Practice Analysis

Group Member	Role	Commented on
Jill Ertel	Interviewed first educator,  wrote introduction and analysis	Group 3 Kim and Bridgit
Mary Henehan	Interviewed second educator,  wrote introduction and analysis, coordinated time for 1st conference call, set-up Box for article for group edits, checked APA style	Group 4 - comments in  Theory Review Laurie Butler and Carlos Guerrero because there was not a place in Practice Analysis Group 3 Kim and Bridgit
Darbi Strahle	Wrote implications, synthesized reflections, completed table	Group 3
Kristin Wheeler	Facilitated conference calls, Wrote implications, synthesized reflections, completed table	Context and Environment Kim and Bridgit

Practice Analysis Project Relationships in Learning

Introduction

Worst Case

Our first interview was with Dr. Kittrell, the Local Recovery Coordinator (LRC) for VA Northern Indiana Health Care System. In Dr. Kittrells’ role as the LRC, she is responsible for many of the training and education on Mental Illness Awareness for the campus. She has experience with community education programs for law enforcement agencies, and community mental health centers, and has been active with prejudice reduction programs on college campuses. Dr. Kittrell is a clinical psychologist in private practice and does groups/individual work with Veterans at the VA. We chose this particular person to interview because of her diverse experience in providing educational programs and her ability to utilize clinical skills in relationship building.

Dr. Kittrell shared with us one of her early education experiences that did not turn out the way she hoped. She stated while giving an educational conference to police on the stigma and biases associated with the LGBT community, the presenters learned quickly how challenging ones’ beliefs and directly confronting their ideas could lead to an erosion of the educational relationship. Dr. Kittrell stated at one point the relationship had eroded to the point the educational process had to be stopped and basic rules of communication and respect had to be revisited. She pointed out that she felt as if the officers involved in the training may not have received educational benefit.

In discussing positive experiences, Dr. Kittrell referenced her work with prejudice reduction workshops on college campuses as the focus is more about raising awareness than direct confrontation. She also discussed developing relationships in the groups upfront by introducing icebreakers, setting up “motivation grabbers” to promote buy-in from the participants, and utilizing peers in the discussion to assist with neutralizing negative or non-participatory group members that could possibly damage the learning experience as successful practices in training. Dr. Kittrell credited much of her development as an educator in these programs to having a good support system of mentors who help her with material development, providing input on difficult topics, and helping her to debrief after particularly rough sessions.

Best Case

The second person interviewed was Joe Jeffries (pseudonym), Director of Learning Communities at an Indiana college. Joe runs a program in which learners complete an associate’s degree in one year.  He was selected because he works with programs where relationships in learning are critical to students’ success. He holds a master’s degree in counseling psychology and was a therapist before working at the college.  He recalled his best experience in facilitated learning was when he allowed two instructors the freedom to collaborate in creating an interdisciplinary project linking two seemingly disparate courses (economics and theaterHe appreciation) with a new, controversial, local performing arts center as a community partner in education. The instructors developed a case analysis approach so the students went to the center for “class” and explored many aspects of the center’s development and behind the scenes operations needed to run the center.  The students also saw live performances. The unique opportunity allowed students to make connections with performers and with the center staff through an engaging experience.

Jeffries suggested several ways to develop trust and bonding. If the learners are going to be together for an extended period, as in learning communities, the learners and staff need an opportunity to get to know one another outside of the “official” learning environment. Younger adult learners in his program benefited from an overnight at a challenge course.  Being together “away” from other distractions allowed them to focus on group interactions and bonding through common experiences.  He said ropes courses, trust falls, rafting and zip lines provided opportunities for learners to support and help one another.

            He stressed the key to building relationships and establishing rapport is to show “genuine interest in what others are saying and doing, listening when others are speaking, and asking more questions” (personal communication).  Second, he indicated one should show respect for the differences in people. Third, to maintain positive dynamics in within group settings when interactions escalate, he recommended intervening quickly, not becoming emotionally entwined, and focusing on a person’s behaviors instead of on the person. Finally, to promote positive learning relationships, Jeffries urged facilitators to strive for qualities such as selflessness, patience, willing to not be perceived as the expert,  thinking on one’s feet (for those unpredictable, but teachable, moments in a group setting that happen organically), and the ability to read people.

Analysis

Worst Case

Looking back on her first major learning experience, Dr. Kittrell reported she now approaches situations from the educational standpoint of raising awareness, starting the process of identifying problems, and creating an environment of open communication instead of attempting to force others to take on new beliefs or ideas. Her take away from this experience was that education is not effective when you alienate your audience. MacKereacher (2004) discussed the idea that education happens in the context of relationships. If those relationships break down, as described in the example, the learning stops.  

A way in which this situation could have been improved would be to express empathy towards those she was educating and develop open communication with them from the beginning. Barlas (2001) promoted the idea that empathetic and caring facilitators develop a relationship where multiple perspectives and differences are accepted during the educational experience. They also encouraged the idea of the relationship being one of co-learning. In this example, the police likely had a lot to teach the presenters about their unique situations and stigma related to the way they handle situations. By changing the approach from one of the presenters being right and the officers being wrong to one of co-understanding and brainstorming ways to implement the presenter’s ideas into the officer’s situation, there may have been room for more communication and learner buy-in.  

In the second example, Dr. Kittrell presented the positive aspects of a learning experience and the importance of the educator having their own support network.  Social Networking theory not only encourages the facilitator to build a relationship with the learner through explorative and comparative learning but also encourages the educator to build his or her own social network for support (Fowler, 2011).  In the second example, Dr. Kittrell was able to build relationships through icebreakers, pulling in the learner, and utilizing peer supports in the classroom. She was able to make her educational sessions more successful each time through the feedback of her personal support network. This likely prompted her feelings of being more successful in the second example compared to the first. 

Best Case

Much of what Jeffries practices and shared aligns with theories of relationships in adult learning; this made it a good case. Jeffries’ best facilitation experience involved collaboration between instructors in developing the course as well as collaboration between the learners and instructors to complete the project. MacKerarcher (2004) described collaborating as co-learning with facilitators and learners each having a stake in the learning; this activity helped build the “community of learners” (p. 210).  Jeffries demonstrated trust in the faculty and in the students to complete this project away from their normal learning environment. Lawson (2009) described trust as critical to learning relationships. Jeffries was keenly aware building trust between learners and facilitators fosters positive relationships needed for a learning community run to run smoothly (Imel, 1999; Mottern, 2012, Tennant, 2006, Zhao & Kuh, 2004).  His ideas about building rapport by showing genuine interest in others, modeling appropriate behaviors for learners, and offering experiences outside the learning environment and align with literature (Barlas, 2001; Buck, 2004; Lawson, 2009, Mottern, 2012). Inherently, the learners functioned both autonomously and relationally as independent and interdependent learners to complete group project; the approach incorporated various ways of learning (Buck, 2004; Imel, 1999; MacKeracher, 2004; Mottern, 2012). Students networked in their community and built external relationships by working directly with staff at the center (Fowler & Mayes, 2011; McConnell, Dalziel, Llewellyn, Laidlaw, & Hindmarsh, 2009).  The use of a challenge course experience encouraged risk taking, provided a common experience and fostered the development of the supportive social bonds students needed to complete the program in one year (Barlas, 2001; MacKeracher, 2004; Westaby, Pfaff & Redding, 2104). 

            Jeffries’ best learning experience could have been improved by building in reflection during and afterward. Reflection would have allowed students and faculty to be aware of not only how they were learning, but also how the experience could have been improved for future groups (Caffarella & Merriam as cited in MacKeracher, 2004).  Reflecting back on the project for this interview, Jeffries realized the project could have been improved by digging deeper into the center to see if there might have been additional opportunities for situated learning to encourage relational and social learning for students and faculty (MacKeracher, 2004).

Implications

            Dr. Kitrell’s experience with the police officers learning about LGBT awareness made a clear point that facilitators need to be prepared for communication breakdowns. In her case, the material being presented was too far removed from the experiences of the learners to be useful, which resulted in a loss of trust and a breakdown of communication. Collaborating with participants to establish ground rules for engagement is a strategy that allows participants to guide the learning experience, showing that their ideas and experiences are respected. Another avenue to setting up the learning experience would be to gauge what the learners already know by activating prior knowledge with activities such as carousel brainstorming, which can also be used to establish peer relationships in a small group setting (Sias, 2005, p. 378). This would allow the facilitator to adapt the materials to fill in the blanks for the learners, and alert the facilitator to potentially sensitive topic areas that may require adaptation or remediation for understanding. It is important to note Dr. Kitrell sought to improve her relationships with learners by seeking out another relationship with a mentor who could guide her strategies.

            Jeffries’ experience with establishing facilitator and peer relationships within a learning group teaches us that taking the time to establish relationships allows for a more enriching experience during the learning process. This fits well with Linden’s (2004) strategy, “go slow to go fast” (p.47). His strategy is a short way to express that taking the time to build relationships on the front end will create a smoother learning process and output of ideas on the back end. While not every learning group will have the opportunity to experience ropes courses and trusts falls together, Jeffries indicated the key to fostering relationships within the learning group relies heavily on the basic tenets of showing genuine interest, listening, and asking questions.

Reflection

Highlights

As a group, we learned valuable information about how relationships with others impact the work environment on a regular basis. It was thought provoking to hear from experienced professionals who were very vulnerable in talking about some of their early struggles and/or failures. Hearing their stories was something we could all relate to.

Process:

The practice analysis was divided appropriately amongst our four group members. Each individual contributed to each section, so that we could all appreciate the bigger picture of the assignment. One group member took the initiative to create a BOX account for the group to share articles, resources, and documents that could be prepared and updated for each member to see. Communication via email, text messages, and conference calls worked well for us. Frequent communication was important because it helped keep everyone informed of the progress and allowed us to utilize each group member’s expertise.

One challenge we had was drawing specific items from the theory reviews to incorporate into the practice analysis. Additionally, some of the interview questions we used could have been narrowed down to allow us to get to the root of our particular topic. Our last critique was that we could have started the interviews sooner to allow more time to analyze and complete the project.

Overall, this project has practical applications we will be able to use as we continue with our careers. It has been a terrific learning experience for each of us and we are all eager to continue to work together for the rest of the semester.

Table 2. Practice analysis

	Educator 1	Educator 2
Name of the case	Dr. Kittrell, the Local Recovery Coordinator for VA Northern Indiana Health Care System.	Joe Jeffries (pseudonym), Director of Learning Communities at an Indiana college
Why the best/worst	Best: Developing relationships upfront by introducing icebreakers, setting up “motivation grabbers”, and utilizing peers in the discussion. Worst: Challenging ones’ beliefs and directly confronting their ideas lead to an erosion of the educational relationship.	Best: Collaboration between instructors in developing the course as well as collaboration between the learners and instructors to complete the project. Worst: Improvement could have been made by digging deeper to see if additional learning opportunities would encourage relational and social learning.
Main theoretical ideas that we can learn from the cases	Social learning theory views behavior as central to relationships. People affect each other’s lives through the behaviors they exchange inside and outside the educational environment.	Social Networking theory not only encourages the facilitator to build a relationship with the learner through explorative and comparative learning, but also encourages the educator to build his or her own social network for support.
Main tools we can learn	- Education is not effective when you alienate your audience. - Express empathy and develop open communication - Build relationship through icebreakers - Make educational sessions more successful each time through the feedback of a personal support network.	- Collaborating as co-learning with facilitators and learners - Trust in the faculty and in the students - Build rapport by showing genuine interest in others, modeling appropriate behaviors for learners, and offering experiences outside the learning environment
How to improve this case	Activate prior knowledge, facilitate trust-building activities, and establish guidelines for communication.	Provide a learning experience that builds in reflection during and afterwards.

References

Barlas, C. (2001). Learning-within-relationship as context and process in adult education: Impact on transformative learning and social change agency. Paper presented at  the 2001 Proceedings of Adult Education Research Conference. Retrieved from http://newprairiepress.org/aerc/2001/papers/6

Buck, M. A. (2004). Mentoring: A promising strategy for creating and sustaining a learning organization. Adult Learning, 15(3/4), 8-11.

Fowler, C., & Mayes, J. (2011). Learning relationships from theory to design. Research in Learning Technology, 7(3). doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v7i3.11554

Imel, S. (1999). Using groups in adult learning: Theory and practice. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 19(1), 54.

Lawson, K. (2009). The trainer's handbook. San Francisco: Pfeiffer

Linden, R. (2003). The discipline of collaboration. Leader to Leader, 2003(29), 41-47. doi: 10.1002/ltl.37

MacKeracher, D. (2004). Making sense of adult learning (2nd ed.). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

McConnell, D., Dalziel, A., Llewellyn, G., Laidlaw, K., & Hindmarsh, G. (2009). Strengthening the social relationships of mothers with learning difficulties. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(1), 66-75. doi:10.1111/j.1468-3156.2008.00526.x

Mottern, R. (2012). Educational alliance: The importance of relationships in adult education with court-mandated students. Adult Learning, 23(3), 111-119. doi:10.1177/1045159512452409

Sias, P. M. (2005). Workplace relationship quality and employee information experiences. Communication studies, 56(4), 375-395. doi: 10.1080/10510970500319450

Tennant, M. (2006). Psychology and adult learning. Abingdon, OX: Routledge

Westaby, J. D., Pfaff, D. L., & Redding, N. (2014). Psychology and social networks: A dynamic network theory perspective. American Psychologist, 69(3), 269-284. doi:10.1037/a0036106

Zhao, C., & Kuh, G. D. (2004). Adding value: Learning communities and student engagement. Research in Higher Education, 45(2), 115-138. doi:10.1023/B:RIHE.0000015692.88534.de