was prior to the injury, and now needs 24 hour outside support as well as support and care from his family, leaving his family grieving for the loss of the person that he was prior to the injury. As a social worker you would possibly have your first contact with a TBI patient and his family whilst the patient was in hospital, where you would be expected to provide information on benefits (independent living allowance), housing, accommodation and transport as well as many other areas. Also as a social worker you may well have to give counselling to the patient and their relatives. I will discuss many issues that social workers may have whilst dealing the TBI patients and their families with regards to grief and loss. However, there is very limited research with regards to patient/family responses to coping with TBI as medical technology is progressing so fast that 10 years ago a TBI patient may not have survived therefore the ‘normal models of grief’ would have been used. However, as I will describe later it is very different if the patient survives and the family is going through a ‘living bereavement’.

Para2: Environmental factors (religion, cultural, family tradition etc) I feel are highly important with regards to the grief and loss process and how these may have an influence on how people may cope with what skills the social worker will need to deal with a variety of situations.

Para3: I will work with this example throughout this essay and in conjunction, with the Kubler Ross’s 5 stage of grief and loss, (1969) with arguments for and against his stages. I will also include the ‘Dual Process model of coping with Grief’ by Margaret Stroebe (1994) and say why this modern and more up to date model is more flexible than the Kubler’s Ross stages of grief and loss. I will also bring in the 5 stages of the family’s emotional reaction (Douglas 1990) to having a family member suffering from TBI and how the stages are linked. I also feel that it’s important to make clear that in C’s case his family and C himself are going through a ‘living bereavement’ and why the process of coping is forever changing. Also included will be the works of Murray Parkes (1986) and his stages of bereavement and why his research has a number of weaknesses, which may not be very helpful to a social worker trying to engaged in good practice with regards to their client coping and moving on in the grief and loss process.

Para4: Resources are another important factor with regards to helping your client/s through grief and loss and depending on what support your client has, may well depend on what resources your client/s will need. Resources can be obtained from the state or due to financial constraints they may have to be obtained from the voluntary sector such as organisation like ‘Headway’ whom specialise in support, advice, education, information and counselling for TBI patients and their families. My aim in

17

this essay is to outline why the client/s may both require emotional and practical support that these are given with a degree of sensitivity from the social worker.

Para5: Firstly as said in my introduction, grief and loss does not have to be about dying but is something that we all go through many times in our life course both personally and professionally as a social worker where we will encounter many types of grief and loss. A change of circumstances can according to Marris (1986) cause similar reactions and feelings as a bereavement or loss for example divorce, redundancy, or being a victim of crime, however the example of the case study of C whom has traumatic brain injury after a motorbike accident, for C and his family this was a traumatic event and caused permanent change for C and his family. Therefore, good practice for a social worker would be an awareness and sensitivity, which must be taken into account whilst practising. However according to Philpot (1989) social workers can not work with grief and loss situation without facing their own anxieties, fears and the fact of their own mortality, therefore as a social worker you need to be very clear about your own attitudes and values with regards to grief and loss and this will depend on your academic training, work and experience and most of all your personal experience.

Para6: Grief and loss can appear many times in our life course insignificant to our culture, religion, spiritual, social network or gender. However how we deal with grief and loss both personally and professionally will depend on these genetic and environmental factors. For the constraints of this essay I will briefly look at how cultural and gender as an impact on how we deal with grief.

Para7: Today’s society is a multicultural one and the theoretical model of social work according to Lloyd (2002) doesn’t allow for social and cultural differences as cultural has only just come into focus. A social worker must understand sociological, psychological and philosophical aspects, which come into play between identity and meaning, organisational constructs and organised practices. All these factors must be focused upon and understood when dealing with grief and loss no matter what the situation is. Lloyd (2002) also feel that there are three areas that must be addressed when developing a workable theoretical framework: 1)social traditions and rituals, 2) individual experience and behaviour and 3) ontological assumptions. All three area will have an impact on how the individual and their families cope with grief and loss. So in the case of C he may have well come from a white, middle class family but it was a tradition in his family that all the sons would follow in their father’s footsteps and join the RAF, however due to C having TBI his role and that of his family now have to be redefined and C has to rebuild his identity. For C’s family to cope with there is no right or wrong way to grieve only what we see as the ‘normal socially constructed way’ and this obviously depends deeply on what your culture is. Some cultures people hold tight to the people that they have lost and continue to keep them in their life for example lighting a candle or visiting a grave. However some people relinquish all ties as in the case of C is father now has very little contact and this is mostly via e-mail.

Para8: Moving on to gender, research by Masters (1994) states that ‘women express, men repress’, Doka and Martin (2001) ‘argue that men deal with grief more cognitively, suffer a greater loss of dignity if they lose emotional control, and learn, through their cultural role of protector, to suppress all strong feelings except anger’

18

(Grief and loss, Thompson, p.81). So with regards to C his father had been opposed to C having a motorbike, however C went ahead and purchased a motorbike only later to be involved in a horrific accident which left C fighting for his life, resulting in TBI. C’s father is still very angry that even today he does not accept C having TBI. This leads me onto Thompson’s (2001) idea that ‘loss creates such a profound threat to men’s assumptions about the nature of the world and their place within it that they may avoid facing it’s full implications’ (Loss and Grief, Thomson p83). According to Riches and Dawson (2000) the male retracts from painful emotions even if this means giving less support to your partner as was the case with C’s father and mother which sadly ended in divorce. Men also have very little input in the actual caring for someone who is dying or has TBI, the role according to Pahl and Quine is mostly the woman as the carer. So from a social worker’s point perspective respite care maybe needed here. However both parents experience a loss as in C’s because of previous aspirations that they had had for C whilst he was growing up have now been shattered.

Para9: This leads me on to the various stages of grief and loss and the emotional stages that people may go through whilst grieving. First has this essay is based around C who as TBI I will first look at the Kubler Ross (1969), 5 stages of grief and loss otherwise know as the ‘stages model’. This model was starting point in the development of the loss theory relating to the five stages that dying people were understood to go through. These were: Denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and finally acceptance, this model was extended to take into account grief and loss more generally. Even thought this theory had a major impact for social work practice and training it has many flaws according to some academics and I personally agree. One of the main problems with Kubler Ross theory (1969) is that the stages are unlikely to happen sequentially and some people may never experience some of the reactions at all or may stay in one stage indefinitely as C’s father who is still in the anger stage after 4 years post injury. Also if people think that there is a sequence of stages that they should go through they may feel abnormal thus making the whole grieving process a lot harder to deal with both for the individual, the family and for the professionals involved. There is also criticism with the research itself. Kubler Ross did not go into detail with regards to the 200 dying people that were interviewed only that they were terminally ill patients and widows and that it was based upon qualitative research, we don’t however know what their class, education, religious background, social network etc was which would obviously have an impact on their coping mechanism. Kubler Ross did say that this was not a complete study of the dying or that all people would experience the same reactions. Moving onto the Murray Parkes (1986) which is more up to date but is still based on the stages approach and as many of the flaws that the Kubler Ross theory (1969) had, for example the stages are shock, searching, despair and reorganisation and again you may stay in one of the stages indefinitely or even miss a stage especially if someone is suffering from senile dementia they may not be able to acknowledge what is happening to them. Murray Parkes drew on the theories from Bowlby (1969) Attachment and Loss Theory however this theory is also limited by being eurocentric and gendered therefore not taking the cultural and sexual differences. Another cultural issue is that the research was carried out in two different countries, America and the UK, both with very different cultures (America’s more religious), but both from a western society. The research was carried out on more women than men so therefore giving a more female perspective (women more open with feelings

19

than men). So not really getting a clear perspective between the genders, Moving on now to the most recent theoretic model of coping with grief is the Dual Process Model by Margaret Stroebe (1994), this model looks at approaching reactions to loss in two different ways in which you can move freely between the two. The first is classed as ‘loss orientation’, which looks at the early stages of grief and loss, including facing grief, anger, preoccupied with the loss. The second part is called ‘restoration orientation’ which is concerned with moving on, developing a new identity which as a patient with TBI reinventing and re-establishing yourself in your social environment is going to be very important for rehabilitation and progress for the patient and their family. There are many positive aspects to this new model of coping, first because it allows the person who’s grieving to move between the two models, which depending on a variety of factors such has events like Christmas, birthdays, etc may pose a difficult time and the person may move back to the early stages of grief, whilst other times may be quite positive and focused. Stoebe acknowledges that time does not necessary help as none of the stages can be gauged by time and that grieving does not follow a clear, smooth pattern that we can gauge step by step. This model also takes into account cultural and gender difference’s as there is no right or wrong way to go through the two models. S for example some cultural/societies place great emphasis on hiding feeling/being open about feelings, so going between the models could accommodate this type of grief and also benefit the person grieving by letting them know that there are no stages that they have to go through to grieve normally as is the case with the Kubler Ross’s 5 stages of grief and loss (1969), therefore putting less pressure on the person to ‘appear normal’. Moving onto Douglas’s 5 Stages of family responses to TBI (1990), Douglas as classed the stages as follows: Shock (confusion, anguish, frustration), Expectancy (denial, hope, exaggerated optimism about recovery), Reality (depression, anger, Guilt, withdrawal and social isolation, Mourning (awareness of the situation, acceptance of changes in the injured family member, and grieving what might have been) and Adjustment (readjusting expectation, redefining relationships and roles in the family and social network), so again these stages are very similar to that of Kubler Ross (1969) and the more modern version by Murray Parkes (1986). However Douglas does recognise that not all families will pass through all the stages and will vary in the sequences that they may experience them. Douglas established that the shock and expectancy stages were likely to be experienced while the patient was in hospital care. Whilst the stages of reality, mourning, and adjustment were not felt until the patient returned home, I tend to disagree with stages processes as I feel that this is labelling people. However from a professional point of view with regards to C his family certainly went through these stages and from a personal point of view whilst my Mother was in intensive care I too went through the stages of shock of all the machines etc that my mother was on and then expectancy of a full recover. I feel these two stages are the only two that may come together, however how long you stay in these two stages may well depend on how long the patient is in hospital. Also some of the stages might not be experienced obviously depending on how well the patient as recovered. The expectancy stage can be very useful in helping families coming to term with injury. According to Novack (1993) ‘denial may serve a beneficial purpose in the early stages of recovery, as families are trying to cope emotionally with the idea that life may never be the same again. Professionals working with families need to respect this’ (Traumatic Brain Injury: Rehabilitation for Everyday Living p267).

20

So as a social worker I feel that you should be aware of denial but to confront it may well cause the family to view you as being negative and not giving any hope of recovery. However according to Ponsford (1995) ‘awareness of the reality of the impact of the injury frequently does not come until after the TBI individual has been discharged from hospital’ (p.268) however she goes onto say that families members who have negative feelings about the burden that is imposed on them by the family member and whom they desperately wanted to live may have feelings of guilt for feeling this way. However grieving for someone who is still around (Living Bereavement) is very hard to deal with as Perlesz (1989) said ‘grieving the losses resulting from TBI is complicated by the prolonged period of uncertainty regarding outcome’ (working with families of TBI individuals p285) So with regards to C he only has a memory prior to the injury, therefore is family may and indeed have been grieving on what is life could have been. I t may take many years to readjust and indeed might never fully adjust as C’s moods and progress are forever changing, so as C is forever changing the family will need to keep readjusting. However the first person acknowledge denial in family members of a TBI patient was Romano (1974) a social worker who practised with TBI families she found that few close members of the family went passed the denial stage were fantasies (she will get better she’s got three children!!)

Para10: I have discussed throughout this essay various skills that a social worker would need for good practice whilst dealing with grief and loss, with regards to a client having TBI. A social worker’s role should be to support, and assist the family through the phases of acute care, rehabilitation, and beyond, obviously it swill depend as said before the degree of injury and the level of social support. A good level of rapport and anti discriminatory practice and anti oppressive practice must be important factors when dealing with both patient and the family, even if this is not easy where grief and loss is concerned. However as a social worker you will come across many faiths and cultures that we may personally not agree with or are knowledgeable about but a lot of individuals when faced with a crisis like grief and loss may turn to their faith and as a social worker we must respect and acknowledge this. A social worker should also be used as a source of information with continuity of involvement as different information will be needed at different stages, this will empower the TBI patient and the family. There are various support agencies available to help with both practical and emotional needs, specifically Headway is an organisation that helps both the TBI patient with rehabilitation, counselling and helps the family members with respite care and understanding about TBI. However resources are a crucial factor for a TBI patient and their family and depending on the level of brain injury, family support etc will depend on how much outside support you will require. Good practice would be to emphasise on needs led assessment, so that you are tailoring the services to your client and not looking at what services you have that will fit in with your client, this would be bad oppressive practice. As a social worker your first meeting may have been at the hospital where you may have offered counselling over maybe a long period of time. Now the patient is going home many option maybe available to both the patient and their family. A family assessment should be done to determine what roles each family members have, what support they will give etc, this assessment will show up and problems the TBI patient or the family is having. Support Counselling, for the family to work through their fears, anguishes and to help with restructuring the family system. Family Therapy, or a Cognitive Function Workshop help to understand TBI, some people however may not be able to

21

cope with this level of information especially if still in the denial stage. Again any language problems where an interpreter, signer may be required will be the social workers responsibility to arrange. Respite care for the family maybe another option so the family can establish their own interests again and rebuild their social network. Advocacy and support agencies are another source that a social worker can put forward to the TBI patient and their family. Some families tend to focus their loss on helping other families come to terms with having or losing someone who’s had TBI. By knowing that other people have experienced the same problems tends to help of people come to terms with their grief and loss.

Para11: So to conclude grief and loss can appear many times in our lifespan both personally and professionally as a social worker, therefore our clients may require both emotional and practical support and as a social worker a degree of sensitivity and awareness must be giving even though this may be difficult, as a social worker is only human and will have his/her own anxieties and fears about grief and loss. A social worker must practice anti discriminatory and anti oppressive practice because of the multi cultural society that we live in today and look at the person as a whole and not just the problem that brought them to the attention of the social worker. Finally living in the 21st century and with medical technology progressing all the time we as social worker must adapt and use workable theories especially in grief and loss, which is common to all in society.

References: Adams, R , Dominelli, L & Payne M, (2002), Critical Practice in Social Work, Palgrave

Ref2: Adams, R , Dominelli, L, & Payne M, (1998), Social Work: Themes, Issues and Critical Debates, Palgrave

Ref3: Brooks, N, (1991), The Head Injured Family, Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, Vol 13, No 1, pp155-188

Ref3: Davies, M, (1997), The Blackwell Companion to Social Work, Blackwell Publishers

Ref4: Holmstron, R. (2002), Death and Life, Care and Health Magazine, Issue 23, pp22-23

Ref5: Klass, D, Silvermann, P, R & Nickman, S, L, (1996), Continuing Bonds: New Understanding to Grief, Taylor & Francis, USA.

Ref 6: Orford, J, (1987), Coping with Disorder in the Family, Croom Helm

Ref7: Parkes, C, M, (2002), Grief: Lessons from the Past, Visions for the Future, Bereavement Care, Vol 2, Number 2, pp12-23.

Ref8: Philpot, T, (1989), Last Things: Social Work with the Dying and Bereaved, Surrey Reed, Community Care

Ref9: Powell, T, (2001), Headway Injury: A Practical Guide, Speechmark Publishing

22

Ref10: Thompson, N, (2002), Grief and loss: A Guide for Human Services Practitioners, Palgrave

Ref11: Walter, T, (1994), The Revival of Death, Routledge

Ref12: Weston, R, Martin, T & Anderson, Y, (1988), Loss and Bereavement: Managing Change, Blackwell Science

Ref13: Wood, R, & Yurdakul, L, (1997), Change in relationship status following traumatic brain injury, Brain Injury, Vol 11, No 7, pp491-502

23