Pedagogy of Collegiality: A Case Study in Doctoral Education

Background:
Doctoral education in social work does not have the same curriculum content
requirements or subject to accreditation by the Council on Social Work Education
(CSWE), as are baccalaureate and master’s programs (Reid & Edwards, 2006). This
reflects doctoral education’s orientation to academia and research over that of practice,
and permits a certain level of creativity and flexibility in program design and pedagogy.
Regardless of content, debate persists over how social work education at all levels can
facilitate critical thinking and promote deep learning persists (Entwistle, 2007; Gregory
& Holloway, 2005).
This paper examines the pedagogy of collegiality (Chavez et al., 2006) as an
approach to social work doctoral education. This teaching style embodies a mutual
learning among instructors and students that contrasts with the traditional top-down
approach to learning. Some advantages of a collegial pedagogy are that it recognizes
various sources of expertise, promotes active participation and learning, and provides
professional socialization. In addition, it exemplifies social work values including
empowerment and mutual respect (NASW, 1999), and mimics healthy client-provider
relationships. The effectiveness of a collegial pedagogy will be considered within the
context of doctoral social work education, as well as its application to social work
education more generally.

Methods:
Through a case study approach (Aita & McIlvan, 1999) of a doctoral course
entitled, ‘Teaching in Social Work,’ students critiqued the course’s underlying
pedagogical approach. The course ostensibly addressed the teaching of evidence-based
practices, but focused more on the experiential process of teaching and learning. Using
specified principles (Boettcher, 2007), the students and professor engaged in dialogue
about the design of the course and its effectiveness as a learning environment.
Several characteristics of the course are of particular interest. First, the course
was taught by the dean of the school, which heightened both the real and perceived power
differential between students and instructor. Second, the course used an ‘emerging
syllabus’ so that the content and structure of the course was not apparent at the outset.
Third, the issue of grading was left as an open discussion throughout the course, both for
teaching in general and within the course itself. Lastly, the course examined the teaching
of evidence-based practice (EBP), a topic heavily debated within the field (Mullen et al.,
2006).

Results:
The class critique based on Boettcher’s learning principles revealed both strengths
and challenges. The strengths of the class included: examining various learning styles
through the use of the Kolb inventory and self-reflection papers; exploring academic
resources including training on accessing library databases and collaborating with
professors from other institutions; and facilitating independent projects that can
contribute to scholarship via academic journals and/or professional conferences.
Challenges within the class included: shifting priorities and expectations; lack of clear
objectives and focus; non-traditional learning environment and role assignment.
Based on this critique, consensus was reached that underlying the course was a
pedagogy of collegiality. The themes that most clearly emerged from this pedagogical
approach were: 1) power differential and its impact on the learning environment; 2)
expectations of students and teachers need to be identified and discussed throughout the
course; and 3) ambiguity can serve both as an inhibiting and facilitating factor
(sometimes simultaneously) to learning.

Conclusion:
There are challenges to a collegial approach, particularly when there are real and
perceived power differences between teacher and student. Teachers must be willing to
relinquish a degree of power while students must become prepared to accept it. In
addition, this approach may be more challenging, and perhaps inappropriate, in certain
subjects or courses where students need more direction. Still, pedagogy of collegiality
offers a useful approach for schools of social work, especially in doctoral education in
which many students already have a wealth of experience and knowledge.
Reference:

Aita, V.A. & McIlvain, H.E. (1999). An armchair adventure in case study research. In
B.F. Crabtree & W.L. Miller (Eds.), Doing Qualitative Research, 2nd Ed. (pp.
253-268). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Boettcher, J. (2007). Ten Core Principles for Designing Effective Learning

Environments: Insights from Brain Research and Pedagogical Theory. Innovate.
3(3). Retrieved from
http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=54

Chavez, V., Turalba, R.N, & Malik, S. (2006). Teaching public health through a
pedagogy of collegiality. American Journal of Public Health, 96(7), 1175-1180.

Entwistle, N. (2007). Promoting deep learning through teaching and assessment. In L.

Suskie (ed.), Assessment to promote deep learning: Insights from AAHE’s 2000
and 1999 Assessment Conferences. (pp. 9-20). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Gregory, M. & Holloway, M. (2005). The debate as a pedagogical tool in social policy
for social work students. Social Work Education, 24(6), 617-637.

Mullen, E.J., Bellamy, J.L., Bledso, S.E., & Francois, J.J. (2006, October 16). Teaching
evidence-based practice. Paper presented at the 2006 Symposium on Improving
the Teaching of Evidence-based Practice. Retrieved from
http://www.utexas.edu/ssw/ceu/practice/articles.html

National Association of Social Workers. (1999). Code of Ethics of the National

Association of Social Workers. Washington, DC: NASW Press.

Reid, P.N. & Edwards, R.L. (2006). The purpose of a school of social work – An
American perspective. Social Work Education, 25(5), 461-484.