373...... . {1:14 2‘ 39.4.“: 2. 3:21 :3 3.1.1151.th V 1.94.4”... .nhhu.‘ V s 5: V 3...}. a”. LE}... . Ii 9 1 r‘ . L2...) 5.2:"..2...” 1.! ‘0: Yi: 3. can 5. :0)....I~l. Q’?IYY ‘2: 313:1;th :x “nurturliz V 1:... 2. .e 231::- 3‘"; . . I... 19.”...2: r . .V .: . .. r .1... :... , .371»... x n . “150:: . I 2... I a 4. : . , a .: . . . .. I irtfluxtv’: sdxfi\.v.fltut . r . .V x V I... .a ”cummVfithtliVM. bro... .i ~ x 11.1.». tr. . ritig.‘ 5.1.3.551!» 5.11:3. 1...“... :!!903 . v) (5.21.: . 2:... ...2;.:...?:. .XH‘V Itlrz. .l.v...y..m.hr:. .5 >! t! n... , Vn......\..xux.....f «Ex-l 0. a. 8.2.5621. 0 x £1.95 .,?.Il{~ .. I. .V.\II$ $3.15.. THEUS 3001 This is to certify that the dissertation entitled EMANCIPATORY LEARNING: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF CRITICAL REFLECTION IN INTERNET FAMILY STUDIES STUDENTS presented by Deborah C. DePoole Bailey has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for VEh-D- (REWCm—Eamil¥—&—Child Ecology Major professor Eng/E Elma M; ,5 499+ MS U i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 LIBRARY Michigan State Unlverslty PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. To AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE I DATE DUE DATE DUE New Jio‘ii EEE fc'ii'f U!!! 3 I 2005 . , n 'l‘AL VV .‘ 9 ‘5! L 6’01 cJCIRC/DateDuepss-p. 15 EMANCIPATORY LEARNING: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF CRITICAL REFLECTION IN INTERNET FAMILY STUDIES STUDENTS By Deborah C. DePoole Bailey A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements F or the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Family and Child Ecology 2001 ABSTRACT EMANCIPATORY LEARNING: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF CRITICAL REFLECTION IN INTERNET FAMILY STUDIES STUDENTS By Deborah C. DePoole Bailey Little is known about the process of critical reflection in interpersonal relationships. The process of critical self-reflection, the personal application of critical thinking, is believed to be a necessary component of learning, especially in facilitating changes in personal beliefs and perspectives (Brookfield, 1987, 1995a; Ennis, 1992; Kitchener & King, 1994; Mezirow, 1981, 1991, 1996, 1998; Norris, 1992; Schon, 1987). Using Habermas’ theory of emancipatory interests in knowledge, Brown (1993) identified the ability to critically reflect as an essential skill necessary in the profession of human ecology. The ability to critically reflect empowers the ecologist to examine the construction of personal meaning as formed by family, social and cultural environments and to identify and question those meanings that inhibit one from becoming authentic or self-fulfilling (Brown, 1993; Morgaine, 1992,1994). Brown proposed that human ecologists facilitate this process in the families that they serve. Interpersonal Relationships, FCE 444, is an Internet course designed to facilitate critical reflection in students. Using a qualitative research model of grounded theory and a general theoretical framework for critical reflection, evidence of critical reflection was documented within the students’ semester papers and analyzed. From this analysis, a conceptual model of critical reflection was developed that accommodates multiple methods of emancipatory learning and critical reflection. It is hypothesized that no one model of critical reflection can adequately describe the process that individuals might utilize when critically reflecting on an intimate relationship or integrating a formal course of study with personal beliefs. Cepyright by DEBORAH c. DEPOOLE BAILEY 2001 Dedication With sincere appreciation and deep gratitude I dedicate this work to my family. To my mother, Doreene DePoole, whose celebration of life sustained me in my studies. To my husband, Edmond Bailey, whose love and attention nurtured my soul. To my sons, Scott, Erik and Adam, whose humor and unabashed need for attention anchor me to reality. a {flat ACKNOWLEDGMENTS There were many Human Ecology faculty, staff, and students who assisted me in the process of researching and writing this dissertation. With hopes of not offending someone by not mentioning their contribution, I would like to acknowledge a few people specifically. To Stephanie Perentesia, for never growing weary of my questions or perturbed with my failure to return library materials on time. To Dr. Barbara Ames, for being a mentor and preparing me for the classroom. To Dr John Dirkx in the School of Education for introducing me to the works of Habermas and Mezirow. To Dr. Francisco A. Villarruel, for questioning, correcting and encouraging the research process. To Dr. Norma Bobbitt, who gave me words for what I was seeking and permission to pursue my interests. Finally, words fail to express the joy and gratitude that Ifeel in having had the opportunity to work for with Dr. David Imig, so I will simply say, Thank You. I am indebted to every fellow student I have sat next to in class and stood in front of as a teacher. vi CID Table of Contents CHAPTER I - STATEMENT OF PROBLEM Background of the Problem Purpose of the Study . Significance of the Study Discussion of Cognitive Map . Philosophical and Theoretical Framework Philosophy of Habermas and Brown . Human Ecology Theory CHAPTER H - RESEARCH CONTEXT Family Life Education, Home Economists and Human Ecologists as Agents of Change . Habermas and Human Interest Habermas and Family Life Education Emancipatory Learning and Critical Self-Reflection . The Internet Interpersonal Relationships Class as a Prompt for Critical Reflection Synthesis of Family Life Education and Critical Reflection. CHAPTER III - RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Research Objectives . Research Questions Assumptions . Pilot Studies vii .10 .14 .16 .18 .22 .28 .31 .32 .33 .35 Research Design Research Process Sampling Reliability and Validity Criteria of Adequacy and Appropriateness Data Analysis in Establishing Validity Data Triangulation Conceptual and Operational Definitions Researcher’s Role Limitations CHAPTER 1V - RESULTS Overview of Results . Analysis Description of Sample. Report of Findings Research Questions Critical Reflections Additional Findings Non-Critical Reflection Serendipitous Findings Paradigmatic Styles of Reflection viii .36 .38 .38 .39 .40 .41 .41 .42 .53 .54 .56 .56 .57 .58 .58 .59 .65 .65 .66 .66 [\ lllll'l‘ E 1‘ .- \lll t! CHAPTER V — DISSCUSSION Overview of Findings . Proposed Conceptual Framework Conceptual Model of Critical Reflection Discussion of Research Questions Critical Reflection on Intimate Relationships Using Course Concepts Critical Reflection on Relationship Problems Presence of Critical Reflection Components . Evidence of Habermas’ Concept of Human Interest and Knowledge Additional Findings Findings Requiring Further Analysis . Implications Emancipatory Learning and the Process of Critical Reflection. Emancipatory Learning and Pedagogical Practice . Emancipatory Learning and Professional Application Conclusion Appendices Bibliography ix .74 .74 .79 .84 .84 .89 .93 .94 .97 .98 100 101 103 106 110 111 137 List of Figures Figure 1: Conceptual Map of Critical Reflection in Family Studies Students Figure 2: Critical Reflection Activity Data Codes Figure 3. Operational Map of A Qualitative Exploration of Student Papers for Indicators of Critical Reflection . . . . Figure 4. Demonstration of Instrumental Knowledge in Student Papers Figure 5. Critical and Non-Critical Reflection in Student Papers Figure 6. Description of Codes Used in Student Cross Case Matrix . Figure 7. Cross Case Display Matrix of Data for Student Papers 1 Through 10. Figure 8. Sample of a Case Dynamic Matrix Illustrating Components of Critical Reflection Found in a Student Paper . . . . Figure 9. Conceptual Model for Emancipatory Learning as Found 1n Student Papers. . Figure 10. Parsimonious Model of Critical Reflection Process as Found in Student Papers . . . Figure 11. Kolb’s Model of Experiential Learning .52 .55 .67 .68 .70 .71 .81 .82 .83 120 Back an'it hum: Educ: . . I “IL-‘12:: [hen-at Practét familie 1988 I. Begin; g . aimcul family the 20'. 001ij dimes: Com-”b q Chapter I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Background of the Problem Family and Child Ecology is a course of study that prepares students to work in the fields of child development, family and youth services, family therapy, community services and family life education. The core curriculum includes courses dealing with human grth and development, marriage and family relationships, and parent education. These courses are designed to introduce students to families as ecosystems within the socially constructed systems of culture and technology, all contained within the natural environment. Graduates of Family and Child Ecology are trained in the practical application of family study concepts to work in public and private settings to help families improve their interpersonal, social, and economic life experiences. The field of human ecology works towards the enhancement of the well-being of families and in improvement in the conditions of their existence (Sontag & Bubolz, 1988). Home economists were the forerunners of the human ecology movement. Beginning with the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, home economists were charged with trying to help families adjust to an industrial society. The movement from rural agriculture to congested urban communities was believed to be eroding the fabric of family life. Many of the problems that impinged on a family’s sense of well-being in the 20th century continue to plague the 21St century families. Though there exists a Proliferation of family life education courses and community service programs, marital distress and parenting deficiencies continue to flourish, eroding well-being and contributing to emotional distress. Little can be said about the overall effectiveness of the it since uith 199:}. expe: ini’i; Peter apps; . PIN? Itclmi to W a: t; sitUatio the intervention programs designed to teach families healthier ways of being together since assessment and evaluation has historically been limited to participant satisfaction with little if any evaluation of long-term improvements (Fine & Henry, 1991; Small, 1990; Thomas & Arcus, 1992). Yet some participants in these courses and programs do experience long term benefits while a few secure permanent improvements over their initial difficulties (Olsen, 1983; Stanley & Markman, 1998; Stanley, Markman, St. Peters & Leber, 1995). This study proposes that the human ecologists take a different perspective when approaching families and addressing their needs. It does not negate traditionalforms of preventive or intervention services; rather, it shifts the focus from simply transmitting technical and communicative life skills and looks additionally to assist individuals toward emancipatory learning, the acquisition of self-knowledge, as a key to achieving transformation in life. Self-knowledge, knowing how one came to believe as one does, can allow a person to step out of the restrictive beliefs and behaviors and respond to situations in more authentic ways that are empowering and life-enhancing. To be such a facilitator the human ecologist must first become an emancipatory student. Such learning requires the students to critically reflect on their personal experiences in relation to the concepts being taught in the family studies courses in colleges and universities. By doing this, students clarify personal beliefs and PerSpectives and become free from imposing these as truths for others to follow. IEmancipatory teachers and program facilitators allow their students to discover their own truths and provide them the opportunity to become emancipated learners in return. Purp‘ Since 1 L Klan- Ifflt‘t' need 1 exam in the W686: insuu aPDa: Sludle indiri Purpose of the Study This study examined how students critically reflected in an intemet family studies course from the perspective of emancipatory learning and self-knowledge. Since little is known about the process of critical reflection in interpersonal relationships, this class provided an opportunity to examine how students use critical reflection to understand intimate relationships and to relate course concepts to real life experiences. Specifically, this study explored student experiences of leaming as presented in semester papers with the intention of gaining insight into how the concepts taught in this family science class, Interpersonal Relationships, triggered students to reflect, evaluate, adapt or reject principles that could increase their sense of well-being and improve their relationship with another person. Significance of the Study With expanding access to collegiate education through the intemet, there exists a need to study the academic quality of the virtual student’s performance. This study examined how virtual university students critically reflected on the material presented in the course. As comparative analysis research, evidence of critical reflection as presented in the papers was documented and compared with other theories. In some instances the data verified previous research but new emerging theory also became apparent. This knowledge will contribute to the field of family life education and family Studies by providing some insight into thinking and reflective experiences by individuals when they recognize something is wrong in their family or within other intim under panic could leami Marja harm the pr: prol‘es felled 90m family “811+ ] , PhllOSO 0’”ij intimate relationships. For human ecologists, this information will assist in understanding the variation in acceptance and application of presented material by participants in community service programs and life skill classes. Such knowledge could be useful in program development and facilitation by providing insight into the learning processes of students. For the profession of human ecology, this study is built upon the work of Marjorie M. Brown], and will contribute to the development and training of future human ecologists by exploring Habermas’ concepts of human interest with a focus on the process of critical self-reflection. This knowledge will assist all who prepare for the profession of human ecology and family life education, by creating an awareness of the reflective skills necessary to fulfill Brown’s vision by addressing the personal beliefs, communicative misunderstandings and social discrepancies that interfere with a family’s ability to nurture its members to self-realization and achieve a greater sense of well-being. \ I . PhllOsophical Studies of Home Economics in the United States: Basic Ideas By Which Home nOlnists Understand Themselves (I993). i Sulu l Key HDialectical Discourse within Student (critical reflective process) OCognitive & Emotional Blocks hampering the Critical Reflective Process 4. Different Perspective Family Studies 1 Student ° 3.. ¢ > ‘ ’ Problem Solutions Identification .Figgre 1. The conceptual map illustrates students’ critical reflection of information received from the interpersonal relationship course that is filtered through beliefs and Perceptions. 1. Students recognize a problem resulting from a conflict with a belief or Perception and the incoming information. 2. They appraise the problem and critically 'eflect on personally held beliefs. 3. They generate solutions to the problem evaluating effectiveness by 4. Developing a difl’erent perspective to the knowledge and the PFOblem (Mezirow, 1991; Brookfield, 1987; Schon, 1987). At each step students Choose to reflect on deeper levels or halt the process by denying the existence of the PFOblem, minimizing the significance of the conflict, or assimilating the opposing mt:OI'Ination into something that can be more easily understood with less conflict. CrltiCal reflection can lead to emancipatory learning if they integrate this new knowledge into their perceptions and beliefs (Mezirow, 1991, 1998; Brookfield, 1987). \ Figure 1. Conceptual Map of Critical Reflection in Family Studies Students Discr refit. meant: (mm 6] piOblCI these ll 00mm Bream“ pmblcr feeling. affirm-l the Grill the Silld This Der Ptoblem Discussion of Cognitive Map The proposed cognitive map (see Figure l.) is a generic model of critical reflection based on the theoretical work of Brookfield (1987, 1995a, & 1995b), Dewey (1933), Kitchener & King (1994), Kolb (1984), Mezirow (1981, 1991, 1996, 1998), and Scht‘m (1987, 1994, 1995). It illustrates the potential process of critical reflection of a family studies student. The process has at its center the beliefs and perspectives by which a student makes meaning of incoming information. When this information does not support the student’s current understandings, a problem arises. Problem identification is the first step in the process of critical reflection (movement 1 in the model). With the identification of a problem the student begins to appraise the meaning of the problem in relation to beliefs and perspectives, Critical Self-Reflection (movement 2 in the model). At this point the student can deny the existence of the problem, minimize its meaning, or assimilate it into current beliefs. By doing any of these things the process of critical reflection becomes restricted. Ifcritical reflection continues on the construction of thoughts, feelings, actions and beliefs, insight into meaning schemes and perspectives is gained, increasing the ability to resolve the Problem. This insight can guide the student to the realization that old ways of thinking, feeling, behaving and believing will not resolve the problem, leading to the exploration Ofnew solutions (movement 3 in the model). The final, but certainly not the last step in the critical reflection process is, development of difierent perspectives, which enables the Student to view the problem from a new perspective (movement 4 in the model). This new perspective reframes the situation or information that instigated the original Problem and broadens the student’s ability to resolve the conflict. Philosophical and Theoretical Framework Philosophy of Habermas and Brown As qualitative research this study is interested in how family studies students assimilate course concepts into beliefs using the philosophy of human interest in learning as developed by J firgen Habermas. In Knowledge and Human Interest. Habermas proposes that humans generate interest in knowledge through technical /instrumental, practical /communicative and emancipatory means of learning. Each area of interest determines how the individual approaches the need for learning and subsequently influences how acquired knowledge is implemented. The highest level of interest, emancipatory learning, generates interest in self-knowledge. At this level the learner explores how meaning has been generated within oneself and questions socially constructed meanings that limit one’s perception and potential (1968). In 1993, Brown used Habermas’ philosophy to explore professional application of human ecology values in the work of home economists / human ecologists. According to Brown, historically the profession of home economics was designed to teach life skills that could improve a family’s sense of well-being. Over time she recognized that this process was insufficient and needed to be coupled with the human ecologist’s commitment to transform the social inequities that oppress families. It is believed that human ecologists must work as agents of change in teaching families to 1“define their perceptions and to challenge the political and social policies that prevent humms from achieving an authentic sense of self (1993). Brown presents the learning interests of emancipatory knowledge that Habermas identified as a call to professional ethics for the human ecologists. This is the philosophical grounding from which this Hum; intent Socioc exhi'ti emim' Elchcr exlimit (Brow heme; Rhett COmex as CUlti “010in research begins. This study is not intended to prove or test a theory but rather to explore the presence of critical reflection. From this exploration, new theory will be constructed to assist human ecologists, family life educators and university professors in teaching family study concepts and facilitating emancipatory learning. Human Ecology Theory Human ecology theory views families as energy transforming systems that interact with larger systems consisting of the natural, physical, human constructed and sociocultural/behavioral environments. The family is identified as the environed unit exhibiting interdependence between the natural and the cultural/behavioral environments (Andrew, Bubolz & Paolucci, 1980; Bubolz & Sontag, 1994; Bubolz, Eicher & Sontag, 1979). Ecological study recognizes environed units as a part of the larger ecosystem requiring the researcher to become cognizant of the whole when examining the smaller units of family and individuals. Following a constructionist’s framework consistent with human ecology (Brown, 1993; deGroot, 1988), data from student papers was examined from a hermeneutical perspective. Such a perspective recognizes the construction of knowledge in the papers resulting fiom the students’ lived experiences within the Context of family life as environed units, within schools, churches, and neighborhoods as cultural/ behavioral environments contained within the larger physical/ natural enVironments of their community and the world. The underlying theoretical fiamework for this research is based on this human ec01Ogical model. The objectives of ecological research encourage investigations that mo the $1.3 Writ relate Shapil are concerned with generating knowledge for the improvement of home life (Brown, 1993; deGroot, 1988; Sontag & Bubolz, 1988). Multiple applicability and generalization should translate to field application and professional preparation (deGroot, 1988; Westney, Brabble & Edwards, 1988). In other words, what is learned in research should be usable in the classroom where human ecologists are being trained, as well as in the public domain of workshops, seminars and popular publications. From the standpoint of multiple applicability and generalization, this study fulfills this requirement in that it views family studies students as being individuals in an intimate relationship (environed units) within a cultural environment with the potential of shaping the cultural / behavioral enviromnent of future generations. inditic 1994; f 66010.; limits: Report hOme { homer; to hum and Cor (Sontag being 65 Chapter [1 RESEARCH CONTEXT Family Life Education Specialists, Home Economists and Human Ecologists as Agents of Change The concept of offering courses on how to raise a family, today known as family life education, was first documented at the turn of the 20th century. Such courses were designed to help families deal with the rapid changes in society that were believed to be eroding the fabric of family life (Allen & Crosble—Bumett; 1992; Arcus, 1992; Brown, 1993; Morgaine, 1992, 1994; Sollie & Kaetz, 1992; Sontag & Bubolz, 1988; Westney, Brabble & Edwards, 1988). Despite historical efforts, these types of educational programs continue to be a prominent need (Arcus, 1992; Schvaneveldt & Young, 1992). A primary goal of family life education is to instill a sense of well-being in individuals and to strengthen and enrich families (Sontag & Bubolz, 1988; Hughes, 1994; Schvaneveldt & Young, 1992). As a component within the discipline of human ecology, family life education is born out of the concept of home economics as a professional field of study specializing in preventative education. In the Lake Placid Report, Paolucci and Hook introduced the term, human ecology, as a new direction of home economics that expands the study of family beyond the traditional boundaries of homemaking (Brown, 1993). The traditional science of home economics has given way to human ecology as a multidimensional social science that seeks to integrate theoretical and conceptual knowledge with organizational knowledge and professional practice (Sontag & Bubolz, 1988). Within this ecological framework, families are recognized as being essential for nurturing individuals within society. There exists an interactive 10 relationship between families, their members, society, culture and the natural environment that defines an ecosystem in which human behavior takes place. Human Ecologists as home economists or family life educators, recognize the inter- relationships of these systems and seek to help families maximize their well-being while contributing to the overall good of the larger ecological perspective. As an applied science, human ecology recognizes the innate value of human beings and seeks to identify and promote those things which enhance human development, actualize human potential and improve the human condition and quality of life (Westney, Brabble & Edwards, 1988). The fundamental premise of human ecology is helping human beings to develop their capacity to manage their lives in a rational and effective manner; to develop an understanding of themselves in relation to the forces and counter forces that impinge on their capacity to become fully functioning. (Westney, Brabble & Edwards, 1988, p. 130) Family Life Education, as a profession, does this through a variety of instructional methods ranging from brief workshops through more intensive classes offered through schools, churches, community mental health institutions, hospitals and universities. There are some questions regarding how well family life programs achieve these goals, but there seems to be general agreement that some programs do achieve this Palpose (Markman & Floyd, 1980; Olsen, 1983; Russell, & Lyster, 1992; Stanley & Markman, 1997). In Philosophical Studies of Home Economics in the United States, Brown uses Habermas’ work on practical / communicative knowledge to explore the future of home 11 CCOIL low}. that 5 tell- Farm}: Stills. Socla Mlle Pattie Offer: of th. [Sin them Work P flux 511:}; p economists. Home economists, as human ecologists and family life educators, have a foundational mission in their profession. The mission of home economics is to enable families, both as individual units and generally as a social institution, to build and maintain systems of action which lead (1) to maintaining in individuals self-formation and (2) to enlighten, cooperative participation in the critique and formulation of social goals and means for accomplishing them. (Brown & Paolucci, 1979, pp] 17-8) The mission of human ecology is to empower family life educators to initiate change within individuals as a process towards self-formation with a greater sense of well-being. The process of initiating change takes place within an educational context. Family Life Educators provide models for healthy communication and effective life skills. The information presented is based upon research fi'om multiple fields within social science. The educator acts as a facilitator or conduit, making knowledge available while use or application of this knowledge is left to the discretion of the participants. Of concern is the resistance some participants display by not adopting the offered knowledge and applying it to their lives. However, it is recognized that improvement may not always be within the realm of the individual’s own resources and may in fact be controlled by social institutions. Using the work of Habermas, Brown argues the need for home economists to become change agents of the social institutions that repress individuals and families and prevent them from achieving self-fulfillment (1993). Traditionally, home economists provided workshops and classes designed to improve a family’s ability to handle problems such as nutritional food preparation, communication and financial responsibility. In reality, such problems may not be within the realm of the family’s resources, but rather the 12 ofnd familit tester ltfiec Praeti min result of inadequate food distribution and moral indifference to the needs of others (Brown, 1993; Morgaine, 1992). Work to address these problems extends beyond the teaching of homemaking skills, requiring instead, an empowerment of families. Brown states: Families must be empowered and participate in self-determination regarding their own lives and the kind of society that will contribute to the needs of all families and development of individuals. . .All participants [home economists] should seek to develop in themselves and to encourage in others the attitudes and competencies necessary for rational discussion. (Brown, 1993, pp. 486-7) Human Ecology as a social science is multidisciplinary. It addresses the needs of individuals within families, but it also questions the social contexts upon which families are dependent for survival. Brown redefines that the home economist of yesterday as today’s human ecologist and as an ecologist, is responsible to become self- reflective about one ’s own beliefs and critically reflective of the social institutions and practices that shape social misunderstandings. Such reflection, according to Brown, illustrates Habermas’ philosophy of emancipatory learning. Emancipatory learning, though most closely aligned with social or structural injustices (Brown, 1993; Freire, 1970; Habermas, 1968; Morgaine, 1994), can also be applied to intrapersonal perceptions (Brookfield, 1995a; Mezirow, 1991). Emancipatory learning begins with the desire to become self-reflective. Before human ecologists can rise to Brown’s call to become agents of social change, they must first become cognizant of their own personal restraints. This study explores Haberrnas’ concept of emancipation as a human interest as a key to gaining insight into the drinking 13 01' If: the. Habe Obtain Praetic abilitie imPICn the itar Womb h Wiles ( Smdles I. ”00633,. or reflecting process that an individual experiences as movement towards personal change or transformation. Habermas and Human Interest In 1968, Jiirgen Habermas introduced the concept of a multi-level acquisition of human knowledge which shapes learning through interest. In Knowledge and Hum_an hires}, he proposes that humans generate interest in knowledge based on their perceptions of what is worth knowing. What is of value to the student determines the interest towards technical linstrumental, practical /communicative or emancipatory means of learning. Each area of interest determines how the individual approaches the nwd for learning and subsequently influences how acquired knowledge is implemented. Technical Instrumental Learning represents the level of interest needed for obtaining fundamental information or skills for performing a specific task or job. Practical / Communicative Learning represents human interest in developing multiple abilities for creating and maintaining personal and professional relationships as well as implementing technical /instrumental knowledge. Emancipatory Learning represents a human interest that reaches beyond relationships and instrumental knowledge and takes the learner into the realm of self-reflection, questioning how one came to know what is worth knowing and questioning the larger social structure that shaped these beliefs and values (Brown, 1993; Kreber & Cranton, 2000; Habermas, 1968; Mezirow, 1991). Habermas is a critical theorist, social scientist and philosopher who focused his studies on the manner in which humans construct knowledge. He has explored the processes by which humans come to know what is considered to be a truth and 14 challenged the positivists’ construction of absoluteness. What is offered is not a theory of learning; rather it is a philosophy that has its foundations in Kant, Heger, and Marx (Brown, 1993; Edgar & Sedwick, 1999; Habermas, 1968, 1971; Thompson, 1981). As a philosophy, his work provides insight into the qualitative aspect of learning by giving meaning to the paradigms through which a Ieamer must move: instrumental, communicative and emancipatory. Recognizing that society historically has placed greater value on technical/instrumental truths, Habermas builds argument towards cultivating the higher levels of knowing. Instrumental knowledge represents deductive logic as something which is true and testable. Instrumental knowledge can be memorized and duplicated fiom one generation of students to the next with little change. The concepts taught in the empirical sciences are excellent examples of this type of knowledge. For learners who seek instrumental /technical knowledge, there is a level of security in knowing the right answers and comfort in learning material in an absolute manner. Habermas identifies instrumental / technical interests as an essential component of knowledge with communicative / practical interests as being a higher level of interest. In communicative learning the focus is on learning to communicate through understanding and discussion. Communicative interests are based on the desire to understand, get along and be with others. For learners, communicative learning is the process by which social norms and expectations are transmitted and behavior is shaped. Through rational discourse, knowledge is constructed and shared meanings are created. Unlike instrumental knowledge that has its focus on objective problem-solving, communicative knowledge is more subjective, with culture, social norms, and political 15 interests influencing the perceptions that collaborate in determining knowledge (Habermas, 1968; Mezirow, 1991; Brown, 1993). The highest level of acquiring knowledge, according to Habermas, is the ability to critically reflect on one’s beliefs and the acquisition of previously learned knowledge. The learner who seeks this level is moving within a paradigm of emancipatory learning. Emancipation comes to the Ieamer through critical reflection on each of the lower levels of knowing, instrumental and communicative, and examining how one has come to believe, think, feel and behave (Kreber & Cranton, 2000). The learner examines personal experiences as formed by parents, family, fiiends and social institutions. The learner examines the process by which thinking has been shaped and brings conscious beliefs, fears and hopes. This leads to reflection on how one comes to . know something, how knowledge is used, and redefines the perception of self in relation to others. Such a level of learning frees one from assimilated beliefs formed in the early years of life, which in turn shape behavior (Habermas, 1971; Mezirow, 1981, 1991) I mean the experience of emancipatory power of reflection, which the subject experiences in itself to the extent that it becomes transparent to itself in the history of its genesis. The experience of self-reflection articulates itself substantially in the concept of a self-formative process. Methodolically it leads to a standpoint from which the identity of reason with the will to reason freely arises. For the pursuit of reflection knows itself as a movement of emancipation. (Habermas, 1971, p. 197-8) Habermas and Family Life Education As facilitators of knowledge, Family Life Educators work with families in securing technical / instrumental and practical / communicative knowledge. When a 16 family life educator facilitates a program on financial management, technical / instrumental information is presented. Practical / communicative knowledge is also provided, since the participant’s ability to interpret and communicate the use of financial resources within the family becomes key to the ability to improve a sense of well-being. This information is given to the family as a tool to assist them in building financial skills (instrumental knowledge) that will reduce interpersonal stress (communicative knowledge) by providing better resource management skills. It may not be enough for a family life educator to teach these skills to a family. Too oflen these skills are taught, but the workshop participants seem unwilling or unable to implement what has been learned. If instruction adequately addresses the application of technical knowledge and assists the participant in the communicative or practical application, the next level of inquiry would lead to Habermas’ emancipatory knowledge (Brown, 1993; Morgaine, 1994). Emancipatory knowledge is self-knowledge. It is the desire to understand who one is as a means of coming to know truth. If the student is unable to implement what is being learned, the task is to determine what is blocking the student fi'om adopting the needed behavior. Habermas believes that individuals must reflect on themselves as learners and use knowledge to uncover what is not known about the self. Self-reflection uncovers assumptions and meaning perspectives that inhibit the individual from achieving full potential, which Habermas calls becoming the “authentic self.” Family Life Educators, as human ecologists, have an ethical obligation to assist families in achieving this sense of “authentic self” by examining cultural and social understandings of knowledge that are oppressive (communicative interests), as well as their individual 17 per tot doi 01‘. 3111 19‘ aut €111 perceptions and meaning schemes (emancipatory interests) that are inhibiting the ability to become authentic (Brookfield, 1995a; Brown, 1993; Habermas, 1968; Mezirow, 1991; Morgaine, 1992, 1994). To do this the family life educators must be capable of doing what it is they ask of constituents. Human Ecologists must critically self-reflect on their own feelings, thoughts, beliefs and behaviors that prevent them fiom becoming authentic. They too must become emancipatory learners (Brookfield, 1995a; Brown, 1993; Morgaine, 1992, 1994). Emancipatory Learning and Critical Self-Reflection Emancipatory learning or interest is described by Habermas as being self- reflective. Like psychoanalytical counseling, the individual explores personal thoughts and beliefs for distortions of truth and redefines the self in pursuit of becoming authentic. The authentic self is self-formulating and free of cultural, social, environmental influences that blindly and falsely instill feelings of inferiority (Brookfield, 1995b; Brown, 1993; Freire, 1970; Habermas, 1968; Mezirow, 1991; Morgaine, 1994). Critical Self-Reflection is the key activity in emancipatory learning and involves evaluating what the learner has come to know of the self (Habermas, 1968; Mezirow, 1981, 1994). Critical Reflection is an examination of beliefs and meaning perspectives acquired through lived experiences (Mezirow, 1981, 1991, 1998; Brookfield, 1987, 1995a). One’s parents, fiiends, extended family, teachers and society shape these experiences and create within the individual “lifeworld knowledge.” This knowledge is Constructed by the individual in relationship with others, thereby becoming meaning l8 SUIT. By 1 con C011 1137? acti bee schemes and perspectives that are held as truths. All thoughts, beliefs, and behaviors are shaped by these constructed truths until they become challenged when some contradictory truth is presented. At first the individual may choose to filter out opposing information or assimilate it into current understanding. In time however, . some experiences may cause a crisis in self-perception, leaving the learner disoriented. By critically reflecting on ones’ experiences and assumptions the Ieamer is able to make conscious beliefs that shape perceptions and influence behavior. When beliefs become conscious, the learner is able to discern distorted perceptions based on childhood experiences and cultural bias and come to recognize what is really true. Transformation implies consciousness and ownership of what one believes and in turn what one’s actions will be (Mezirow, 1981, 1991, 1998). Historically, the field of education has not placed a value on this type of learning because it cannot easily be measured or understood (Brookfield, 1994; Habermas, 1968; Kitchener & King, 1994; SchOn, 1987). Critical thinking, which is different from critical self-reflection, is a highly valued skill in the field of education; however, both approaches are greatly underutilized in personal application (Dewey, 1933; Ennis, -1 992; Kitchener & King, 1994; Kolb, 1984; Norris, 1992; Schon, 1987). Critical thinking can be understood as an analytical process that identifies a problem and in a systematic manner generates and evaluates possible solutions until the problem is resolved (Brookfield, 1995a; Dewey, 1933; Ennis, 1992; Kitchener & King, 1994; Kolb, 1984; Norris, 1992; Schon, 1987, 1994,1995). Critical thinking is best applied to closed- ended problems in which a single or “best” solution can be applied. Critical reflection, though similar in process, is used with open-ended problems, or poorly structured l9 probl (Kite exan (Dev 21 eye indix 111631 expc 1mm problems that have multiple confounding variables and lack positivist solutions (Kitchener & King, 1994). Critical Reflection is an active process of using some form of knowledge to examine a belief or problem as a means of determining future beliefs and actions (Dewey, 1933; Yost, Sentar & F orlenza-Bailey, 2000). Dewey describes this process as a cycle of problem identification, reflection, exploration, and action (1933). The individual becomes aware of a currently held belief or problem through a variety of means such as in a classroom, a life experience or in an interpersonal relationship. The experience creates a discrepancy between what is held as a truth, i.e. college professors know everything about the classes they teach; with an encounter that challenges this belief, i.e. the professor gave information that was not consistent with the assigned reading. At first glance this discrepancy may not seem important and for many students such inconsistencies may be ignored or accommodated into their perception that professors are “all knowing,” i.e. she must have just misspoken. However, if the professor continues to give contradictory information the student may begin to question the experience and his understanding. This questioning becomes critical self-reflection when he begins to examine understanding as it relates to his perception: Why do I think professors brow everything about the classes they teach? Where did I get this belief? What if this is not true, what does this mean to me as a student? How does this make me feel? Why does this make me feel confident? Less confident? The process of critical reflection in this example focuses on the student’s perception of what is true and his understanding of what this truth means and how it came to be a truth within his mind (Brookfield, 1981, 1994; Mezirow, 1981, 1994, 1998). 20 How should one view college professors? As a subjective question there is no single answer. As a subjective problem the student has multiple perspectives from which professors can be viewed, but as an individual he has come to recognize only one of these perspectives. Critical Reflection becomes emancipatory when the student, afier critically reflecting on previously held assumptions about professors, becomes conscious of how this perception was instilled and is able to view the professor from a different perspective. Through critical self-reflection the student makes conscious beliefs and feelings that prevented him from questioning the professor’s information discrepancies. Such reflection allows the student to recognize his own competencies and achievements. In other words, the student becomes transformed fi'om a passive receptacle receiving knowledge to an active participant capable of co-constructing knowledge (Brookfield, 1994; Habermas, 1968; Kitchener & King, 1994; Mezirow, 1991 , 1994). Critical Reflection is a skill that can be taught (Brookfield, 1987, 1995a; F reire, 1970; Ennis, 1992; Kitchener & King, 1994; Kolb, 1984; Norris, 1992; Schon, 1987). The field of adult education has been studying the process of critical reflection as it relates to emancipatory or transforrnative learning (see Critical Reflection Theory, Appendix A.). Much is known about the critical reflection process as an experience in adult education, but little is known about the application of the process outside of an adult learning classroom. Knowledge about the process of critical reflection as it applies to interpersonal relationships and family dynamics is nonexistent and has been identified as an area needing research (Brookfield, 1987; Brown, 1993; Mezirow, 1991). 21 The] dye: comp helm mgr tcultt natur 1988. inter: tours years Vinu allow mm Class The Internet Interpersonal Relationships Class as a Prompt for Critical Reflection Interpersonal Relationships is a Human Ecology course that focuses on the dynamic nature of families. With a Human Ecology focus, families are studied as complex interacting units made up of individuals. An interdependent relationship between the individual, the family, and the larger environment is recognized and explored using an ecosystems model. As an ecosystem, the family is composed of organisms (environed unit or family members), contained within the social environment (culturally and technically determined by humans) and the natural environment (all .of nature not transformed by humans) (Paolucci, Hall & Axinn, 1977; Sontag & Bubolz, 1988) Interpersonal Relationships explores the environed unit by examining the internal structure of the family using the theories of family paradigms as developed by Kantor and Lehr (1975), Constantine (1986), Imig & Phillips (1992), Imig (1999). The course has been a requirement for several of the human ecology disciplines for many years. In the Spring 2000, the course became part of Michigan State University’s Virtual University offerings. The course curriculum was adapted for intemet instruction allowing students interface and branching abilities to complete the requirements at their own pace. An e-text was developed by the professor to replace the conventional classroom lectures and the Relational Assessment Scale software was included in the course web page to provide students with the ability to score a questionnaire. FCE 444, Interpersonal Relationships, is a course that introduces students to the concept of paradigmatic family structures also referred to as family paradigms. Family paradigms can be understood as four different designs that families construct to achieve 22 homeostasis or balance: Hierarchal Prescribed: Closed, Individualistic Autonomous: Random, Consensual Reflexive: Open, and Naturalistic Programmed: Synchronous (Constantine, 1986; Imig, 1999). Each of the paradigms represents a family’s systems approach to achieving goals and using resources. In Closed families, the pursuit of goals and the use of resources are determined by those in power, the parents. Hierarchal patterns of authority, divisions of labor among family members, and clear role delineation also characterize the Closed paradigm. The parental hierarchy determines the rules and boundaries that help in determining who is a member of the family. For these families, tradition is valued and used as a guide for planning activities. Random family paradigms thrive on spontaneity and cooperation. Goals are determined by the individuals and resources are used by whoever is in need. Rather than ruled by hierarchal lines of authority, the Random paradigm values individuality, creativity and nonconformity. Boundaries are diffuse with rules used as guidelines to be ignored. Random families are highly adaptable and like the Closed family paradigm, are very common in American society. Families operating fi'om an Open paradigm are flexible and adaptable like the Random family, but unlike the Random family the focus is on the family as a unit not on the individual. Open families use disagreement and dissidence to seek a common belief that all members can share and each member is expected to contribute. Goals are determined by consensus (all members must agree and for the same reasons), with everyone having access to resources as needed. 23 fan sur lea i5! in i5 1 the. pen Res; The Synchronous paradigm follows a naturalistic — programmed approach to family. Members follow a structured pattern of life that is dependent on the needs of survival with an unspoken emphasis on harmony, perfection and tranquility. Children learn through example and things are understood with no need for discussion. Conflict is minimal within this type of family. Paradigms are created by the image, structure and behavioral patterns of the family members. Members co-constr’uct an image of what it means “to be a family” while also defining what it means, “not to be family.” Within the family, specific behaviors or player parts develop that support the paradigmatic image and structure. These behaviors and structures become the process by which families develop and utilize resources in their pursuit of goals: control, affect, meaning and content. The resources used in achieving these goals are time, energy, space and material things. Students are introduced to each of these concepts and asked to integrate this knowledge into their personal experience. An assessment tool, the Relational Assessment Scale, is taken by each student with a significant partner to assist in this process (Appendix B). The Relational Assessment Scale was developed by Imig (1999) to be used in helping couples understand their paradigmatic perception of family and to identify specific player parts used in the relationship to achieve the goals of control, affect, meaning and content using the resources of time, energy, space, and material. The scale is comprised of ten questions that ask the respondent to identify how they currently see their relationship, how they would like their relationship to be, how they think their partner sees the relationship and how their partner would like the relationship to be. Respondents are asked to choose from statements that best describe each of these 24 perspectives by giving them a numerical value of 1 through 10. By designating a statement as a 10, the respondent is stating that the statement best reflects their perception. Following each of the ten questions is a section asking the respondents to identify what role or behavior they exhibit in achieving the activities that the question addresses. There are four roles or player parts in a family’s relationship dynamic: Initiating / Moving, Questioning / Challenging, Agreeing / Supporting, and Reflecting / Commenting. As with the questions, the respondents are asked to identify what behavior or player parts they currently display, what behavior they would prefer to play, what behavior they think their partner plays and what behaviors they think their partner would prefer to play. The students are required to take this Relational Assessment Scale with a significant partner. Students often choose spouses if they are married, dating or engaged partners, roommates, siblings, parents or a close personal fiiend. The information fi'om the questionnaire is entered into a computer program that analyzes the results and creates a Relational Assessment Scale that provides quartile and vector chart information illustrating similarities and differences within the student’s personal preferences, those of the paMer and the projections that each made regarding the other’s perception. By examining the quartile and vector information with the conceptual training provided by course readings, students are introduced to complex models of family which illustrate the concept of paradigm as it relates to one’s perception. Students are challenged to identify their understanding of family and to then look at family from different paradigms. By using the Relational Assessment Scale 25 fin “Ti they are given insight into how their perception was formed and how it is similar or different from that of their partners. Through structured assignments, students become aware of the many experiences that helped to shape their current perceptions. It is common for the students to become aware of discrepancies in what they believe their current relationship is and what they are learning about healthy relationships. For many students, this provides an opportunity to acknowledge a personal belief, recognize a relationship problem, or experience a challenge in their beliefs and perceptions of who they are. Sometimes they find that their partner does not share their beliefs, they find that they do not like the belief that they operate within, or they become aware that their current situation is problematic and they need to make a change. A semester paper requires the students to explore what they have come to understand about family paradigms, player parts and the achievement of goals using resources as they relate to their interpersonal relationship. As an intemet course, special written assignments are given throughout the semester. The students are asked to critically examine what is being presented with how they have experienced it in their lives. These assignments give the professor an opportunity to gauge how well the students understand the course material. Since there is no personal contact with the students as in a conventional classroom, these written assignments are vital in judging how well the students understand. The action of writing about their experiences and understanding helps prepare the students for the final paper with an added benefit of encouraging transformative learning since the writing is similar to that of joumaling. The act of writing about oneself creates the 26 conditions for transformative learning in that writing requires the students to reflect on their behavior and beliefs and take ownership of who they are (Meyer, 2000). In these semester papers a dialectical discussion takes place with the student and the course material. Students explore what they have learned about themselves from the course and the Relational Assessment Scale. They compare their experience of family and their interpersonal relationship with what they have learned about successful interactions and disabled family systems. As a course, Interpersonal Relationships illustrates for the students four distinct perspectives fiom which families operate and challenge the students to expand their definition and perspective of what a family is and what an intimate relationship can be. As a family and child ecology course, Interpersonal Relationships offers students the opportunity to experience critical self-reflection. The complexity of the concepts presented and the personal application creates an environment for the student to safely explore personal experience with research-based theory. As a course for preparing family life educators, Interpersonal Relationships holds all of the components needed to assist the student preparing for the profession by allowing the student to integrate course concepts into one’s personal life, much as the professional family life educator asks of program participants (Brown, 1993; Morgaine, 1994). It is believed that the student papers can offer insight into the critical reflection process as it applies to interpersonal relationships. The learner-content engagement of the papers presents an opportunity to study the thought processes of the students as they examine their understanding of family, their experience of a specific intimate relationship, and the application of course knowledge into this understanding. By 27 qualitatively examining the papers, it is believed some insight will be gained about the critical self-reflective process that a person experiences when faced with a problem in an intimate relationship. This process of critical self-reflection becomes emancipatory for the student in that it makes conscious beliefs and perspectives which challenge the students to become more knowledgeable of who they are as individuals. Synthesis of Family Life Education and Critical Reflection Emancipatory learning, which can emerge from critical reflection, has been identified as a desirable goal toward which family life educators should strive (Brown, 1993; Hughes, 1994; Morgaine, 1994, 1992). Emancipatory learning presents teaching as a means of helping the student to critique values, beliefs, behaviors and justifications challenging how one knows these things to be true. Emancipatory learning creates an atmosphere where the learner reflects on these hidden truths and comes to know something which frees Merself, and allows the Ieamer to question artificial or societal proposed standards that oppress the individual’s ability to become authentic (Brookfield, 1995a; Brown, 1993; Freire, 1970; Habermas, 1968; Morgaine, 1994). Morgaine (1994) calls on those who teach family studies students to become cognizant of their own hidden false truths and to find ways to bring students to the experience of emancipatory learning. Such learning will be passed on to the families with whom they will work. Family life educators can facilitate opportunities for participants to reflect on the ways in which their life experiences intersect with their personal value systems rather than manipulate circumstances to achieve a pre—established desired end. 28 . . .As a result, participants’ life problems may begin to seem more manageable, thus motivating change. (Morgaine, 1992, p. 14) Morgaine goes on to discuss how families are oppressed by unconscious societal influences which leave individuals bound and unable to act freely, and thus unable to love and care for their family members in authentic ways. Instead, parents ask for classes on discipline so they can better raise their children, and couples struggle with communication skills as a means of healing violent and obtrusive relationships because society places a high value on stable marriages. What is missing is a conscious understanding of current beliefs and a full acknowledgement of what one would really like life to become. Without this awareness, family life education programs are remedies that can only address symptoms and not the actual problem. The students in this undergraduate course are consumers of the same knowledge they will later teach. Therefore, it becomes important to instruct in a manner that generates this third level of interest, emancipatory learning. In family life education, this could mean encouraging students to examine what it is that is known about family, how this has come to be known, and what is true in this knowledge. To do this, the student will need skills in critical reflection. How an individual uses the skills of critical reflection in relation to intimate relationships is not known. Previous researchers have constructed an understanding of how one might think critically in solving closed and open-ended problems, but relationship problems, so prevalent in families, have not been the subject of critical reflection research (Brookfield, 1995a; Ennis, 1992; Kitchener & King, 1994; Mezirow, 1991; Norris, 1992). 29 C111 61' C0 eh i It is believed that this research will assist those who teach family studies and family life education in that these results can be used in the development of instructional methodology. For university professors, insights into critical reflection can be used to structure student learning activities to increase the likelihood of such experiences. Family life educators who are emancipatory learners, will empower their constituents to enter the process of critical reflection and assist in securing truly desired changes that will improve one’s resiliency of society while increasing a pleasurable experience of family. 30 Res the 01' rel Chapter III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Research Objectives The purpose of this study has been to identify and explore the process of critical reflection in family studies students. Specifically it has explored student experiences of learning as presented in semester papers with the intention of gaining insight into how the concepts taught in the internet class has triggered students to reflect, evaluate, adapt or reject principles that could increase their sense of well-being and improve their relationship with another person. With this purpose, the following objectives have been identified: 1.. To explore the process by which family studies students critically reflect on course concepts as they relate to an intimate relationship. 2. To identify, code and analyze the components of critical reflection as presented in the student papers. 3. To compare the critical reflection processes demonstrated within the student papers with current theories and to modify and expand current understanding as warranted by the data. 4. To obtain clarity in understanding how Habermas’ philosophy of human interest and knowledge is present in student learning. 31 Research Questions Based on the objectives of this study the following research questions have been developed: 1. How do family studies students critically reflect on intimate relationships in response to information learned fiom participating in an interpersonal relationship course? How are course concepts used by the students to understand relationship problems? What components of critical reflection can be documented in the student papers? How are these components presented? How do the student papers demonstrate Habermas’ concepts of human interest and knowledge: technical/ instrumental, practical/communicative, and emancipatory? What conceptual framework or hypotheses might be constructed from the documentation of indicators found in the student reflection papers that will expand our understanding of critical reflection and emancipatory learning? Assumptions Assumptions are the presuppositions that the researcher carries into the study. Some of these assumptions are necessary to provide contextual framing of the phenomena to be investigated, while others need acknowledgement as they may pose bias (Creswell, 1998; Denzin & Lincoln, 1998; Maxwell, 1999). This study was based on the following assumptions grounded in the theoretical framework of Brookfield 32 lib (1987, 1995a), Ennis (1992), Kitchener & King (1994), Meyer (2000), Mezirow (1991, 1998), and Norris (1992). Assumption 1: It is possible to identify the presence of critical reflection in the semester papers of students from the Interpersonal Relationships intemet class. Because of the nature of the course material and the personal application of the Relational Assessment Scale data to a significant relationship, it is assumed that the students will display evidence of critical reflection in regard to their perception of their relationships. It is further assumed that the experience of the class will trigger challenges within students, providing them opportunity to examine their beliefs and question their perception of the relationships (Brookfield, 1994, 1995a). Assumption 2: It is expected that the student papers will present multiple abilities and variations of critical reflection. As a fourth year family studies undergraduate class, the majority of student papers will be twenty to twenty-four year old females. It is assumed that the quality and the process of their critical reflective activity will be different from males and more mature adults. However, the nature and reputation of the course attracts students from multiple disciplines, increasing the number of male participants and graduate students, thus increasing the potential variation in reflection abilities available for study (King, 1992; Kitchener & King, 1994). Assumption 3: It is believed that deeper levels of personal reflection are achieved through writing. As an intemet course, Interpersonal Relationships, involves a great 33 deal of writing and reflection on personal beliefs and experiences. The technique of writing can bring basic assumptions by an individual into conscious awareness, allowing for new insights into the self. Therefore it is believed that these students will display personal depth to their understanding of the course materials and with more intimate reflection of how they view their relationships (Meyer, 2000). Assumption 4: The definitions of concepm presented in F CE 444, Interpersonal Relationship» will be regarded as conceptually true for the purpose of constructing an assessment of student understanding. Constructivism views knowledge as being dependent on human perception and practice. Meaning is constructed fi'om social interaction that takes place between the individual and the world, the knower and the known. Things can exist independent of the person but meaning can only be known when it is socially constructed. The definitions presented in the Interpersonal Relationships course were designed to illustrate specific concepts in family paradigmatic structure. It is recognized that student interpretation may vary fiom the course definition. For the purpose of this study, any use of a course term by a student in the context of describing or explaining one’s relationship will be judged as consistent or inconsistent within the course’s conceptual definition. Concepts used that are inconsistent with course definition, will be identified as being misused or incorrect (Knapp, 2000). Assumption 5: This is an important area of study. How an individual uses the skills of critical reflection in relation to intimate relationships is not known. Previous 34 Pile cor at th: an F2 Ml Stu researchers have constructed an understanding of how one might think critically in solving closed and open-ended problems, but relationship problems, so prevalent in families, have not been the subject of critical reflection research (Brookfield, 1995a; Ennis, 1992; Kitchener & King, 1994; Mezirow, 1991; Norris, 1992). Pilot Studies Prior to this research project, several pilot studies were conducted. In conjunction with UCRII-IS projects 98-101, and 99-805, the researcher assisted with coding and evaluation of student papers from the Interpersonal Relationships course in the Spring semester of 1999 and the summer semester of 2000. From this experience, an area of expertise in family paradigms was developed. In addition, a paper on student learning and critical thinking was written and presented at the National Council of Family Relations Conference (Imig & Bailey, 2000). In conjunction with the doctoral study, two research papers were developed for separate classes that dealt with critical reflection assessment. In the Fall of 1999, for Education Administration Development 904, Transformative Learning, a research study ‘ comparing critical thinking skills with a relationship assessment instrument was implemented. Married and dating couples were administered both instruments and then interviewed to assess if a relationship existed between an individual’s ability to use critical thinking skills and understanding relationship problems. In the Fall of 2000, for Family and Child Ecology 980, Qualitative Research Methods, a research study analyzing the critical thinking skills of undergraduate family studies students was conducted. In this study, students were interviewed and asked to 35 share how they had used information in their personal lives from a class they had taken the previous semester. Semester summary papers from this class were studied for the presence of critical reflection. Data from the interviews and paper analysis were compared for consistency. In each of these studies, qualitative methods of research were implemented sharpening the skills of the researcher. Also, an extensive literature review was completed with each study acquainting the researcher with a depth of knowledge regarding the process of critical reflection and interpersonal relationships. Research Design The phenomena being studied is the process of critical reflection as demonstrated in the student papers. As an abstract concept within the papers, it is embedded in the meanings that the students attribute to themselves and the course material they are studying. This is an important area to study since it exerts influence over the interactions of the students with their significant partners. As a social phenomena, it is believed that critical reflection exists not only in the minds of the students but is played out in the objective world and can be understood in some causal manner. Since it is unclear how such an abstraction can be measured, qualitative analysis is the most appropriate research methodology for investigating the phenomena (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998; Miles & Huberman, 1994). Qualitative research is focused on understanding meaning within a particular social setting or event and not necessarily designed to prove or disprove a theory (Creswell, 1998; Denzin & Lincoln, 1998; Miles & Huberman, 1994). The focus of this 36 study has been on understanding how the students interpreted what was being presented in the Interpersonal Relationships course. Its purpose has been to expand the understanding of critical reflection in intimate relationships. It has not tested theory, but rather contributed to the current body of research. Qualitative methods are the best fit for conducting this research since they provide the structural designs to get beyond the initial concepts of critical thinking to uncover new insights in how this process transpires or is present in intimate relationships. The primary method of investigating critical reflection in the student papers was grounded theory, a methodology within the discipline of qualitative analysis. Grounded theory is an inductive approach to theory construction that utilizes comparative analysis for identifying codes, categories, and themes from the data (Creswell, 1998; Denzin & Lincoht, 1998; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Miles & Huberman, 1994). Though Glaser and Strauss (1967), credited for justifying scientific rigor to the qualitative process, argue fora loose approach with no preconceived constructs guiding the research, contemporary researchers propose modifications that allow theoretical frameworks to assist throughout the research process (Creswell, 1998; Denzin & Lincoln, 1998; Maxwell, 1999; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Rudestam & Newton, 2001). Based on the recognition of the value of coupling established theories on critical reflection / transformative learning with research inexperience, the recommendation of Miles and Huberman (1994) regarding the implementation of a conceptual framework was used in the design of this study to assist in the analysis process (see Figure I). 37 Res pro 501:. £13 ext sub C81: San circa agru infi; Ir Research Process Data has been systematically gathered and analyzed using a constant comparative method. A generic four-stage model of critical reflection using the works of Schon, (1987), Mezirow (1991), Brookfield (1987, 1995a), Kolb (1984), and Kitchener & King (1994) (see Figure 1) has been used as a theoretical framework for analyzing the data. The student papers were read by the researcher and coded for the presence of any of the four stages of reflection: problem identification, appraisal, solutions, and different perspective. During this process, detailed data, giving greater clarity to the students’ thinking processes, has been noted and developed as categories. The student papers have been read in batches of five. Notations from each batch have been analyzed, creating new codes to represent the emerging information. Papers have then been reread testing the emerging codes for significance by documenting their presence or absence in each of the papers. It had been anticipated that during this time new insights would either dismiss the existence of a coded concept or provide substantive support for recognizing a student’s critical reflection process. Once categories became saturated and no new examples of critical reflection became apparent, no additional data was collected or analyzed. Sampling The ability to exercise purposeful sampling has been prohibited due to several circumstances. First, in accordance with the University Research on Human Subjects agreement, student anonymity prevented the researcher from obtaining personal information. Without such knowledge the researcher has been unable to employ 38 criterion sampling that would provide opportunity to select informants who could provide variation or corroboration of experiences. Therefore, a method of secondary selection of participants has been employed. Secondary selection implies that the researcher cannot select participants according to criteria considered to be beneficial to the investigation (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998). In this study such criteria would have included variations in age, gender, and ethnicity, to secure information-rich cases. Using a secondary selection method, a random sample of twenty papers has been selected and prepared for analysis by the dissertation chair. Preparation has included copying the student papers and removing or blacking-out personal identification, such as name and student number, so that the researcher had no knowledge of student identity or academic ranking. Reliability and Validity The terms reliability and validity are most often associated with quantitative research and frequently believed to be missing in qualitative studies. It has been suggested that a new vocabulary is needed to understand the process of qualitative research that moves away from the empirical positivist perspective of quantitative analysis (Ambert, Adler, Adler, Detzner, 1995; Denzin, Lincoln, 1998; Maxwell 1999). Criteria needed to evaluate qualitative research are found in the researcher’s procedures, ethics, sampling adequacy and appropriateness, analysis of the data and the validity established through internal and external means (Ambert, Adler, Adler, Detzner, 1995; Maxwell, 1995; Rudestam & Newton, 2001). Using adequacy and appropriateness as 39 ind? Cr 1h.- €X indicators for reliability, the following is offered as the documentation of “trustworthiness” for this study (Rudestam & Newton, 2001). Criteria of Adequacy and Appropriateness The purpose of this study has been to explore the process of critical reflection that intemet family studies students have used in understanding an intimate relationship. The Interpersonal Relationships intemet class has been chosen because of the assumption that as participants in an intemet course, students would be more likely to express insight regarding their beliefs and perceptions. The ability to study the abstract nature of critical reflection necessitates the revelation of introspective and self-reflective thoughts, thereby insuring the selection of this sample as an appropriate population for study. Adequacy of the study has been established using the method of saturation (Creswell, 1998; Rudestam & Newton, 2001). As indicators of critical reflection have emerged from the papers, categories of coding have been developed. Papers have been reread and coded as different insights emerged. After an initial twenty papers had been read and coded, patterns of saturation were noted. An additional ten papers have been purposively sampled from the remaining course papers and analyzed and coded. With no new critical reflection patterns emerging and a saturation of the previously identified codes, it has been deemed that sampling was sufficient enough to move into the next phase of the study. 40 Data Analysis in Establishing Validity To establish “trustworthiness,” a record has been kept of all steps of the research process. Components of this process include: o A learning journal of key theoretical concepts from related research 0 A research log chronicling: 0 Daily activities relating to the collection of critical reflection concepts as found in the student papers with notations of how these related to previous research 0 Insights from personal reflection on the emerging data 0 Questions regarding the data and student activities within the papers 0 An audit trail has been meticulously recorded tracing the development of early generic coding and the emergence of codes from the student papers. 0 Matrices have been created to maintain a system of analysis and data management that would minimize the effect of “data overload” and act as transitions as the researcher moved from open to axial to selective coding of data. 6 Throughout the course of the study the researcher has met with various committee members to corroborate findings and to seek alternative perspectives. Data Triangulation To assist in the process of establishing validity, a process of investigator triangulation has been implemented. In qualitative research, triangulation is the use of 41 mu] Hui Me 110 I85 multiple methods or data to increase validity (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Maxwell, 1999). A method of investigator triangulation has been used to reduce the risk of systematic bias on the part of the researcher and to increase the validity of the findings due to the limitations of the study (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998; Maxwell, 1999). Once coding had been developed, an un-coded paper was randomly selected and coded by the researcher and an outside trained investigator. The results from this validity test have been compared and used to adjust and strengthen the researcher outcomes. Conceptual and Operational Definitions Concept: Critical Reflection (CR1 Critical reflection is an inquiry into the nature of a problem, seeking truth, understanding, or resolution. (Mezirow, 1981, 1991, 1996, 1998; Brookfield, 1987, 1995a, 1995b; Kitchener & King, 1994; King, 1992; Norris, 1992; Ennis, 1992). Operational Definition Critical reflection presents itself as the process by which students question or interact with the course concepts, the Relational Assessment Scale and their relationship with their partner. This interaction may be presented as a problem or an awareness of a belief within themselves or the relationship. 42 r C 1'8 A: Concept: Critical Sell-Reflection (CSR: Critical self-reflection involves a personal inquiry into beliefs, values, and behaviors and the experiences that supported their development (Brookfield, 1987, 1995a, 1995b; Mezirow, 1991, 1998). Operational Definition The process by which students explore how they have come to think, feel and behave. This CSR demonstrates an ability to identify problems in the thinking, feeling and behaving activity as they relate to an identified problem or belief and the student’s self- perception. Critical Self-Reflection differs from Critical Reflection in that the student looks to oneself and does not project blame or the need for change onto the partner. Concept: Critical Selt-Refiction on Assumptions (CSR/ll Critical Self-Reflection on Assumptions is the calling into question and examining the assumptions underlying a problem or belief. As a deeper form of personal inquiry the Ieamer seeks to uncover the meaning of the beliefs in relationship to their origins, and discems their truthfulness (Mezirow, 1998). Operational Definition The ability of the student to question why the identified problem exists through the examination of beliefs: how those beliefs were formed, how well they serve in understanding oneself and another person, how the beliefs may be distorted, and recognition of the need to alter beliefs or meanings. Critical Self-Reflection on Assumptions may encompass all or parts of this reflective process. 43 Conceptual Components of the Critical Reflection Process Using the four-stage generic model of critical reflection, the following concepts were used as a framework for the initial coding of data. Concept: Problem Identification Problem identification is the explicit naming of a thought, belief, behavior, or feeling that causes the student to recognize incongruence between what is held to be personal truth or desire, with a conflicting experience or situation (Mezirow, 1981, 1991, 1996, 1998; Brookfield, 1987, 1995a, 1995b; Kitchener & King, 1994; Schon, 1987, 1994, 1995) Operational Definition The identification of a problem by the student. The problem could be related to the interpersonal relationship, an experience with the family of origin, or a discrepancy between beliefs and the course material. Components of Problem Identification From the data analysis the following conceptual components describing the students reflective processes concerning a problem emerged. These processes appear to correspond to the concepts taught in the Interpersonal Relationships class though not directly identified by the students. Definitions of these concepts are presented to assist the reader in understanding terminology used in the description of student critical reflection activity. Concept: Control The ability to get things done in the way that one wants them accomplished (Imig, 2001) Operational Definition From the Relational Assessment Scale, students identify problems in the ability to accomplish tasks. There is a disagreement between a student and partner with how things should be done (i.e. how time is spent, how the house is cleaned). Concept: Atlect A sense of intimacy and nurturance (Imig, 1999). Operational Definition From the Relational Assessment Scale, students identify problems in the ability to express or receive affect (i.e. caring, belonging, sexual physical intimacy, non-physical intimacy). Concept: Meaning The shared understanding of what is of value in the relationship (Imig, 1999). Operational Definition From the Relational Assessment Scale, students identify problems in the ability to develop shared meaning (i.e. vision, purposefulness, connection). Meaning is expressed in continuity and is expressed in symbols and metaphors. They define what the couple holds of value (e.g., the sharing of religious beliefs). 45 Concept: Appraisal The process of vacillating among the choices of denying, minimizing and embracing the incongruent information that has been identified as causing a problem within the student (Brookfield, 1987, 1995a; Schon, 1987, 1994, 1995). Operational Definition A discussion illustrating how the student has chosen to deal with the identified problem. i (i.e., minimize the effects of the problem, not acknowledge the problem as really being a problem, acknowledge that the problem may be resulting fiom a personal perception that is now being challenged). Commnents of Appraisal From the data analysis the following conceptual components describing the students’ reflective processes emerged. Concept: Thinking To form or conceive in the mind; to form or have an idea or conception of (a thing, fact, circumstance, etc.); to hold as an opinion (Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, 1996). Operational Definition A discussion within the papers of students’ thoughts regarding the course material and / or the relationship. Three categories representing a reflection on thinking emerged (rational, analytical, judgmental) l) The sharing of one’s opinions about a belief or problem; 2) The sharing of how one came to an opinion; 3) The sharing of what effect this thinking has had on the relationship. 46 Concept: Feeling An emotion or emotional perception of an attitude (Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, 1996). Conceptual Definition A discussion within the student papers of emotions relating to an identified problem or belief. Three categories representing a reflection on feelings 1) Reflection on how one feels about the problem; 2) Reflection on how one came to feel this way; 3) Reflection on what effect these feelings have on the relationship. Concept: Behavior The manner of behaving or acting (Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, 1996). Conceptual definition A discussion within the student papers describing their behavior in response to a specific problem or belief. Three categories representing a reflection on one’s behavior (actions): 1) Reflection on what one’s behavior is; 2) Reflection on how this behavior evolved; 3) Reflection on the effect this behavior has on the relationship. Concept: Beliet Something believed; an opinion or conviction; confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof (Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, 1996). 47 Conceptual Definition A discussion within the student papers that presented a personally held belief. Often these beliefs are presented as a metaphor or popular saying. Three categories representing a reflection on beliefs 1) Reflection on what one believes; 2) Reflection on how this belief came into existence; 3) Reflection on the effect this belief has on the relationship. Concept: Exploration oz Solutions Finding alternative ways to think, feel, behave and believe (Brookfield, 1987, 1995a; Schon, 1987, 1994, 1995). Operational Definition Consciously identifying and writing what these alternative ways of thinking, feeling, behaving and feeling could be. May or may not identify course concepts in the development of a solution. May also use previously held beliefs for creating solutions to problems. Subcommnents of Exploration of Solutions From the data analysis the following conceptual components emerged describing the students’ reflective processes concerning the development of a solution. Concept: General Solutions or Course Concepts in the Solution The process of determining the answer to a problem (Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, 1996) 48 Operational Definition A discussion in a student’s paper that suggests the resolution to a problem. The resolution can be based on concepts taught in the course making it “Course Concepts in the Solution, ” or it can be a “General Solution, ” originating from some source not affiliated with anything presented in the class. For example, a solution may be generated from the student’s beliefs and represented in a metaphor. Concept: Developing Alternative Perspectives A paradigmatic shift fi'om how the problem is viewed that results in a change in response (Brookfield, 1987; Schon 1987, 1994, 1995). Operational Definition The student identifies a different way to approach the relationship, to interpret behaviors of another, or to redefine personal beliefs regarding situations specific to the problem that was identified. Also identified as having a dzfierent perspective. Subcomponents of Alternative Perspective From the data analysis the following conceptual component describing the student’s reflective processes concerning the development of an alternative perspective emerged. Concept: Blocks A state or condition of being obstructed (Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, 1996). Operational Definition A discussion in a student’s paper describing or identifying an inability to change a belief, opinion, or perception. 49 Concept: Beliets and Perspectives Beliefs: Meaning schemes that define what is known and believed. Perspectives: The construction of what one believes which in turn shapes how one approaches and assimilates information and experiences (Mezirow 1991; Brookfield, 1987; Freire, 1970; Habermas, 1968; Schon, 1995; Belenky, 1986) . Operational Definition Beliefs and Perspectives are filters by which the student receives information. Beliefs and Perspectives can be built on fallacies and epistemic distortions that inhibit the student’s ability to respond in authentic ways. Critical reflection on how the student thinks, feels, believes, and behaves alters these filters and allows the student to be more present to the truth of the information being received. Additional Concepts Defining Critical Reflection The following concepts assist in the understanding of the critical reflection process. Concept: Introspection The awareness of one’s thoughts (Mezirow, 1991). Operational Definition A discussion of the student’s thoughts without reflection on what these thoughts mean. Concept: Assimilates, Minimizes, Denies Processes in which individuals distort, deny, or redefine information that contradicts their personal beliefs and perspectives (Brookfield, 1995a; Mezirow, 1991). 50 Operational Definition Student discussion of a concept that is inconsistent with the course’s prescribed definition. Most often presented as: 1) A redefining of what a concept means so it confirms the student’s beliefs or perception. 2) Misinterpretation of relationship assessment results so they confirm student’s beliefs or perceptions. 3) Denial or minimization of the existence of an explicit or implicitly implied problem within the relationship. 51 Concept Abbreviation / Code Color1 Code Critical Reflection CR Red Critical Self Reflection CSR Red Critical Self Reflection on CSRA Red Assumptions Problem Subcomponenm Yellow Control A1.21 Affect A1.22 Meaning A] .23 Content A1.24 Appraisal Subcomponents Pink Thinkig B2.30 Feeling 82.40 Behavior B2.50 Beliefs 32.60 Introspection B2.70 Class Material B2.90 Exploration of Solutions Purple General Solutions C3.10 Course Concepts in Solutions C3.20 Alternative Perspective Orange New Perspective D4.20 Blocks D4.40 Other Green No Problem Reflection E5.20 Surprise E530 Uses Material to Support F6.10 Beliefs Alters Meaning of Course F6.20 Material to Support Beliefs Figure 2. The data from the student papers were coded using a generic four- stage model of critical reflection with the general headings of Problem Identification, Appraisal, Solutions, and Alternative Perspective. From these four general categories, 21 more specific reflective activities emerged. Figure 2. Critical Reflection Activity Data Codes * 1 Color Coding was limited to general coding with abbreviations noted to distinguish Specific reflective concepts. 52 Researcher’s Role Human research does not take place within the confines of a sterile laboratory. In epistemology, the researcher works to achieve understanding of human thinking. In this research, the goal was to achieve a level of insight into the epistemological process that the family studies students used in understanding interpersonal relationships. It is believed that sincere critical reflection of relationships happens in the context of daily experiences. The role of the researcher is to explore this process in the most natural setting possible. Though the intemet class on interpersonal relationships does not entirely fit the definition of a “natural setting,” it does provide the researcher with an in- depth look at a naturally occurring critical reflective process. In qualitative research, the researcher is the key instrument in the process of discovery and understanding. The researcher brings the personal belief that it is possible for undergraduate students to critically reflect and that this reflective activity can be identified within these student papers. These beliefs are viewed as being strengths in that they provide the impetus to pursue the area for study despite obstacles. The researcher also brings preconceived assumptions regarding the nature of critical reflection that need to be “bracketed” and laid aside. Knowledge of previous theorists of critical reflection has greatly influenced the perception from which this study was originally designed. Critical self-reflection on one’s own assumption was pivotal in being able to distinguish expectations from actual presentation of critical reflection contained in the student papers. This task was assisted through personal journaling, peer presentations and the critical analysis of committee members’ perceptions of the initial conceptual map and proposed data coding. 53 Limitations The entire process of critical reflection analysis is beyond the scope of this study. Throughout the coding process, questions regarding the nuances of thinking and beliefs became troublesome and bogged down the process. By choosing an intemet class that had taken place in the spring of 2000, a major limitation was the inability to corroborate findings or distinguish thinking opinions from steadfast beliefs with the students who wrote the papers. A second limitation was the use of secondary source data. By using a modified random sampling of the papers with student anonymity, the researcher is prevented from establishing wide generalizabilty fiom the findings. For example, it was not possible to determine students’ ages. It is believed that age and social and emotional maturity could influence an individual’s ability to critically reflect. By being unable to confirm ages of the student authors, it is unlikely that propositions relating age to the critical reflection process can be developed. This limit is further discussed in the Data Analysis section of Chapter IV. 54 Key Arrows represent the flow of research activity. Researcher Generic Model of Critical Reflection Dewey (1933), Mezirow (1991), Schbn (1987), Kolb (1984), Brookfield (1987, 1995a), Kitchener & King (1994) l Report of Findings Student Papers Identify Critical Reflection Activity 1 A Develop Categories / Codes Conceptual and Operational Defmitions—+— l Interpretively Determine Connections ¢ 4 Verifl through Peer Review > i Veg’fy Figure 3. The Operational Map, adapted from Crabtree & Miller, (1992), (as found in Denzin & Lincoln 1998) illustrates the process of grounded research beginning with the researcher’s use of prior critical reflection theories. The researcher discovers presence of critical reflection as presented in the student papers and codes the distinguishing features. Papers are reread and coded using emerging information. Analysis of information is verified through peers. New insights and clarifications are used to study the texts repeating the entire process. A final verification of interpretations culminates as the Report of Findings. Figure 3. Operational Map of A Qualitative Exploration of Student Papers for Indicators of Critical Reflection 55 Chapter IV RESULTS Overview of Results This chapter provides a presentation of what was found in the student papers. A description of the process of analysis and sample is provided. The resultsiof the analysis are presented with detailed discussion in Chapter V2. Analysis The student papers were analyzed from multiple perspectives utilizing grounded theory methodology with a theoretical framework for identifying critical reflection. The works of Dewey (1933), Mezirow (1991, Brookfield (1987, 1995a), Kolb (1984, Schbn (1987) and Kitchener and King (1994), guided the development of the theoretical framework. The first wave of analysis coded the presence of any of the four stages of reflection: problem identification, appraisal, solution, and evidence of a new perspective. During this process, open coding was implemented noting the presence of more detailed data giving greater clarity to the thinking processes that the students demonstrated. Data from the papers were systematically gathered and analyzed using a constant comparative method. The next wave of analysis utilized Case Dynamic Matrices (see Figure 7). For each student paper a matrix was constructed outlining the documented activity of critical reflection (Miles & Huberman, 1994). By examining the matrices, a 2 “Results chapter contains JUST THE FACTS: tables, figures, transcript summaries, and the author’s description of what is important and noteworthy about these. Extended discussion of results, though very important, belongs in the discussion chapter (Rudestam & Newton, 2001, p. 103).” 56 conceptually ordered mega-matrix was constructed grouping patterns of activity (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Multiple variations of the matrix were designed comparing the components of Appraisal and Problem Identification. From this analysis, distinct patterns of critical reflection began to emerge. Using the theoretical works of Mezirow (1991, 1998), and Brookfield (1994, 1995a), variations in critical reflection were determined: critical reflection, critical self-reflection and critical self-reflection on assumptions. With these categories a third wave of data analysis sorted the clusters of reflective activity that had earlier been identified. With all of the data coded, sorted, and analyzed, a final conceptually ordered matrix was constructed. This matrix profiled the data by informant, highlighting the conceptual activity that was documented (see Figure 6). Description of Sample Of the thirty student papers studied, males wrote four with the remaining 26 being done by females. To summarize the profile of relationships, the four male papers contained one mother-son relationship, one husband-wife relationship, and two boyfriend-girlfi'iend relationships with one of these having duration of less than four months. The 26 females’ papers contained 13 boyfiiend-girlfriend relationships (two of which were less then six months in duration), four wife-husband relationships, three girlfi'iend-girlfriend relationships, two friend-boyfriend relationships, two life long fiiends, one daughter-mother relationship, one parent evaluation. As it was not possible to profile students’ ages, ethnicity or academic level, little personal information about the students could be obtained. Papers ranged in length 57 from 15 to 35 pages with four to ten pages being relationship assessment vector charts, cluster scales and quartile information. Content reflection sections of the papers ranged from 4 to 12 pages with many of the papers containing grammatical errors. Three papers had serious grammatical problems making it challenging to understand the intention of the authors. Report of Findings Research Questions In answering research questions one, “how do family studies students critically reflect on intimate relationships in response to information learned from participating in an Interpersonal Relationships course ?, ” and three, “What components of critical reflection can be documented in the student paper-3?”, an examination was made of the student papers to see how the students used the course concepts in their papers as part of their reflection process. The questions were broken into two components for analysis. First, the student papers were analyzed for evidence of critical reflection. By using a generic model of four components to assist the researcher in distinguishing critical reflection from introspective thoughts, 34 different types of reflective activity were identified and later refined to a more inclusive and manageable 21 (see Figure 2). From this, three models of critical reflection emerged: critical reflection, critical self- reflection, and critical self-reflection on assumptions (see Figure 5). 58 Ii ()7: Critical Reflections Critical Reflection (CR) represents the student’s ability to analyze the course material in relation to his or her life experience. Student papers that demonstrated CR focused on personal understanding of course material. This understanding, though not always consistent with the designated course definition, gave students new insights into themselves and their relationships. Critical Reflection was seen as being present when the students gave personal examples to illustrate a concept. Example Expression in our relationship is another thing entirely. My mother and I rarely say I love(r) you nor do we hug and kiss. This is where I wasn’t sure how to classify us. I was thinking closed but we are not even that because we are not very affectionate in private as well as in public. (01:10) In this example, the student is sharing her understanding of the target goal afibct and the paradigmatic pursuit of the goal using a Closed perspective. It represents critical reflection on course material because she is actively engaged in trying to understand what it means to be Closed while pursuing the target dimension of aflect. The next form of critical reflection found in the papers was Critical Self- reflection (CSR). CSR showed the students’ thinking processes as they looked at how they understood their relationship. This type of reflection often involved the identification of a problem or a surprise. Problems were situations in the relationships that caused the students a level of distress or unhappiness. Surprises were unexpected results in the Relational Assessment Scale that contradicted a preconceived idea about their partner, themselves or the relationship. The reflection often included course 59 material, was intricately involved in a student’s understanding of the problem, and was always central to the experience of a surprise. Example Currently we are dissatisfied with this aspect of our relationship [control]. Unfortunately my ideal is J’s current perception of our relatiOnal system, and what he wants to move away from. Therefore, this system is misaligned and disabled. J and I both have differing ideas about how things should get done. We both work during the day however, I have longer days then J, with me getting home at ten and him at five. Though it is more of a priority for me to have a clean house, I still feel like I should do some of the housework, especially since he makes at least half of the mess. However, he feels like he worked hard and deserves to come home and rest. So when I come home, 1 wind up doing the housework, and I do not get a chance to unwind like he did. (05:13) In this example the student is critically reflecting on her perception of how the target dimension of control3 is carried out. Self-reflection is taking place as she examines why she believes their RAS scores differ. Other examples of CSR illustrated the student’s examination of thoughts, feelings, actions and beliefs. Example In my relationship, we seem to come back time and time again to the same thing sitting at home watching television and having sex. It is routine, we don’t do anything that brings excitement and fun to our relationship. This patterned behavior is too steady for me; it makes me feel suppressed and it makes me feel as though he doesn’t care enough for me to take me out. (12:7) This example illustrates a student critically self-reflecting on the problem of how her boyfriend uses the resource element of time. The incongruence between what she would like and what is actually happening is presented in her critical self-reflection of 3 Control as a target goal refers to the manner in which things get done right. 60 how the behavior, sitting at home, makes her feel, suppressed, and creating a belief that he does not care enough for her. The third form of critical reflection found in the student papers was Critical Self-reflection on Assumptions (CSRA). CSRA was the least identified form of reflection found in the student papers. CSRA occurred when a student reflected on assumptions, questions, the reasons for the questions, and the reasons for the problem. . In the two papers where Critical Self-Reflection on Assumptions were found, the students discussed their thoughts, feelings, beliefs and behaviors as they related to the assumption being questioned. The activity demonstrating CSRA often covered several pages of the student paper as it weaved reflection on thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, understanding of course concepts and challenges to beliefs. Example Since we both were opposcrs, I first thought we could challenge each other and stimulate each other. So I thought our relationship was aligned. . .sometimes we have a hard time to find our legitimacy and a point of agreement. For example, one day we talked about our cultural differences. We found that though we were both from a (foreign country in the east), there were so many cultural differences or so many different ways of thinking towards certain things. Then, when we found our similarity in our culture, my partner seemed to differentiate its similarity. . ..We talked about this topic forever until we got tired of talking to this topic. Reflecting on this conversation now, I think it was the one scene representing the character of our open-opposer relationship. I now understand I think our relationship is misaligned. (027:3-4) In this example the student is demonstrating an awareness of how she came to believe that she and her partner were different. In this, the opening description of her relationship, she describes what she believes to be cultural similarities. Throughout the paper she discusses how she becomes more cognizant of who she is in relation to her experience of American culture and the eastern culture of her boyfriend. The process of 61 Critical Self-Reflection on her Assumptions of who she is takes place throughout the paper. With each example that she shares, she comes to a deeper awareness of her own beliefs and a clearer understanding of how she projected herself onto her boyfriend. The final moment of clarity comes when she realizes that he is not who she thought, but neither is she: For my ideal, I wanted to completely make myself as a follower and make him as a mover in order to make our relationship in align[ment]. However, I understand that all family and relation[ships] are imperfect (chapter 10), which means it is impossible for one to completely put one’s partner into the real world. I was thinking of the meaning of [this] statement. I then realized that it is impossible for me to change my partner or control my partner’s mind because I cannot even change myself and control my mind easily. By looking at the element of meaning and affect, I recognize that I really need to know that he is not a mover. I also think he may also struggle with my challenge of making him a mover when I keep myself in mover or opposer player part. I also realized even though we could not completely establish our relationship as being mover and follower, there were alternative way[s] that we could work things well in our relationship. (27: 12) The second research question asked: How do the students use course concepts to understand relationship problems? This question sought to gain understanding of how the students used critical reflection in understanding relationship dilemmas. Many students identified relationship problems as the focal issue by which course concepts were explored. Relationship problems centered on interpersonal conflicts in achieving affect, meaning, context or control. Students identified problems that were often recognized before their participation in the course, while some problems were uncovered through the Relational Assessment Scale results and were identified by the students as surprises. 62 SOI ph SI Example The quartile rank shows that both C and I have afi‘ect in quartile one, and that we are both movers. Technically both of us being movers constitutes a misalignment, but for us it really does not pose a problem. . ..I do like to move. . .The only way my wanting to be a mover sometimes becomes a problem is if C always wants to be mover and never a follower or any other behavior style. . ..Being that C ideally wants a more Synchronous structure, while I want a more Random could pose a problem. I have no particular opinion about this at this time because I am sure those aspects have changed a bit pending the changes we have now in the relationship. I will just say that relationships are always changing. (026: 6-7) In this example the student is describing the results from the Relational Assessment Scale. She interprets the quartile rankings as setting-up opposition between structure, Random and Synchronous, and player parts of mover. Throughout her paper she identifies conflicts she experiences with her boyfiiend regarding her desire to do something that he does not support. In this instance she demonstrates another phenomena found throughout many of the papers, the process of minimizing, accommodating and denying the existence of a problem in the relationship. Not all of the papers had identified problems or personal dilemmas. Nine papers had no identified problems with six of these showing no appraisal activity. Four of the student papers implied relationship difficulties without directly identifying or acknowledging specific problems. These papers contained little, if any, reflective activity. Example The player parts designated in the cluster scores were pretty accurate. I feel that B is mostly an opposer. The main thing that we fight about is when he challenges something I say or believe. I would like this behavior to decrease and increase his behavior of mover. B would also like to decrease my role as an opposer. But rather than increase the mover behavior, he would like to see an 63 increase in the follower behavior. Because he is a person of the affect element, he needs reassurance and support. (003:7) In this example the student is identifying what sounds like a problem in the relationship, however it is never acknowledged. There is some interaction of her thinking with the course material but it appears that course concepts are being misused or misunderstood. This excerpt also provides an example of introspection with no critical reflection of the self nor of the course material. The fourth research question, “How do the student papers demonstrate Habermas ’ concept of human interest and knowledge: technical/instrumental, practical/communicative and emancipatory?”, addresses the students’ abilities to use the concepts in ways that are consistent with the course definitions in creating knowledge. Though all of the students used course concepts in their critical reflection, they were not always consistent with the course definitions. Of the thirteen students who displayed evidence of critical reflection in their papers, nine misused course terms and appeared to change definitions of terms to fit their understanding. Two students, who displayed the lower level of Critical Reflection, used concepts consistent with the course definitions, as did the two students who displayed Critical Self- Reflection on Assumptions. Evidence of practical/communicative knowledge was based on students’ abilities to provide examples of how they had personally experienced or witnessed the course material. Technical/instrumental competency was established by comparing the student’s examples, explanations of what these examples represented, and consistency in personal understanding with textbook definitions. Example In a disabled system they do not meet all the needs of the others in the system. This fact leads to thinking of T’s family. By now we know that he doesn’t like to ask for help and he only does things when he wants them done and that does not include any one else in the family. Random families are described as being creative compliments that desire to be unique and different (Kantor & Lehr, 1975). This also entails the ideas that T was having. The random background was all of the perfect reason for him to be involved in a disabled system. Since most Random families are considered to be disabled, because of their need to explore different alternatives, I now understand more about him. (013: 13) In this example the student provides her understanding of the term Random family paradigm using material from Kantor and Lehr (1975). Her initial definition provides correct instrumental knowledge but her application, a communicative or practical use of this instrumental knowledge, becomes distorted. Later in this paper, she used this thinking to support her decisions to break off the relationship. Additional Findings Non-Critical Reflection Though this study focused on critical reflection as a necessary process for emancipatory learning, two papers showed evidence of emancipatory learning without critical reflection activity. In these papers the students do not identify relationship problems, surprises from the results, or discussion of thinking. Instead, both papers present a “knowing.” One paper tells a story of a student’s interaction with her husband that leads to a new perspective followed by a discussion that illustrates a different way of thinking. The second paper describes the shared parenting of the student’s infant son with his mother. The student writes about needing to redefine the course concepts to fit his cultural understanding through which a new way of knowing emerges. These papers 65 do not follow a course of thought that examines feeling, beliefs, thinking or behaviors like the other papers. Yet they appear to present a depth in understanding, a “knowing,” that does not follow a pattern of analysis. Serendipitous Findings Paradigmatic Styles of Reflection Analysis revealed patterns regarding the paradigmatic preference of the students corresponding to critical reflection activity. Most students had multiple paradigmatic preferences but more reflective activity took place within those who had Open preferences, within their paradigmatic structures. Five out of seven with an Open paradigm displayed appraisal activity (71%), four out of nine in the Closed paradigm displayed appraisal activity (44%), four out of 14 in the Random paradigm displayed appraisal activity (29%), and one out of five in the Synchronous paradigm displayed appraisal activity (20%), with the papers presenting the unusual “knowing” without critical reflection within this category. Discussion of this finding will be elaborated in Chapter V. 66 Example Correct Using our time more efficiently and effectively will enable me to achieve Use of what it is we need in our relationship, which is control. When considering Concept all subsystems- individual, relational, and unit-I consider my relationship as being disabled. C and I enjoy spending time together, agreeably our time spent together is not always spent in an ideal manner. Our goal is to spend more time enjoying the public aspect of dating such as movies, dinner, etc. Most of our free time is spent inside the home talking, watching television, or doing homework. (023:6,7) Correct Behaviorally for affect, I want to be able to move into any of the player Use of roles with a preference to being a bystander. J wants to be less of a mover Concepts and more of a follower. Unfortunately, we both want the relationship to be more open in this area, but neither of us wants to be a mover which is necessary in Open paradigms. After discussing affect, we realized that this would result in a misalignment, which could cause increased stress in the relationship, if we don’t change our ideal behaviors to a more congruent way of relating in an Open paradigm. (007:1L Incorrect My brother lives in a closed-mover family, a very strict on following rules Use of family, a family that initiates for things to be done. You could say my Concepts father expresses himself as a bystander, for he brought the rules into the house and the new lifestyle. (002:2) Incorrect My parents, while they did not have the best parents in the world, have Use of done their best not to be their parents. When I asked them how they Concepts learned how to treat their children, they said they would look at how their parent handled them. Take the good, analyze the bad, and make it better for their children. I was raised in an QM family. While the parents were always the head of the household, there was a definite democracy to our family. (022:3) Incorrect For our relationship, with our time and affect systems being Qpap, a Use of Random strategy and player parts do not meet our needs. We need to Concepts approach the relationship from an Open perspective, and play Open parts, and this will meet our relational needs. Again, we need to play both an active and passive role. (005:11) Figure 4. Demonstration of Instrumental Knowledge in Student Papers 67 800.5 0:00am 8 00§=0~H .35—0-002 0:0 .3500 .m Page 60:: 80008? 05 08020800 00.63 0H 0H: m808 8.0 030000 .080 H0 8008 ESSEN 05 8:80.88 >8 0000000 H 82800300 80 8 8.08098 0.88 805 00—08 :05 000 H 0:830 00 N 0:830 80.0 880800 Seneca 000 0006 05 00.00.88 03 E 8.0 H00.H H 00:00:0m 02:00:00 00 00 mm: wage—3m 080.0085 $000 00 080 300:2 0300 9Q 05 0080.. 0.0 .3305 £00008 0H 8:. 680888800 0050 .80 .8 0000000 805030 080 000% 8 H0650 b0.» 8 HH A388 .000 Emma 80 H .398 0H 0% .3 080000 .00 9 0005 00m 9800800. 3030093086 00 0:0 .800: 000 00m 0058 0303 H 80 0.80 3.0— 00 808 H .000 00005 00: 505 80 .85 85 00:00:3— 05 £ 08 £05 “mam ~00 0:0 .wcHow 0.8 03 80:3 .00 3 80% 08 03 8:3 m00H000 b00000 0am 80:20-00 Z AvuoHov. . .80208038 .88 =0QQ 888% .0085 ”0.8 0033 7830803 .288 08080808 80H 05 @0002 08 00H .0050 H0w 00 80000 0H 00:00:0m 0 Z 0.000.000...— 8095 800:5 80.... 00—9883— 00:00:3— 68 30005003 .m 0.88.0 02.3; H.528 030005200 80 00 3000 0500800000 0800 05 008 80000 .0000: 000 .8805 .00 00000 0800 05 00 w0500w 00 00: 05 0H .005 .0000 00500088800 .00 000: 05 80500 0050088800 .00 00: >mm>m w0H0000 005 000 .00803 .00 0308 0H: 8000000 00 :003 000 H .08 00>0 m w8000:0 00H Z .00 0000000000 0000 05 00000: 00w H 0000 60000005. .2088 0 00.0 w800: 0000 H 0000.80 05 00 8: 00803 .00 008000 02 080:0 00 w0H0w 80 0H Z 005 300: H 0300 000C .05 0000 00m 0008 ..H: 000 H 080:0 00 I 03 .00 000 H0000 00 005 030000200 .00 0000 05 0>0: 00 00000 0H . . . 0000 0:5 w0H0: 800.0 0050000800 05 0000: 0: 000 030000300 80 8 53 H000 00 08 00.0 085 000000: 05 .00 000 0H 00:0. 00000.0 08 00000 2 00:3 80:8 :3: 8 0080. 05 000000000 H 000009—00: 8005200 05 5 .0000 80 00>0 w8000w 00 003 0800 05 8 030000200 80 800308 00 003 005 00 0: 000 03 00000: 00000 00 0>0: 03 08000008 00030: 05 00 000 .00 0003 00 08 00.: 020005080 05 .00 000000 000000: 05 0H 05 005 H000 H 0000000 0050 00 8080.68 :008 00 0>0: 000 0000 00580052 00000000 0.008.000 08 0000000 00 0003 008. H 000 0050800 005 00>0 85:80 00 0000 80 H 005 H000 H 003280 0 0: 00 803 H 005 030:0 05 000%. . .000 0000 Z 000 H0>0H 0x00 05 00 080000200 80 0:00 00 0003 H 000000: 80820 0000.00 05 003 8080.68 0008 05 0>0: 00 00000000 H 005 0000 0:0. 5020000000 0 005 020005200 0>0H 0 00 0008 008 000: .80 88005 .00 0000000 05 00 00.0 08800000 0H 05 000:3 0000 000. .. 00000080030 00 00:00:03 0.0m H3500 $88 .0 80:00 005 000 0000000 05 80:0 H000 H 30: 80: w0m=00 000 0300008 05 w0H0H00 08 .00 000000: 8800: 00000H 000.0 005 08 .00 00008 .580 :008 00 0>0: H 000000: 808080 00 8 008000 080 00:0. .030 08 0008 H 000.00: 00.000 0:: 0008 00 .9 H 000000: 20008 53 000000005 00w H 0085 2 .08 00.0 0800 05 00 00 00B 0: 000 000 00000 0H: 00:3 0000000000 000 000 00 00: H. 00:3 00 0000: 00 000 H 0.0: 0:00 08 5 000000000 0 .00 0008 m0H0: 20008 08.0 H 8: .0000 0: 00 00000 085 H 00:3 000 000 00 00 05000: 05 0:00 00 0000 H 005 00005 000 0005 300: H 00500¢0~H ..=0m 805.00 0.00000 000005 80.0.0 030800.0— 000000000 00:00:04: 69 5.302 0000 00.0.6 “noeam 5 000: 00.000 00 003020009 .0 0.59..— moamtgofiaco @8008?sz 00 00000 :80>0 80030 00 0808800 80:00 mug—05590 Ab0003000 00800000 000 3000800 08:03 0 Z 9000000000 00 8600080080 :0 8 00008008 3000000 00800 80000008 80033 00> 0 Z .m0> $000000 00.500 800?. 380000000 00003? 05 303 00 0838008: 00 030 wuss 080500 0080 M003 0 00 80080 08 3 808300305003 :02: 380000800 300 0 080300 808058 00 msg#58008: 30: 00 0000030 05 0 Z £08000 00 803000 05 00 mam—0838008: 820.00% 630000800 30: 0 00 0000038 0 Z 00003 .02 £2 950000.000 B02 €000,000 80:38 05 0 Z @0300 000 00800008 00 0003 000:3 8000 003203 000:3 3000000 02 .0 “G 08:00 8000 0002030 003303 U 3000000 08:00 8000 00: 020015050 800% 8000 8000203 0 notiom . @0030ng 80 00000000 .200 0005008 Emu Acouoomfi .200 Emu .Mmo do 00000003 ~50 80:00.02 REES mo ”33:00 02000000 103.8 00 80000800 00000000 00 00000000 5500—030 .3500 0000800000000 00 808000 0080800 0.80030 $502,000 @5000 00200000 <2 0 E m 0 H 05 <2 Amfiwzofi 03000000ch 0 30:08 a $003808 m A3800»: 0 AwaU—Efiv H 00 000000005 .23—00¢. @8088 00 0830 380009 00 000000 0000000880 :0 “000000100 0 0000068 803% w 00000006 080 00000802 0803000 00 03882 .0090 80080 06 :EE» 800000000802 805000 A 00:03.00: 803000 50688 €23 3225 I M. 0m .0 .0 .0 03000808? -m 6000.9 60800-0 .8088 5m afloat?“ 0:05 208 ”08 500030 00 080. 0803 0:03 a .0008 8000 ”8.— “080000 ”0 Q0800 a .003, vs 0850:: :— d0€08 ”8 600EEM aw 0805009 ”.3 ”00800000200 00 8050:0000 6 000802 800 S: D 00000 8085 032% 00000 80wa 2080mm ”000800 m0 m U =0000t0m0n Ban—hm 70 .3 £900.58 0 00000.— Eoegm .8.— 50G 00 5.502 02005 0000 000.00 .0 0.5mm.”— 00000000 00800Q 02 02 02 <2 0002 00 3A: .m 0:025 8.028% :03 oz 02 oz 000 00 0 m a 0 6 00.0 800% 0000080 00 0004 00> 02 000200 <2 20000300 0 ANV 000.805 30% 02 830 090 oz 02 0 <2 8 E 3265 30m 0:255 802250 :03 oz .02 0 000 00 H a ,0 Q 0% 000m 0:255 802050 :03 00> 02 0 o 000 00 a 0 5 0% 00% 00000000 00 000002 00> 02 02 <2 0 Amv 00» .5qu 00000 368300000: 0300; 00> 02 02 <2 0 A: 0000008 BMW mac; 0.00:3 083000080 0.50 00> 02 02 <2 H E 0 . 9% 00% ”090% £085 0o 8002020 00> 02 0 0 000 00 H a m 0. 6 8» a; ”w 00000000 .00 Rad: 0058009 950000.000 80:00:3— 90000095 050...— 0808800 000=< 302 00:25 .3500 30:20.: 8020...— 800:5 71 0N 29.0.58 22 0.20.202 .0005m .20.. 0:5 20 22.3022 202.202: 0000 000.00 220000200002 .0 0.53.2 0 92202025 20 00200003002 00> 02 0 2mm 20 2 E m ,2 .2. w 28 00> .2002H m 0.2 03850 00 03 80. 2 0 00 2 6 00> 00000 <~2m0 U 22 02 V200222 200N20w000~2 02 22 0 ~50 20 2 “2 2m .2. 2N2 00> .2800 2 H m M 002000220200 2000 02 02003 00 > 02 0 <2 2 80.222002 2K2um U 00223 0§E< 00> 02 02 <2 282 8 092 u m 02 00:22 0§E< 00> 2 02 <2 282 8 0000 0 0.202200 200000 9 0.8202808 000 D 00 > 02 02 <2 20.202208 2 AS 00 > .3002 H m 2 02222000220200 20022502 00> 02 02 #50 M20 2 2. m 28 00> 220m 22¢ 02 0022.2? 22.8022 00> 02 U Mmo M20 2 m E .2 H 28 00> .Bumfim mm 022305 20000002 00> 02 02 <2 2 .2. 00 .20” 2 20% 02200000 .20 2:0qu 0020202202 0200000002 002000.202 2200002000.: 022.2002 0.000.800 000=< .302 0020025 20020200 200220.? 802.2002 000255 72 22m 02980.22. 2N 0002202 0002005 00.2 0.0: .20 020002 202.202: 0000 00000 220000200002 2. 00:02,.— 0 00200202 90202 00 020208000 0305 00 > 02 <2 <2 2 222 00 > Enema 2 22000000002 50 00222.2 000220 00200> 00> 02 <2 <2 <2 02 Enamu w m Emsofi 20000000 0: 08000 005.200 00 > 02 <2 <2 <2 02 .223.” m 0980 .2 00000 02 00022000222 00> 02 <2 . 050 M20 2 2m ,2 m2 2‘ m 28 00> Snow“ m 00 m2 ”2 .30 h2222000200200.00202 032% 02 02 0 #50 20 m 2. n2 2 32 00> Summflm 2. 02220200220200 .0200002 00 > 02 <2 <2 <2 0: 90m” m m0 0208022 585 0 02 oz 0 00 2 2 0 S 00> 0003 20 0222000220200 222008 2 00 > 02 <2 <2 2 0: 30mm” .mv mo 2003200 2.2 8 02200000 00002< 00 > 02 <2 <2 2 o: E” 26% 0:200:00 2:0" w .20 0020202209 02000020002 0020002202 30000000.: 022.2002 0000:0800 00002< 3072 0020025 2002.200 200200.203. E03002 0002.05 73 Chapter V DISCUSSION Overview of Findings Proposed Conceptual Framework Students in this intemet family studies course on interpersonal relationships displayed various levels of critical reflection in their semester papers. From the cross- case analysis matrix and the individual exploratory matrices used to categorize and sort the data, six patterns emerged within two generalized categories: students who engage in questions and those who do not. Engagement implies personal integration of the students’ thoughts and experiences with the course concepts. Of the students who do not engage the course material from a questioning perspective there are three patterns of writing. One pattern presents the course information in a definition format. The student defines course terms within the context of the course. No application of experience or personal thought is present. Example of Pattern 1: Defining Course Concepts With No Engagement The major resources elements are time, energy, space and material. Time consists of three mechanisms; synchronizing, orienting, and clocking. These individual mechanisms are then broken down into smaller sub-mechanisms. (010:6) A second pattern of student writing presents the course material with varying amounts of student self-description. Self-description is a student’s thoughts and opinions with no questioning of what these thoughts might mean, where they came from or what effect they may have on the student or the relationship. 74 Example of Pattern 2: Self-Description With No Engagement I am a mover when it comes to space. The scale results show my husband as having all four player parts in the fourth quartile for space, which is interesting. I’m not sure what it means, or if its accurate. I view him as a follower and a mover though. (01526) The third pattern of non-questioning activity is “Knowing.” Within this group are students who present new perspectives, new ways of knowing, but do not display the critical reflective processes of those who engage the course material in a questioning manner. Example of Pattern 3: “Knowing” Personally, this evaluation has allowed me a new perspective on M’s views of me and other family relations that has opened my eyes up to what she really knows that I am still trying to comprehend. As I began the final draft of these issues the Open-Synchronous paradigm was beginning to make sense, although I must admit that having to change ideas in mid-stride from Closed- Open), a result of the problems with the cluster scores, has caused me to feel a bit more frivolous than usual about my own values and insights revealed by these scores. (021 :10) Of the students who engage the intemet course material from a questioning stance, there are three patterns of critical reflection: Critical Reflection (CR), Critical Self-Reflection (CRS), and Critical Self-Reflection on Assumptions (CSRA). Critical Reflection is a basic form of questioning the students use to make meaning of the course material. In papers that demonstrated critical reflection, students gave personal examples of how they understood the course material and discussed them. Between the display of self-description and critical reflection was a student’s use of introspection. Introspection as defined by Mezirow (1991, 1998), is an awareness of one’s thoughts, and is not seen as being a partof critical reflection. However, it appears 75 to be an important link to the process. For students demonstrating an entry level of critical reflection the progression from self-description to critical reflection was evident. Example of Transition: Self-Descriptive I defrnitely feel that the relationship between J and I is very Random. Not only is it Random, but it is very enabled. Our relationship is very individually oriented and laterally structured. . ..I am very involved in my studies and my own life , as J is in hers. Although this is the immediate state of mind, J and I share a special bond of love and closeness. We do what needs to be done independently. . . an example of this is J and her boyfi-iend. He is a roommate of mine also. J spends much of her time with him and they share a very different type of relationship. She spends the majority of her time with him, doing things he would like to do together. At no time do I question my relationship with J because of this. I feel this is something she devotes herself to independently and has no effect on our relationship, in the most general manner. I guess I should not say that because living with her and her boyfriend changes things, but is it not something I feel worthy of questioning the strength of our relationship. Our relationship is strictly based on freedom. (008:6,7) Introspective I do not talk about certain things with J that bothers me. I want to feel free to say what I want, when I want and feel confident that J will understand why I would say such a thing, not just be hurt and cry. Some conversations just are not had. Now is that healthy for J and I? I don’t think so. It is like J and I have a fixed space. I do not intrude physically or verbally. And in some instance, the sub-mechanism of blocking is evident. Rooms separate J’s boyfi-iend and me because the tension is so high. This is involuntary because I do not feel I should have to leave the situation to save J’s feelings. (008:10) Critical Reflection As far as content goes, we are similar in the fact that we would both like to see ourselves as less Random and more Open. This is saying that we would like to question each other more by sharing our ideas with one another instead of just accepting what is done because it happened that way and we believe it to be true. An example of this would be J choosing to transfer to U of M. . . In an ideal situation J would like to be free to question each other and ask why... why did she choose that route. . .I do not agree with her choice but not once did I mention that to her. . .We do not make sense of things, we just accept them as 76 truths. Now that I think about it, that is not very logical. We make sense of the world by our experiences. That may not always be the safest bet. Sometimes I really wish J would question me because I feel it [is] a good way to see the pros and cons of a situation. If no one tells their opinion or questions a choice, the thinking is one sided and a bad choice could be made (but very preventable). (008:12-13) In these examples the student is exploring the meaning of the course concepts with her experience of living with her cousin, who is also her roommate, and her cousin’s boyfriend. During this exploration she defines the concept of closed-space and recognizes how it is present in her relationship. This self-description moves towards critical reflection in the form of introspection when in the second entry she begins to question her inability to freely talk with her cousin, recognizing that this is not right. In the last entry the student begins to use the course concepts to examine how she sees the relationship, recognizing that it could be different. She does this by expressing the desire to move fiom a Random to a more Open paradigm. The passage represents a form of critical reflection when she questions decisions made by her cousin as well as her own inability to share her concerns. The progression of thought and reflection seem to support a belief that writing can lead to deep personal insights (Meyer, 2000). A second pattern was Critical Self-Reflection. In this reflective process students engaged with the course material to seek understanding of their partners as well as themselves. Students actively worked though an appraisal process that examined the efl‘ect a problem or belief had on the relationship. Advanced levels of this type of reflection included illustrating the interrelationship of thoughts, beliefs, behavior and feelings. This type of reflection focused on the “self” and included examples from the students’ lives. 77 Example of Critical Self-Reflection Expression in our relationship is another thing entirely. My mother and I rarely say I [love] you nor do we hug and kiss. This is where I wasn’t sure where to classify us. I was thinking closed but we are not even that because we are not very affection in private as well as in public. So I am not sure, I guess we [do] not rely on expression. The extent of the lack of expression was made clearer to me one day when I was talking to my brother’s girlfi'iend. She was complaining how he rarely said he loved her or that she looked nice. I was wondering why this was and then it came to me. It was quite obvious he had learned it from our family. I have only seen my parents kiss on about two occasions. We all just have a problem expressing our feelings and unfortunately it has been transferred to our relationships outside the family. Granted my mother and I have a strong sense of inner affect. We definitely know how much we mean to each other and we show it in the things we do for one another. But sometimes I wish I had more. I envy people who grew up hearing how much they were loved or how talented they were. I want to be able to do this in my other relationships but it is something I have great difficulty with. So I guess this would be one thing I would like to change about our relationship, our expression concerning affect. (001 : 1 0,1 1) The third pattern of reflection was Critical Self-Reflection on Assumptions. In this pattern the students examined what they believed to be a truth, using the course material to gain insight. Through this examination they came to know something about themselves and why they perceived certain issues within the relationship to be a problem. In these papers the students used examples, they shared their droughts, they showed the interrelationship between thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and behaviors. Example of Critical Self-Reflection on Assumptions In order to have the type of open relationship that is ideal for us, we — or should I say “I”- must get past this. Deep down I know that N is not going to change his opinion of women, but on the surface I keep hoping for a miracle. (018: 14) Critical Self-Reflection on Assumptions was found in student paper 018. In this paper the student identifies her desire to change a current fi'iendship into a romantic relationship. By studying the Relational Assessment Scale data she systematically 78 ll examined her relationship with the boyfriend. There are pivotal moments of awareness that came as she examined how she felt, why she might feel this way and how her feelings shape her behavior and beliefs. As she used the course concepts to examine what all of this meant, she comes to the understanding that it is she who must change her assumptions if she is to maintain a friendship. Conceptual Model of Critical Reflection Proposed Hypotheses No one model of critical reflection can adequately describe the process individuals might utilize when critically reflecting on a relationship or integrating a formal course of study with personal beliefs. From these three patterns and the non-critical reflective pattern, a model was developed (Figure 8). The first level of critical reflection challenges students to identify a problem or belief that presents a conflict. The student must actively work beyond the temptation to deny, minimize or assimilate the problem into a previously held meaning scheme or to propose a solution that is distorted. This entry level of critical reflection focuses on gaining understanding of the course concepts and represents the lowest level of student knowledge. If the students critically self-reflect, a process of examining thoughts, beliefs, feelings and/or behavior can begin. Here students use the knowledge gained from class to improve understanding of themselves and perhaps in turn improve their relationships with others. This level, the communicative level, is higher then the instrumental level. This process can lead the student to a solution but such a solution is at risk of being distorted by an incomplete examination of the self. 79 The third level of critical reflection, the highest level of interest and knowledge, is Critical Self-Reflection on Assumptions. As a parsimonious model it contains all of the components .of critical reflection, the risk of denying, assimilating and minimizing the problem, all of the components of critical self-reflection, examination of thinking, feelings, behavior and beliefs, plus reflection on the underlying assumptions that created the awareness of the problem. It is speculated that Critical Self-Reflection on Assumptions holds the greatest potential for the student to achieve a new understanding of the self and the perceived problem. This type of understanding supports the activity of achieving a new perspective that could lead to a significant resolution of the problem. It is in this level of critical reflection that emancipatory learning takes place. 80 00000.2 000203m :2 200002 0020002202 20020200 20 000000022800 002000000222 0200022 020000.202 0000 0 .20 02.20.0m .m 00:32 .900 00000200 ovdm All 80220.22 02220 $20008 mm. 2< 2,2 00030 03 8.00 080% mm. 2 2.202200% Gown—00.2020 30220 03 0.0020 .92? 20000000008020 2.0.083 0023 50.8 .8 .282 2.0 0002220 I 0002000 0m. 2< .20 020000 0220 «ll w02q008 mm. 2< m02n20w0000 ? H 002 20200220 0022008 0 202.23 200.220 mm. 2< v2 02 02000: .20 202200 0022 2000 32020220 2000000 2N. 2< So .2200 800.2 00020 000.202 02 2022,2000 I 0022 00 02 0220 mm 2002.20223m 00020 02002 2026 200022 3022 00 0020002200 0302002005 20000000 00020 00220200 0022 00>2w 202222000 2002000002020 .20 0000m 200000w o2.mU .20 00000 0 00222000202 0.00508 0.2 00.38: 0200 00.2... 00002.0 50300.2 00.0.0 0.005.: 0:303: 02 00.20 00000 02.3.0 as 00.00 05.0.30 0.0.? 50.00200 00.0.0.0 0002 0 ~02 20.03202 202000200005 00 .NN M02000: 020: 0% 0000000. «820 03.0 .0353: {0200 0000 00.3.. 03:50 ..0 00.0.0 00080200 080.0 00.00 0.25.200 00.00 303. 00.2.. 0228.2 0000 ..I0 20320 $2 2.3 00.0500 05200.2 3.00 2.508 00.2.. 20003000 202 .. T 02 00.002 3 220:0 3.0.0 0505.: 00.00 00.000.022.103 0000020050000 00.00 .m 202 .0 0.30500. .0 200800040. 20320 .0 81 000000 000005 E 00000— 00 9:500:— b0003000—0m— .00.. .0002 .05000000 .0 000wE 00300500 000200 w0000000600 000505 00000006 M02388 $0305— .00 00000000 .0 00003000 #00200 00 0000— 005 .:0m .00 0000000005 00 300000000 .m 000000 0m @3300 03000—000 3005-002 .0 00000000004~ 00 00000—00M..:0m 0022.00 .00 0000000 .m .0000000mfi0m .000th .00 000005 .N 0000003“ 303.00 .00 00000.5 A 0.00! 0300000000 AIA 0003000 00000000 «950 .m _ 302 0.00:0m 0000000000 R 02w005. , All Mmo .N 0050020 0000 "000000 a / . 900*00000 00 “Numb $02000 U .m 0E§xm 0000000 do ._ Al 2953a 02 4 03000080— 000002: 00000C0000Wh0m 0:000me 02 0 0230 000M .0 82 00000.— 00003m 00 0000..— 00 00000.5 00:3—00¢ 0000000 .00 .0002 000000000000.— .00 000E..— . .0m00000 00 0300000000 000 3000000000000 300 0 9020000 00005000 3000000000 00 3000000000 $03000 0000 00 00w00000 05 «m0 .00 0000009000 000 .00 :0 0000: 00.0.00 .m .000: 0000.5 000 0003 00000002: 00 0003000000 0000000 000 $0208 0.00200 0000000 005 000003000 0000000000000 000 0000000000 02000 0000 «MU 300000 0000096 0003000 00000000 00 00 0000000 5 000000000 000 03:00.0 aim—800 m00000000 .KU 00 00:00 56 .N 0003000 0 .00 0000000000000 000 00000000 000000 000 0003000 Emsofi .00 0000000000 00 00 0000 0_ ND .0 00000000 0000000 .00 000000000 05 00000002: 00000 0000000000000 005. .3 00am: 0300000000 302 300000000003 30 Z _ F A All! 00800.0 00320 .lv 00880 0 00 .0 00.050 300500.... 0 308002 .. 050 1 _. llllllll l I I H 00.0 .0 I. I. II I. I‘ll I | .I II .1 00.3005. + 000>000m + 30:00.0 A 33.9 .0. 0000000 03000030 .00 303 Al 00000000 300000 .00 0000000 T 000000005 000000000 \ 00000000.:0m 0000000 .00 0000000 .....l._ IV I 000000005 + 0000000000< 00 000000¢0m.m_0m 0000000 .00 000005 ”>30 83 If Discussion of Research Questions Critical Reflection on Intimate Relationships Using Course Concepts The students’ abilities to engage with the course material and critically reflect on what was being taught in this class varied. Of the students who demonstrated critical reflective activity in their papers, two variables seemed to directly influence the quality of a student’s engagement with the material. First, key to the reflective process was the student’s ability to understand what was being taught. In order to engage with the material, students needed to understand the meaning of the concepts and how to interpret the vector charts and cluster analysis. Students who struggled with this aspect of the course expressed feelings of anxiety, frustration and anger. Example of Inability to Understand Course I don’t think the scales enlightened me about the relationship, but in a sense left me in the dark about a lot of things. Why I say that, is because I don’t completely understand the scales and how to perceive them, and then on the other hand the data might not have been accurate data. The results that I did get did allow me to have a plan of attack on those areas that need the most attention. My overall opinion of the class would be two thumbs down, I didn’t really learn anything from this class, and at least from the way it was coordinated. (002: 10, 1 1) Though a lack of understanding was apparent, these students often attempted to critically reflect on their constructed interpretations. Such engagement with the course material resulted in redefining the course concepts in ways that made personal sense in light of how the student perceived the relationship (see Figure 4). A second consideration in examining the presence of critical reflection in the data seemed to be related to the significance of the relationship about which the students’ wrote. The longer the duration of the relationship, the greater the engagement 84 with the course material. Students whose relationships were of one year or more in duration displayed more interaction with the course material in trying to understand their partners. Students who had relationships of six months or less used the course material to support their perception of their partner. Also worth noting, students who had a preconceived outcome for their relationships, such as breaking-up or getting married, tended to use the course material to support their positions for ending the relationship or for getting married. Example of 1 Month Relationship So here we are today, on the brink of marriage. Taking this test with her, I kind of knew what to expect. If I had to label one thing as being our greatest assets, I would say communication is it. We communicate about everything. Admittedly it was me that was initially instigating all the communication, but L got to the point where she wanted it just as much if not more than I did. The evolution to Open was in full swing. Because of that, I knew we would come out very similar. It just seems the more open the lines of communication, the better off a couple will be. So this is how we got to where we are today and how I approached this project. . .. Not surprising to us, but Affect is very high on our scale [as] well. Afl‘ect for us is shown as both Open and Random. To me, Open and Random fit together perfectly. I look at Open being the democratic family as I stated earlier and Affect is always searching for the best way to do things. I think that discussing what is going on, in the process, you are discussing what is the best for you to do. This is definitely how Affect has broken down for L and I. (022:4-6) ‘ In this example the student redefines the terms to fit his perception of the relationship. He incorrectly defines Open as being a democratic family model and sees Random as complimentary. In the reality of the course definitions there exists a tension between these two paradigms that comes in therealm of cohesion with Open preferring a connected relationship and Random choosing a separate. The student uses his definitions to support his early statement regarding a pending marital commitment to explain the RAS scores that in reality were indicating a potential area of disagreement. 85 The students who used the course material to support their perception of the relationship seemed to support Dewey’s (1933) notion of reflective thinking. Dewey suggests that individuals define the nature of a problem with the end result in mind. This “fixed notion” shapes perception and controls the process of thinking. For these students, those who did not understand the course material and those who held preconceived notions regarding the nature of their relationships, it would appear that they constructed their understanding of the material in a manner that supported what they believed to be true about the relationship. For these students there may have been some evidence of Critical Reflection in the papers but the absence of Critical Self- Reflection was noticeable. To examine oneself would have placed the preconceived beliefs in jeopardy. Misuse of the course concepts however, was present in almost all of the student papers. In CSR papers the students would ofien self-reflect on behavior, feelings, beliefs or their thinking, as they seemed to seek a deeper understanding of themselves or their partners. However, the questioning process would suddenly stop and move into a different topic or culminate into a course driven solution that was often simplistic. The simplistic solutions ofien implied a redefining or misuse of a concept without careful consideration on the part of the students as to the implications of their true meaning. Example of CSR With Misused Course Concepts I would like us to have a co-constructed meaning of Affect, so that we both understand how to make the other person feel cared for. To do this, we must both overcome our personal strategies and work toward having a common strategy. (006:13) 86 For some students, the course material was used to assist them in understanding . themselves or their partners. In these instances, the course material was used to understand the behavior of the partner, which in turn gave the students insight into themselves. Example of Gaining Insight Into Partner & Self My partner’s random personal strategy values [are] individualized, playful and spontaneous affection. These values are extremely apparent in my partner’s family. My partner’s father shows his affection for her and her sister through spontaneous wrestling and play. . .My partner attempts to incorporate the spontaneous wrestling and play aspect of her father’s affection into our relationship. This type of display of affection makes me feel uncomfortable, however. I usually end up mad or hurt at the end of one of these wrestling sessions, so my partner does not get what she is looking for. (006: 12, 13) For the students who used the course material to gain understanding of their partner’s behavior, insight about themselves also was received. However, a new perspective or reframing of the problem did not always follow. Often students dismissed differences claiming theirs or their partner’s behavior or beliefs to be inferior and needing to change. Example of Change It is evident he needs to accept the fact that I am not the initiator when it comes to Affect or I need to make a change to become an initiator. (025: 15) Example of Viewing Partner as Inferior For J I put control as the biggest change because I want him to be less Random and more Open also. Random families are very spontaneous. You never know what to expect from day to day. When it comes to getting things done in a time orderly and correct manner, Random seems to be a less organized approach. My personal background, of getting things done in a timely fashion, is what works for me in getting things done in my daily activities. I would like to see this same technique with J and I. (020212) 87 Evidence of a new perspective that was found in student papers often showed a discourse with the course material. Students appeared to be talking with the course material and constructing an understanding of themselves or their relationship in the process. This was done through examples. Some of the students would present their thinking, illustrating it with an example, and then discuss how they understood themselves in relation to the material and the example. Example of Constructing Understanding of Self / Relationship My Closed personal strategy makes me feel that Affect should be regulated and formal. “To get something from the group you have to give something to the group. If you give something to the group you expect something in return from the group.” (Chapter 6, page 24) When I do nice things for my partner, I feel that I am displaying my affection for her. I usually expect that she will acknowledge my efforts or rather the feelings. The text explains that there is a level of trust in the Closed paradigm that one will receive affection if one gives it. “The reward is being able to ‘count on’ getting what you need.” (Chapter 6, page 24) This Closed strategy is not working for me in our relationship, because . my partner does not share the strategy so she does not do what I expect. (006:11) Another method by which a new. perspective was presented was done through a story. Students would share their perception of a new perspective about a course concept through a story with no discussion of the thinking processes. Rather, the ‘ students presented a “knowing” that gave them a new insight into themselves or their partners. Example of “Knowing” While I was angrily relating what had happened from my point of view, he calmly pulled a handful of coins out of the change-holder and threw them on the floor at my feet. I stopped talking. He stemly said, “Pick them up.” I almost smiled because we both knew that there was no way I took orders like that. He repeated, “I SAID, PICK THEM UP.” Realizing that there was a point to this, I leaned over and started picking the change up from the floor. He started berating me with, “What’s the matter, you don’t have them picked up yet?!! 88 Hurry up and get them picked up! !” I sat up slowly and waited. He said, “that’s what vacations feel like to me. Everything was in a hurry. Nothing was ever done right.” He continued, “Today, while you were in the bookstore I went outside and sat on a bench and watched the sailboats on the bay. When I was growing up we would never just sit and enjoy the view.” That was the day we realized how important it was for us to communicate with each other what we were thinking and what we wanted to do. (007:9, 10) Critical Reflection on Relationship Problems For some students, their process of reflection followed the generic model of critical reflection (see Figure 1). They identified a problem, examined their understanding of the problem and proposed a solution. Few students showed evidence of realizing a new perspective that would enable them to achieve a different perspective or a solution. For many of the students the process of problem identification and appraisal was not well delineated. The discussion in the papers weaved between appraisal, problem identification, more problem identification, and new appraisal, occasionally some insight towards a new' perspective or a proposed solution. Most of the student papers seemed to support the perceptions of Dewey (1933) and Kolb (1984) on multiple entry points for critical thinking and reflection. However, unlike Dewey’s and Kolb’s models, these students did not propose solutions. The identification of a personal dilemma or problem is believed to be central to the process of critical reflection. Mezirow (1991) identifies the identification of a problem on the part of the Ieamer as the initial action that leads into transformative learning. The identification of the problem can be simple problem posing or unsettling 89 as in the form of a disorienting dilemma. Though Mezirow’s model presents problem identification as central to the critical reflection process, his model does allow for the student to step outeof the process without coming to full closure. In this process the student works with the problem as much as cognitively and emotionally possible with the likelihood of returning for further reflection at a later time. It was common to find the students dismissing the significance of a relationship problem, assimilating conflicting information fiom the course by redefining a course concept and accommodating conflicts within their levels of tolerance. Kitchener and King (1994) relate a student’s ability to accommodate opposing opinions and contradictory information as a measurable indicator of a student’s cognitive ability to solve a problem. Brookfield (1987) and Mezirow (1991) describe this behavior as part of appraisal and an obstacle that must be worked through in the critical reflection process. Students who minimized, denied, or accommodated the problems in their relationship, often used beliefs to support their actions. Examples: Minimize We as a couple have our problems coming to make sense of things. We are young and anyone our age can’t expect to make sense out of everything. We are still growing up and trying to make sense out of life, on top of making sense out of our relationship. (002:8) Accommodate This still does not stop me from wanting to just scream at C sometimes. I think to myself “how can he honestly think that (that being whatever view does not coordinate with my own) way.” But still, I continue to endure because marriage is what we have planned for in our future. Some people (i.e. my mother) would say that we are too young to be making such plans so soon. C and I would say 90 that it is God who has lead us into, and blessed us with, this relationship. (026: 11,12) Deny Normally, we go about our relationship without questioning certain issues or even mentioning things that make him or me uncomfortable. . .The one thing I believe about my relationship right now is if there’s nothing wrong with it why change it. (014: 5,10) Of the four student papers that did not identify a problem, two showed evidence of a new perspective in the form of a “knowing” without critical reflection. In one of these papers the student tells a story (see example 007:9,10, on page 97). Through the experience of the story the students came to a different way of understanding. There is no critical reflective activity in the paper, just a “knowing.” “Knowin”g implies the ability to see their partners, themselves, or the problem differently. The use of the story seems to support a transformative learning theory within a symbolic or mythopoetic perspective. Dirkx (2000) describes this process of transformative learning as arising from the day-to-dayness of life. In this tradition there is no disorienting dilemma triggering the critical reflection process. Rather, the process is ongoing, requiring a constant interaction with everyday events. Through this interaction the student becomes transformed by the ordinary experience of life. In a different excerpt from the same paper the student describes the sharing of an ordinary chore as an occasion of “knowing” her husband. Example of Everyday Event as an Occasion of “Knowing” Lately we have been chipping brush piles at our farm and using the wood chips on the path out there. When we get to the farm, J gets out the wood chipper and I get out the other supplies. I hand him the branches and he feeds them into the machine, and I make sure a thick branch is available when he needs to clear the 91 machine with it. He dumps the chips and while I rake them into place, he goes back and puts the bag back in place in the chipper. Little conversation goes into the process, yet in this case we end up working smoothly together. (007:8) In another paper presenting a new perspective on the relationship with no problem identification, the student wrote about mundane experiences of the everyday that he shared with his mother in the co-parenting of his son. Yet within what appears to be introspective musings, he comes to a different way of viewing his mother and the needs of his son. Example of Interrelationship of Thoughm, Feelings, and Behaviors M and I spend a lot of time discussing child-rearing concepts and how we might better improve J’s and our lives. One of the areas of focus is nutrition. J’s weight has fluctuated a lot and it has become a “meeting place” (space) for us to discuss what food he should eat and other shopping issues on a regular basis (material). Interestingly, this relationship materializes in the kitchen. This is the space where we find common ground and share of lot of time with J. . .Fine lines separate categories in all levels and combinations of relations. Player part ranking compliments this analysis as well. Rating Mover with the goal element of Space has the highest resource goal for me is complimentary with M’s Bystander Player part and her goal element of affection. M knows me well enough to see how distant I can be with affection and that I need a silent helper as I struggle to be a good father and son. (021:9,10) The unspoken sharing of a task is a key signifier of a Synchronous family paradigm (Imig, 1999). The emergence of a new way of perceiving or knowing something without critical reflective activity appears to compliment the Synchronous paradigm. In the two student papers that present a “knowing” without critical reflection activity, both show a tendency toward a Synchronous paradigm. Of the five student papers with an identified Synchronous preference, only one showed evidence of critical reflective activity. Though these papers do not present the elements of critical 92 reflection as presented in the theories of Mezirow (1991, 1998), Brookfield (1995a), Kolb (1984), or Dewey (1933), they do seem to present evidence of an unspoken reflective process that seems to have great depth. This reflection appears to more closely align with Dirkx’s (2000) theory of transformation emerging from the everyday experience of life. Presence of Critical Reflection Components The third question in this study analyzed the student papers for the presence of critical reflection components. Four categories of components were identified prior to the analysis of the papers: problem identification, appraisal, solution, and new perspective. Of these four categories appraisal was the most prevalent reflective activity, with problem identification often preceding, but not necessarily. The process of appraisal sorted into the four categories: thinking, feeling, behaving and beliefs. Students demonstrated critical reflective activity in these domains by examining what they thought or believed, where these thoughts or beliefs originated, and the effect of these thoughts or beliefs on the relationship, their feelings, or their behavior. Not all students reflected this comprehensively. Some reflected only on their behavior, some only on feelings. Few students, however, identified their feelings in their reflective processes. Most students reflected only on their thoughts and beliefs. Reflective activity that involved thinking, feelings, behavior, or beliefs, were often presented as interactions with the course concepts. A specific concept would be identified in relation to a problem and the students would explore their understandings of the material through their personal experiences and meaning schemes. Mezirow 93 (1991) defines meaning schemes as particular knowledge or beliefs or feelings by which judgments are made, and identifies the process of examining these schemes as being a necessary component of critical reflection. Papers that demonstrated well developed thought showed students examining their understanding of themselves by exploring their thoughts, feelings, behavior, and the interaction of these dimensions. Example In my daily life I try to listen to what J was to say and understand what his needs are and he tries to do the same for me. At times I get fiustrated with myself because I try to meet his needs before I meet my own. This only results in an argument because I have so much anger inside of me that just keeps building instead of me taking the initiative and telling him how I feel about the situation and solving it. (020:7) Evidence of Habermas’ Concept of Human Interest and Knowledge When the data fi'orn analyzing the student papers were sorted into a cross—case analysis matrix, patterns began to emerge. Some papers showed no personal thought or application of the intemet course material. These students gave detailed definitions of the course concepts with no personal application. These papers initially were viewed as presenting Habermas’ instrumental level of learning. However, after comparing them to other papers, some doubt arose. Though course concepts were often defined correctly, there was no real evidence that the student understood the concepts. The lack of personal examples created some doubt about comprehension of the course concepts. Verification of this would require follow-up interviews with the students who wrote such papers. The remaining papers sorted into four categories, three of which seem to represent aspects of critical reflection as defined by Mezirow that follow Habermas’ 94 human interests. Mezirow (1991, 1998) has interpreted Habermas’ philosophy of human interest to encompass his theory of transformative learning. In transformative learning theory, critical reflection has three levels of inquiry which can reshape what the student knows. When the students reflected on how to do something, they were operating on Habermas’ instrumental level of knowledge. When they reflected on what another person means or how to understand themselves, they were reflecting on a communicative level of knowledge. Most of the critical reflections presented in the papers were of these first two categories. Critical Reflection: Instrumental Knowledge My partner’s ideal relationship focuses on material, content, energy, space and control. The material element has the following paradigms, Random, Open and Synchronous. From what I understand there is a real problem here. Our system levels would have a hard time integrating and our relationship would be misaligned. Meanwhile, we would expend a lot of energy and use a lot of time trying to make this work. The result would be a lot of stress and always feeling exhausted. (019:4) Critical Self-Reflection: Communicative Knowledge That’s the problem, I feel that over all I think that a relationship should be more meaningful and he feels there is nothing wrong with the relationship and I am always looking for something to argue about. J is calm and peaceful and he hates to argue, that is the last thing he would rather do. I totally disagree with that if you believe in something your fight for your right. I will not stand and be walked over. This scale has helped us to understand that people have different views on things and the important thing is to learn how to deal with the diversity. (012:1 l) The transformative level of knowledge would be emancipatory and requires one to reflect on underlying beliefs and assumptions contributing to the perception of a 95 problem. Only two students displayed this type of Critical Reflection on Assumptions. Unlike the other papers, these two papers had no incidents of redefining the course concepts or misuses of terms. Students seemed to have used the concepts to probe their understandings, not to justify their beliefs. Critical Self-Reflection on Assumptions: Emancipatoly Knowledge For my ideal, I wanted to completely make myself as a follower and make him a mover in order to make our relationship align. However, I understand that all family and relation systems are imperfect (chapter 10), which means it is impossible for one to completely put one’s partner into one’s ideal world. I was thinking of the meaning of this statement. I then realized that is impossible for me to change my partner or control my partner’s mind because I cannot even change myself and control my mind easily. I always wanted him to be a mover and [have him] lead me to a certain direction in our relationship. By looking at the element 0 f meaning and affect, I recognize that I really need to know he is not a mover. I also realized even though we could not completely establish our relationship as being mover and follower, there were alternative ways that we could work things well in our relationship. (027: 12) The fourth category that emerged fi'om the cross-case analysis was the Non- Critical Reflection that was identified and discussed earlier as “Knowing” (see page 97). In this category the process of critical reflection seems present but not definable in Mezirow’s or Brookfield’s terms. Though identified earlier as perhaps aligning with Dirkx’s (2000) mythopoetic / symbolic theory, the activity within these students may also be understood as following Schon’s concept of the reflective learning (1987, 1994, 1995). In this model the student would be moving through life, interacting and adjusting on an as-needed basis. When a situation arises that does not respond to the student’s normal interacting pattern of life, the student begins to reframe the situation until an alternative approach is secured. As with the mythopoetic concept of 96 transformative learning, this process just happens. Schon (1987) describes this process as one that architecture student’s employ when they begin to study design. Little instruction is provided since it is necessary for the student to develop an intuitive sense for the process. Additional Findings Though not a part of the research design, a relationship between paradigmatic structure and styles of critical reflection emerged from the data. It appears that students who identified themselves as having an Open paradigmatic structure showed a greater propensity for critical reflection. These students gave more discussion in the appraisal portion of their papers, identifying their thinking, behavior and feelings. This appears to support Irnig’s (1999) description of the Open paradigm in that members of this relational structure work towards self-knowledge and strive to be authentic. For those in an Open paradigm, the ability to create a successful relationship is predicated upon self-knowledge and dialogue with others to develop shared meanings and beliefs. These students would be quite adept at recognizing their thoughts, feelings, beliefs and behaviors and writing about the interrelationships of these dimensions. The students who presented the least amount of critical reflection activity were those who identified themselves as synchronous. Again, this appears to support Irnig’s (1999) description of the Synchronous paradigm, since members of this structure experience life through observation, implicit communication and a knowledge base built on “just knowing.” Children raised in a synchronous family are not encouraged to question but to learn by doing. 97 Students who identified themselves as being from a Closed paradigm appeared to follow a progression of thought that closely aligned with the generic model of critical reflection. These papers presented a problem, gave insight into the meaning of the problem and offered a solution. In contrast, the papers written by students who identified themselves as being a Random paradigm, demonstrated great variety in presentation. Some of these papers crossed into other concept discussion areas, and what they lacked in organization they made up in variety. These papers also seem to support the paradigmatic theories related to Closed and Random: Closed being a structure that prefers organization with Random being more antithetical and spontaneous. Findings Requiring Further Analysis The scope of this research project was limited to analyzing the student papers for critical reflection activity. Within this analysis emerged a paradox that may be related to” critical reflection but not entirely within the boundaries. As previously mentioned under the discussion of appraisal activity, few students wrote about their feelings in relation to the problems or dilemmas they identified. However, several papers that did not discuss feelings were filled with emotions: Anger, resentment, confusion and misery. This data showed little descriptive critical reflection activity. This may signify a causal relationship with the ability to identify and take ownership of emotions as being a pre-requisite to critical reflection. Questions regarding the lack of critical reflection in half of the papers studied also raise concerns. By what cognitive process did these students construct their 98 papers? If the purpose of higher education is to train students to critically think, how did these students interpret the assignment? Related to this concern is the query, what if all of the student papers had been studied? Though categories of data were saturated this qualitative study cannot give a measure of probability or causal relationship. How likely are students in general to use skills of critical reflection in such a class? Along this same line, it would be interesting to see how grading correlated to a student’s ability to critically reflect. The occurrence of the non-critical thinking activity in the form of a story also warrants further research. How do these students differ from their intemet classmates, if they indeed do differ at all? If one were to teach a critical reflective process to students, much like an analytical formula of the pop-psychology problem-solving models in marriage workshops, how would these “knowing” students respond? Would they be able to grasp the model and easily adapt their thinking and writing? Could their method of thinking, or “not thinking” be useful to others? This of course brings up the serendipitous findings regarding paradigms. There are multiple theories regarding paradigmatic models, some that apply to learning theory and others directed toward personality or temperament. How does the family paradigm model correlate with the theories on learning? If family life creates the model by which individuals will perceive the world, what implications do the various paradigms have for education? For the workplace? For Human Ecologists? 99 Implications The purpose of this study was to analyze how family studies students critically reflected on intimate relationships as a result of participating in an intemet course on interpersonal relationships. The intent was to gain insight into emancipatory learning as a means of professionally preparing family studies students by examining how they processed course information. The importance of this study was based on the belief that these students, as future human ecologists, are called to become emancipatory professionals. For this to happen they must first become emancipatory learners. In 1993, when Brown wrote about the movement of home economics to human ecology, she was pointing to a course of action. Her use of Habermas’ work focused on communicative rationality that validates the experience of individuals in creating knowledge and challenged the supremacy of structural functionalism as the standard philosophy by which families should strive. Brown believed that families had been weakened by this technical approach to knowledge and recognized that teaching from such a perspective oversimplified their needs. Her response to this dilemma was to approach working with families from a communicative perspective with a goal of empowering individuals to “examine their ideas, comprehend and justify the methodological procedures for validating moral judgments and evaluative decisions through communicative interaction, appreciate the influence of social realities on moral and ethical perspectives, and participate collectively and politically in moral judgments.” (pp. 224-5). Brown discussed the need for critical theory as essential for this transition to occur and viewed emancipatory critique as necessary for professionals to recognize personal distortions and to challenge structural functional authoritarian 100 social constraints (1993). This study continues Brown’s exploration of the utilization of a critical reflection perspective in resolving issues and problems encountered by families and the professionals who assist them. Most of her work cited Habermas’ communicative learning, and though she called for emancipatory objectives, she stopped short of identifying pedagogical strategies that could enlighten both students and professionals. The following implications are offered as an extension of Brown’s work as application of the research results. Implication #1: Emancipatory Learning and the Process of Critical Reflection Emancipatory learning implies a change or transformation of knowledge in a Ieamer that results in a different, broader understanding of self and society. Mezirow and Brookfield believe that this transformation takes place as a result of a dilemma or crisis. Habermas identifies critical self-reflection as being necessary for such a transformation of knowledge to occur. From this research, evidence of Critical Reflection and Critical Self-Reflection was found to support these theories but they were not adequate in fully describing how students were coming to know something different. Many of the student papers demonstrated levels of awareness that they defined as being different or broader than what they knew before taking the Interpersonal Relationships course. Some were able to describe the thinking that shaped this awareness while most did not. Some who showed no evidence of critical thought did show evidence of knong something different by using a story to illustrate new insight towards daily events or activities. These students might be displaying Schon’s reflection-in—action 101 process of learning or Dirkx’s mythopoetic way of “coming to know.” These distinct variations in student thinking make it probable that there are multiple methods of emancipatory learning. Perhaps the serendipitous findings of paradigmatic family structures and reflection patterns hold some insight into critical reflection. One could imagine that those preferring an Open paradigmatic structure would be more inclined to critically reflect in the manner that Mezirow describes as questioning and evaluating knowledge fiom a content, process, and premise perspective. Those of a Closed paradigm might be more inclined to critically reflect using a Dewey model that follows a linear process of problem identification that focuses on generating a solution that may closely align with a positivist perspective. Random paradigms would seem to be more inclined to gravitate to Schon’s reflection-in-action and move in and out of reflection, trying out new insights and knowledge. While those of the Synchronous paradigm may prefer to use a method of conscientization to gain deeper knowledge of themselves and the lifeworld around them. It is likely that there are four or more ways to experience emancipatory learning but it will take more research to determine if there exists a relationship with family paradigm theory. However, along with the family paradigmatic preference with which one aligns, comes the potential to develop multi-paradigmatic preferences and abilities. This would imply that everyone has the ability to experience critical reflection in each of what appears to be four distinct methods. More importantly, it implies that as a preference, students will gravitate to those methods that support and nurture that with which they feel most closely aligned, but with motivation and assistance they can 102 develop other means by which to experience emancipation through transformative learning. Implication #2: Emancipatory Learning and Pedagogical Practice Emancipatory learning may be a naturally occurring process of adult development. The daily activities of life move individuals through cycles of self- awareness instilling greater levels of maturity over time. Little if anything may need to be done by educators to facilitate the process. However, the premise of this study was predicated on the belief that human ecologists have an obligation to assist in promoting this process in hopes of addressing indifference, inequities, and injustices that weaken family life. Research in the area of transfonnative learning and adult education provides a different perspective for such pedagogy. The work of Malcolm Knowles and Eduard Lindeman challenge the concept of teaching adults as pedagogical and use the term adragogical as being a more appropriate concept for this type of teaching. Lindeman who coined the term, and Knowles, who made it popular, recognized a difference between the way children and adults learn and believed that the methods for instruction should reflect these differences. In children there is an emphasis in teaching knowledge, in giving someone something they do not know. With emancipatory learning the emphasis is in revealing what is known and examining it with new knowledge in search of understanding (Knowles, 1990). The self-knowledge that comes through emancipatory learning is an adult activity in need of different instructional methodologies. It is not an easy process in that 103 it requires the student to think and can be accompanied by emotional discomfort and distress. But it is not psychoanalysis. Its focus is not on dredging up unpleasant memories. Rather, it seeks to help students to question what they have come to know, and asks them to expand this knowledge. Andragogy as an instructional perspective focuses on creating a humane environment that encourages the student to explore while providing an atmosphere of safety. Such an environment also allows for collaboration between instructor and student and requires trust and mutual respect (Knowles, 1990). Androgogical instruction involves the students in both course planning and evaluation and allows for adapting the class agenda to emerging needs. Specific teaching strategies that support this philosophy would include reflection questions, purposeful readings / lectures, and learning communities. Recognizing that there are multiple methods of emancipatory learning, there exists a need to develop methods of instruction to assist students with the process. Assuming that critical reflection is a teachable form of emancipatory learning, holding significance in higher education, how should one approach instruction? For some students the process of critical reflection will occur naturally while in others it will need prodding. The process of critical reflection is one of questioning. Strategic questions that probe students for understanding are essential components in instruction but the type of questions that critique personal knowledge are not traditional exam questions. Such questions ask students what they know but they will extend student thinking by asking: Why do they believe this to be true. What knowledge do they have to support such claims or beliefs? What is the validity of their knowledge? 104 To encourage personal reflection, a different format for reflective questions could be used in conjunction with a learning journal. Students can be instructed on how to keep a journal about the learning process that is occurring from their participation in the class. Structured questions can be given as a suggested format to help them begin the process. The personal depth that can be obtained through reflective writing often comes fi'om the disciplined activity of weekly entries. Though it would be inappropriate to grade personal reflections, some instructors give graded credit to the frequency and duration of entries. The use of a personal learning journal provides a safe environment that can encourage students to explore feelings, beliefs, and behaviors, while challenging them to examine the process, premise and context of their cognitive and affective learning domains (Meyer, 2000). Creating and presenting purposeful lectures is essential for emancipatory learning. Lectures that build or enhance course readings are needed to help students advance technical understanding to a communicative level and beyond. Too often readings are assigned around chapters in course textbooks with disconnected lectures. Students are subject to information overload, missing the interconnection between topics and activities, degenerating to the lowest level of comprehension by asking professors, “Will this be on the exam?” Purposeful lesson planning designs course objectives and builds readings fiom multiple sources that are supportive. Emancipatory instructors are mindful of their own beliefs and perSpectives. They are reflective teachers in that they critique course content in light of objectives and ask themselves, how this course enhances the well- being of their students as well as the individuals and families that these students will 105 soon serve. Knowing the needs of the students is imperative, requiring the professor to invite students into the shaping of course syllabi and adjusting presentations to match emerging concerns. Such teaching takes time. It is a mindful activity that requires teachers to be fillly present to students. A third teaching strategy that encourages emancipatory learning is the formation of small learning communities. A learning community that supports emancipatory learning differs from traditional group project assignments. Essentially, this type of learning community allows students to work independently using the group for support. Students read and critique each other’s work within an atmosphere of trust and encouragement, with academic success dependent on the ability to critically evaluate the work of another and to receive and respond thoughtfully. To achieve its purpose, these communities need to be established at the onset of a course to allow students time to develop a sense of trust and the necessary skills for critiquing. What has been offered here are recycled strategies. Many professors use variations of these techniques, unfortunately few recognize the importance of encouraging critical reflection and critical self-reflection. Essentially, to be an emancipatory teacher, one must be an emancipatory Ieamer. Unlike an old adage that says, “Those who can, do, and those who can’t, teach,” emancipatory teachers cannot teach what it is they are unable to do. Implication #3: Emancipatory Learning and Professional Application A criticism that Brown held towards the teaching of home economists was their orientation towards empiricist knowledge (1993). Though the intent of the human 106 ecologists is to assist in the promotion of family well-being, curriculums are “packaged and repackaged” according to popular ideas and presented as grounded in research. This‘comes from the interdisciplinary approach of human ecology borrowing from all of the social sciences. Ideally, the human ecologist should approach each of the disciplines with critical inquiry, questioning the value of the knowledge being offered in respect to the needs of the families being served within cultural and societal structures. Instead, theory from every discipline is empirically adapted for use with little if any critique. The result is two-fold: human ecology lacks a cohesive theoretical fi'amework resulting in a failure to critique the relativism of knowledge that would be appropriate for professionals in addressing the needs of families (Brown, 1993; Klein & White, 1996). i In 1975, Kantor and Lehr presented their theory of family paradigms as a means of understanding the complexities of daily life. Developing a language that illustrates abstract system cybemetics, Inside the Family combined theory with practical application. The concept of family systems, an essential component of human ecology, is defined in family paradigmatic theory. The operational modem of families seeking and allocating resources, developing goals and interacting within the larger social, cultural and natural environments is much broader than the more empirical social science fiom which we currently borrow. The works of Constantine (1986) and Imig (1999) have furthered the understanding to include four distinct ideologies that challenge traditional models of healthy and unhealthy families. As a conceptual framework, family paradigms provide the scaffolding needed for critiquing knowledge borrowed from other disciplines. 107 Unlike other social sciences and human services who maintain a primary value of “do no harm,” Human Ecology holds a slate of virtues that are intended towards human betterment that provides economic adequacy, societal justice, freedom and peacefulness (Bubolz & Sontag, 1993). When designing future research or evaluating the usefulness of research from other disciplines, questions regarding the application of findings towards the betterment of humanity could be fiamed within the parameters of these virtues and tested against the paradigmatic structures of families. Using this research as an example and the virtue of peacefulness, being able to live one’s life in peace in contrast to warfare and strife, the following questions could be used as a critique in assessing human ecological value: How will emancipatory learning of interpersonal relationship concepts make family life more peaceful and less plagued by strife? Will this research provide insight to this process? Finding that family studies students redefine course concepts in ways that fit their perceptions, how can this information be used in helping families establish a peaceful home? Using the ecological fiamework of family paradigms, the questioning is extended to ask: How does this finding enable each of the four paradigms? Does it favor one paradigm over another (implying the perpetuation of structural functionalism)? How does this finding support family goals? Attainment of resources? Use of time? How does this finding support the community in which families live? Does it encourage stewardship of the environment or exploitation? In determining the value and applicability of research, these types of questions need to be addressed for each of the virtue areas. The term human ecology implies interconnectedness between individuals, families, communities and natural 108 environment. Though we recognize interdependence, we too often focus on individual and didactic needs. Unfortunately, this study failed to develop the broader scope for which it was being called. However, the awareness of the need will serve to facilitate the researcher to continue the investigational process. The ability to critique knowledge in respect to the needs and values of families is foundational to the development of human ecology as a profession. This skill has been identified as invaluable to the preparation of students (National Council on Family Relations. Tools for ethical thinking and practice in family life education, 1999). How then, does one promote the development of a skill that appears to be dormant in today’s profession? As scholars and practitioners, human ecologists need to become unified. Using the work of Habermas as a guide, the profession needs to map out a strategy outlining what a human ecologist is and does (technical / instrumental interests) with the theoretical constructs by which it serves families (communicative / practical interests). These processes need to be guided by self-reflection and critical theory (emancipatory interests) that challenge the societal structures and personal distortions that warp opportunities for families to achieve self-actualization. By having a shared conceptual framework and philosophy, ecologists can evaluate knowledge from other disciplines and shape research interests into a distinct and recognizable theory that enhances the quality of life for all. 109 Conclusion The ability to critically reflect on oneself and one’s beliefs is paramount to working in the field of human ecology. Emancipatory interests, as defined through Mezirow’s model of transformative learning, challenges the perception of the individual. Through such challenges, the individual becomes free of unconscious desires, beliefs and meaning schemes that inhibit achieving self-fulfillment. In this analysis, it was found that in a class designed to empower students to engage in the process of critical reflection, only half of the intemet papers studied displayed any level of critical reflection. Of the thirty papers studied, only 6%, two papers, showed evidence of critical self-reflection on assumptions indicating movement towards emancipatory learning. These numbers may appear to be low and may beg the question as to why bother. Why bother trying to understand emancipatory learning? Why bother structuring curriculum to encourage critical reflection? Why bother putting energy into an area that has such a low return? Brookfield addresses these questions by recognizing the consequences of its absence. Not to be reflective is to see oneself as a victim of fate, to be open to exploitation, to live with no sense of promise or forward movement, to be unable to say why what you’re doing is important, and to think that what you do when you show up to teach makes little difference to anyone or anything. (Brookfield, 1995a, p.263). 110 APPENDICES 111 Appendix A Models of Critical Reflection 112 Appendix A Models of Critical Reflection Mezirow: Transformative Learning Using the work of Habermas, Mezirow (1981, 1991, 1998) has constructed a model of learning for adults that illustrates a process of emancipatory learning. Mezirow proposes that adults develop meaning and perspective schemes by which they filter incoming information. Individuals construct meaning and perspective schemes with parents, siblings, extended family members, teachers, fiiends and societal norms. Since the process of this construction begins in infancy, some of the information contained within the meanings and perspectives can be distorted due to immature sensory and processing skills. Information can also be purposely skewed within societal norms to maintain the societal status quo (Habermas, 1968; Mezirow, 1991; Freire, 1970; Brown, 1993). As the individual develops into an adult, he experiences contradictions in what he has come to believe as truths. Often he will ignore, minimize or assimilate these contradictions into his currently held beliefs. In time though, he may be presented with a contradiction, which causes a “disorienting dilemma” or crisis. In this experience he finds that his old patterns of beliefs and responses are ineffective in resolving his difficulty. Being unable to continue he begins a process of critical reflection on the assumptions keeping him from resolving the problem. This is a critical self-reflection on the way one perceives, feels, understands, and behaves based on beliefs and meanings constructed from life’s experiences. 113 Mezirow’s process of critical reflection begins with problem posing. Problem posing is awareness on the part of the student when a belief becomes challenged. What results is a progressive process of reflection that leads the student from introspection, simply being aware of one’s thoughts and feelings, and evolves to deeper levels of thinking: Reflection on Prior Learning (remembering what was learned in a previous situation and reflecting on how it might be related to the current situation), Process Reflection (an examination of how one performs the fimctions of thinking, feeling, acting, and perceiving), Premise Reflection (questioning of our judgment and becoming aware of why we think, act, feel and perceive as we do and the consequences of such habits and beliefs) and, Theoretical Reflection (awareness and critical evaluation on epistemic, social and psychological presuppositions). Mezirow identifies ten movements in the process of transformative learning that work towards shifting the perspective from which the adult receives and responds to information. 1. A disorienting dilemma. 2. Self-examination with feelings of guilt or shame. 3. A critical assessment of epistemic, sociocultural, or psychic assumptions. 4. Recognition that one’s discontent and the process of transformation are shared and that others have negotiated a similar change. 5. Exploration of options for new roles, relationships, and actions. 6. Planning a course of action. 7. Acquisition of knowledge and skills for implementing one’s plans. 8. Provisional trying of new roles. 114 9. Building of competence and self-confidence in new roles and relationships. 10. A reintegration into one’s life on the basis of conditions dictated by one’s new perspective. Brookfield: Process of Critical Thinking Critical thinking is a skill that everyone uses everyday in implicit and explicit manners. Some do this well while others need encouragement and assistance. Brookfield (1987) identified critical thinking as praxis of alternating analysis and action (p. 23). The adult reflects and analyzes her thoughts and seeks alternatives to the problem by acting on the resolutions. In turn, the adult refines her understanding or perception which regenerates the process of reflection and application. Critical thinking, later identified by Brookfield as critical reflection (19953), is a process best done in dialogue with others since it reduces self-doubt and increases clarity. Brookfield (1987, 1995a, 1995b) identifies five steps in the critical thinking process: 1. T riger Event: An unexpected experience that causes the adult to question previously held beliefs. 2. Appraisal and Self-Scrutiny: A period of reflection for the adult where he alternates between minimizing and denying the challenges with clarifying and evaluating the concern as they relate to self- perception. 3. Exploration: Admitting to the discrepancies, the adult explores new ways of thinking and explaining life. 115 4. Developing Alternative Perspectives: With the new insights gained from critically reflecting on oneself and exploring alternative paths of thought, the adult is now capable of viewing life from a different perspective and receiving new information. 5. Integration: Process of praxis. Schon: Reflection - in — Action Using his experience at MIT and working in human organization management, Schdn developed a model of critical reflection that places the emphasis of adjusting one’s perception of the problem as the best means of creating a solution (1987, 1994, 1995). Schdn recognized that resolving dilemmas often required processes that could not be taught with words. For example: as architecture students struggle to learn the art of design, the process of critical thinking through the problem may not follow a linear process of resolution. Rather, the process becomes one of framing the problem in various ways as a means of perspective taking. From the new ways of perceiving the problem, various solutions are generated and tried. Schon offers the following Reflection-in—Action as an alternative process to a cognitive model of critical reflection/thinking: 1. A situation brings a surprise, something unexpected and challenging. This surprise upsets the “knowing-in-action” which is the routine behavior, thoughts, feelings and beliefs of the student. 116 2. The surprise leads to reflection-inaction. This is a conscious, critical analysis of what the student knows and does not know as related to the experience of the surprise. 3. As the student critically reflects on what is known, she reframes the problem to gain a different perspective on its resolution. 4. This reframing creates different strategies for understanding which leads to tentative ways of solving the problem. On-the-spot experimentation, or hypotheses testing, may or may not work and can lead the student back to further reflection and experimentation. t Kitchener and King: Reflective Judgment Though not models like Transformative Learning, the Process of Critical Thinking / Reflecting, or Reflection-in-Action, Reflective Judgment provides insight into the process of critical reflection from an abilities perspective. Kitchener & King (1994) propose a develOpmental sequence of perceptions about the nature of knowledge and the construction used to resolve ill-structured problems. It is assumed that all students are capable of critical reflection, however, not all critical reflection is equal. Of importance is the ability of students to increase their reflective judgment through critical thinking training. The seven stages of reflective judgment are: 1. Single concrete category of knowing: Knowledge is gained by direct personal observation and needs no justification. 117 2. Two concrete categories of knowledge: A person can know with certainty through direct observation or through an authority. 3. Several concrete categories of knowledge are interrelated: Knowledge is assumed to be either absolutely certain or temporarily certain. Justification is based on what authorities state or what “feels right.” 4. Knowledge is understood as a single abstraction: Knowledge is certain and knowledge claims are assumed to be idiosyncratic. 5. Two or more abstract knowledge claims can be related: Knowledge is seen as being contextual and subjective. Beliefs are justified by using the rules of inquiry for the appropriate contexts. 6. Abstract concepts of knowledge can be related: Knowledge is actively constructed by comparing evidence and opinion on different sides of an issue; solutions are evaluated by personally endorsed criteria 7. Abstract concepts of knowledge are understood as a system: Knowledge is the outcome of the process of reasonable inquiry for constructing a well-informed understanding. Reflective J udgrnent theory provides insight into the cognitive abilities of students by illuminating differences in students’ abilities to assimilate information into the critical reflection process. 118 Kolb: Experiential Learning , Using the work of Dewey, Lewin and Piaget, Kolb developed a model of learning that incorporates a cyclical process (Svinicki & Dixon, 1987). Though not specifically labeled as critical or reflective thinking, experiential learning presents what appears to be a sequential activity. In Kolb’s theory, true learning or problem solving, requires the student to work through a cycle of four processes. The point of entry begins with a student’s experience (Kolb, 1984): What has the student seen? What has the student done? Specific experiences in life root learning in a concrete dimension and provide the student with the “facts of the situation.” Next the student reflects on these facts to gain understanding of what they might mean. In this stage, reflective observations, the student is looking for patterns, similarities and differences in what this experience brought in comparison to other experiences (Kolb, 1984). Step three requires the student to generate a theory or hypothesis about what has taken place. Compared with what the student has learned through life, what might this experience mean? At this point, using the information generated during the reflective observation, the student explains, writes papers, or creates analogies within the abstract conceptualization of the experience (Svinicki & Dixon, 1987). This step is followed by active experimentation, empowering the student to try out what has been hypothesized. With action, the student re-enters the concrete experience of learning by testing what was learned from the reflective observation and abstract conceptualization. 119 1 0 Concrete Experience / “The Facts” \ 4. 2. Active Experimentation Reflective Observations Testing Previous Experience 3. Abstract Concepts Hypotheses Figure 11. Kolb’s Model of Experiential Learning. The four step cyclic process illustrates the movement of activity required for true learning. Beginning with a concrete experience (1) the student reflects on previous experience and knowledge to gain understanding (2). From this reflection the student generates a hypothesis to explain what the experience could mean (3). In the final step, the student tests the hypothesis, reinitiating the experiential learning process. Figure 11. Kolb’s Model of Experiential Learning 120 Summary of Critical Reflection Models The models presented for critical reflection are not the only theories of critical reflection or transformative learning. Other theories that could be used to explore the student papers for the critical reflection that Habermas identifies as being necessary for emancipatory learning could include, F reire’s conscientization (1970), Belenky’s women’s way of learning through relationships and connections (1986), Dirkx’s individuation through symbolic and mythopoetic traditions (Boyd 1991, as cited by Dirkx, 1998; Dirlor, 2000). The theoretical models that have been chosen represent theories that have been developed enough to operationalize into conceptual definitions for identification. Each comes from a constructional context that recognizes that individuals co-construct meaning within themselves, in relationship with family, friends, the society in which they live and the natural environment. This perspective situates well within human ecology theory. 121 Appendix B The Relational Assessment Scale 122 The Relational Assessment Scale The purpose of this questionnaire is to assess your present understanding of your relationship. ................... Instructions Complete the questions on the next pages by assigning a value of 10 to the ONE choice (A, B, C, D) in the C (SELF) column which most accurately describes your CURRENT (C) understanding of your relationship. From the three remaining choices in the C column assign a value ranging from 0-9 to the 2nd most descriptive choice. Repeat for the 3rd and 4th choices. All values (0-9), except for the number 10 may be repeated any number of times. Remember, that there must be and should be only one 10 in the C column (See example below). Life in relationships is not always what we would like for it to be. Please repeat the process as described above for the column marked I (under Self). Assign a value of 10 to the ONE choice (A, B, C, D) that most IDEALLY represents how you would like for this aspect of your relationship to be. As before, assign values to the three remaining choices. All values except for 10 may be repeated any number of times. How do you think that your partner would answer these questions? Repeat this process again by answering the questions as you think that your partner would - what do you think that your partner thinks for both current and ideal relational situations. Below, is an example question with the numbers filled-in. Again, note that there is one 10 per column, but not more than one 10 per column. EXAMPLE - In our relationship we generally tend to Self Partner communicate with each other in the followig way. C I C I A - In a direct and factual manner 10 6 l0 2 B - In a tactful and less direct manner 8 8 C - In a questioning and engaging manner 2 l D - In a humorous and understanding manner 4 10 2 10 Relationships also involve behavior. In any relationship someone or something starts, initiates, causes or determines what will take place and when. These are called INITIATING-MOVING behaviors. In your relationship you or your partner may comment on the action taking place and have a range of suggestions for how things might be changed for a variety of reasons. These are called QUESTIONING- CHALLENGING behaviors. Sometimes someone doesn’t initiate, challenge or support any actions taken, but instead act as a kind of guide and conscience by providing a balanced, accurate and non-blaming sense of reality, insight and wisdom about what 123 they have observed. These are called REFLECTING-COMMENTING behaviors. I And finally, someone may agree with and confirm the behaviors of one, any or all of the other behaviors (initiating-moving, questioning-challenging, reflecting-commenting). These are called AGREEING-SUPPORTING behaviors. Following the same I directions provided above, please assign current (C) and ideal (1) values for both Yourself and your partner’s behaviors. Please see the examples below. EXAMPLE EXAMPLE What behaviors describe how you What behaviors describe your contribute to communication in your partner’s contributions to relational relationship? communications? Self C I Partner C I Initiating-Moving 1 0 6 Initiating-Moving 4 l O I Questioning- 6 1o Questioning-Challenging 5 8 l Challenging Agreeing-Supporting 4 4 Agreeing-Supporting 10 6 I Reflecting-Commenting 2 8 Reflecting-Commenting 9 4 Thank you for agreeing to complete this questionnaire - Please continue I 124 I a. In your relationship, how do the important things Self Partner that mustjet done, get done? I C I A - We just know what needs to get done & how to do it B - By being well organized, using successful & structured routines, and perhaps most importantly having a plan we can count on C - Each person does what they think needs to get done and how to do it D - By regularly discussing and agreeing with each other what needs to get done and how “best” to work together to get things done I b. What behaviors do you play in What behaviors does your partner play contributing to getting done what has in contributing to getting done what to get done? has to get done? Self C I Partner C I Initiating-Moving Initiating-Moving Questioning-Challenging Questioning-Challenging Agreeing-Supporting Agreeing-Supporting Reflecting-Commenting Reflecting-Commenting 2a. How do you show your affection, care & support for Self Partner one another? C I C I A - We share our love & affection for each other in an intimate, expressive, emotionally shared and somewhat private manner B - We demonstrate our love & affection for one another in a somewhat conventional, regulated, modest and always private manner C - We show our love & affection for each other in a playful, spontaneous, turinhibited and sometimes public manner D - We share our affection in an unspoken manner - because we just know without saying it that we deeply love & care for each other 125 2b. What behaviors do you use when showing affection & caring in your relationship? What behaviors does your partner use to show affection & caring in the relationship? Self C I Partner C I Initiating-Moving Initiating-Moving Questioning-Challenging Questioning-Challenging Agreeing-Supporting Agreeing-Supporting Reflecting-Commenting Reflecting-Commenting 3a. Within your relationship what contributes to Self Partner providing you with asense of purpose & meaning? C I C I A - By each of us having the freedom & autonomy to engage in a personal journey of Growth, exploration & self-discovery B - By valuing the relationship more than ourselves as individuals, making decisions that benefit our common good, and valuing the virtues of organization, discipline & responsibility C - When our personally unique experiences & insights result in a shared, implicit & unspoken sense of unity, harmony & way of knowing D - By working together in our relationship to "go beyond" what has always been to create new and different ways of living life 3b. What behaviors do you play in determining what is meaningfid and has purpose? What behaviors does your partner play in determining the meaning & purpose of things? Self C I Partner C I Initiating-Moving Initiating-Moving Questioning-Challenging Questioning-Challenging Agreeing-Supporting Agreeing-Supporting Reflecting-Commenting Reflecting-Commenting 126 4a. How in your relationship do you go about “making sense” out of what you experience in life? Self Partner A - By sharing our ideas with each other, by asking each other questions, and listening to the opinions & thwhts of others B - Each of us subjectively relies on ourselves and our own ideas to personally make sense out of what it is we experience in life C - By using “the” time-tested & established rules & truths of life, and by having learned how to look at any situation in an objective and factual manner D - We just seem to know without much discussion how to understand and make sense out of what we experience in life 4b. What behaviors do you play when What behaviors does your partner play trying to make sense out of life when trying to make sense out of life experience? experiences? Self C I Partner C I Initiating-Moving Initiating-Moving Questioning-Challenging Questioning-Challenging Agreeing-Supporting Agreeing-Supporting Reflecting-Commenting Reflecting-Commenting 5a. From a relational point-of-view, what emphasis do Self Partner ou feel is being placed on the following areas? C I A - The importance of our being able to understand & make sense out of our life experiences in an accurate & realistic way B - That our relationship is guided by a greater sense of purpose and meaning in life C - That in our relationship we provide each other with the amount & kind of affection, caring, love & support wanted & needed D - That the important & necessary things that need to get done -get done- in order to have a quality relationship 127 l' 5b. What behaviors do you play in determining the importance of these What behaviors does your partner play in determining the importance of these areas? areas? Self C 1 Partner C I Initiating-Moving Initiating-Moving Questioning-Challenging Questioning-Challenging Agreeing-Supporting Agreeing-Supporting Reflecting-Commenting Reflecting-Commenting 6a. In your relationship, how is time generally used? Self Partner C C I A - In a flexible & adaptive manner - it can be changed as needed B - In a planned, scheduled & organized manner C - In a spontaneous manner so that opportunities for unplanned, interesting & creative experiences can happen D - Without hardly any discussion, in our relationship we just seem to know how time is to be used 6b. What behaviors do you play in determining how time will be used in What behaviors does your partner play in determining how time will be used? 4 your relationship? Self C I Partner C I Initiating-Moving Initiating-Moving Questioning-Challenging Questioning-Challenging Agreeing-Supporting Agreeing-Supporting Reflecting-Commenting Reflecting-Commenting 128 7a In your relationship, how are questions and ideas handled? Self Partner C I A - In our relationship we can ask any questions. We can say anything to each other, no matter how personally intimate, confronting or just plain silly. It’s OK to ask any questions - no matter what! B - Certain issues and topics are rarely discussed in our relationship because they are simply inappropriate. The discussions that we have are always constructive & conducted with mutual respect C - Within reason, most questions can be asked and ideas can be discussed — but differences causing conflict are to be resolved D - There doesn't seem to be any real need for us to ask questions of each other, we just seem to understand most things in the same way 7b. What behaviors do you play in What behaviors does your partner determining how ideas & questions use in determining how ideas & will be handled? questions are handled? Self C I Partner C I Initiating-Moving Initiating-Moving Questioning-Challenging Questioning-Challenging Agreeing-Supporting Agreeing-Supporting Reflecting-Commenting Reflecting-Commenting 8a. How is energy and eflort used in your relationship? Self Partner C I A - In a steady, consistent, regulated and controlled manner B - In a dynamic, enthusiastic, spirited and vigorous manner C - In an peaceful, calm, serene and tranquil manner D - In a flexible, adaptive, changeable & accommodating manner 129 8b. What behaviors do you play in What behaviors does your partner use determining how eflort & energy will in contributing to how eflort is used? be used? Self C Partner C I Initiating-Moving Initiating-Moving Questioning-Challenging Questioning-Challenging Agreeing-Supporting Agreeing-Supporting Reflecting-Commenting Reflecting-Commenting 9a In your relationship, how do you relate to your possessions Self Partner and belongings - the “things ” of life? C 1 c I A - “Things” are valued because we worked hard to get them, and for us they represent the “just” & deserving rewards of life B - “Things” aren’t what’s really important in life - it’s experiencing & living life that’s important - things often just get in our way C - “Things” are useful in life because we can use them to get other more important things done & to make life more convenient D - “Things” are to be valued and respected because of the personal meaning that they represent. Because of their importance they should be protected & kept as perfect as possible 9b. What behaviors do you play in determining how to relate to ossessions and belongings? What behaviors does your partner play in deciding how to relate to possessions and belongings? Self C Partner Initiating-Moving Initiating-Moving Questioning-Challenging Questioning-Challenging Agreeing-Supporting Agreeing-Supporting Reflecting-Commenting Reflecting-Commenting 130 10a. What emphasis is placed in your relationship Self Partner on the following areas? C I C I A - The importance of possessions and belongings B - The importance of effort & energy in our relationship C - The importance of time & how it will be used D - The importance of ideas, questions & information 10b. What behaviors do you play in What behaviors does your partner determining the comparative play in determining the importance importance of these areas? of these areas? Self C 1 Partner C Initiating-Moving Initiating-Moving Questioning-Challenging Questioning-Challenging Agreeing-Supporting Agreeing-Supporting Reflecting-Commenting Reflecting-Commenting Copyright 1995. Dr. David Imig. Michigan State University 131 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY June 27, 2001 TO: Deborah C. Bailey FR: Dr. David R. Imig, Profit-5m 9. 2 RE: Permission to Reprint Relational Paradigm Assessment Scale I grant permission for you to reprint the Relational Paradigm Assessment Scale in your dissertation. COLLEGE OF HUMAN ECOLOGY ' Department at Family and Child Ecology Michigan State University 107 Human Ecology East Lansing, Michigan 48824-1030 517/ 355-7680 FAX. 517/ 432-2953 132 Appendix C FCE 444 Semester Paper Evaluation Form 133 F CE 444 Semester Paper Evaluation Form Student Name Paper Format Relational Statement & Top Ten Accuracy & Correctness of Scale Data Correct Use of Concepts Range & Depth of Concepts Appropriateness & Relevance of Relational Examples Overall Impression of Paper Total Score Checklist of Included Concepts _Paradigms: C R O S _Alignment / Misalignment _Enabled / Disabled _Communication Patterns _Strategies _Compound Systems _Functional Goals _Distance Regulation Issues _Most Like Comments: 134 Student # _Player Parts _Player Part Patterns _Boundaries _Mechanisms _Sub-Mechanisms _Compromise /Blended /Combined _System Rules _Views 1, 2, 3, 4 _Least Like Appendix D UCRIHS Approval 135 OFFICE OF RESEARCH All!) GRADUATE STUDIES live rsliy Committee on Research involving Human Subjects Michigan State University 6 Administration Building East Lansing, Michigan 48824-1046 51 ”355-21 80 FAX: 517/353-2976 [Irrwmsuedu/user/ucrihs :-MaiI: UCtihs©rnsu,edu ’. Mldllgan State University 'A is institutional Diwali)? Excellence in Action. 5U is an aflimzative-aclion, ual-oooomm indium MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY December 22, 2000 TO: David IMIG 203E Human Ecology Building RE: IRB# 00-830 CATEGORY21-B. 1-E APPROVAL DATE: December 21, 2000 TITLE: AN ANALYSIS OF CRITICAL REFLECTION IN SEMESTER PAPERS OF FAMILY STUDIES UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS IN AN INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHlP VIRTUAL UNIVERSITY AND TRADITIONAL CLASSROOM COURSE The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects' (UCRIHS) review of this A project is complete and I am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be adequately protected and methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate. Therefore, the UCRIHS approved this project. RENEWALS: UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year, beginning with the approval date shown above. Projects continuing beyond one year must be renewed with the green renewal form. A maximum of four such expedited renewals possible. Investigators wishing to continue a project beyond that time need to submit it again for a complete review. REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human subjects, prior to initiation of the change. If this is done at the time of renewal, please use the green renewal form. To revise an approved protocol at any other time during the year, send your written request to the UCRIHS Chair, requesting revised approval and referencing the project's IRB# and title. Include in your request a description of the change and any revised instruments, consent forms or advertisements that are applicable. PROBLEMS/CHANGES: Should either of the following arise during the course of the work, notify UCRIHS promptly: 1) problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involving human subjects or 2) changes in the research environment or new information indicating greater risk to the human subjects than existed when the protocol was previously reviewed and approved. If we can be'of further assistance, please contact us at 517 355-2180 or via email: UCRIHS@msu.edu. Please note that all UCRIHS forms are located on the web: http://www.msu.edu/user/ucrihs Sincerely, Ashir Kumar, MD Interim Chair, UCRIHS AK: rj CC: Debra Bailey 19700 Waterloo Rd Chelsea, MI 48118 136 BIBLIOGRAPHY 137 Bibliography Allen, K. R., & Crosble-Burnett, M. (1992). Innovative ways and controversial issues in teaching about families: A special collection on family pedagogy. Family Relations, 41, 9-11. Ambert, A., Adler, P. A., Adler, P. & Detzner, D. F. (1995). Understanding and evaluating qualitative research. Journ_al of Marriage and the Family. 57, 879-893. Andrews, M.P., Bubolz, M.M. & Paolucci, B. (1980). An ecological approach to study of the family. Marriage and Ffiamilv Review 3 V2, 29-49. Arcus, M. E. (1992). Family life education: Toward the 21 " century. Famin Relations. 41, 390-393. Belenky, M. F., McVicker-Clinchy, B., Rule-Goldberg, N. & Mattuck-Tarule, J. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self. voice. and mind. New York: Basic Books. Brookfield, S. D. (1987). Developing critical thinkers: Challenging adults to explore alternative ways of thinking and acting. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Brookfield, S. D. (1995). The development of critical reflection 1n adulthood. Foundations of a theory of adult leamin n.g New England Journal, 13, (1) 39-48. Brookfield, S. D. (1995). Becoming a cnmlly reflective teacher. San Francisco: J ossey-Bass. Brown, M. M. (1993). Philosophical studies of home economics in the United States: fish idea_s by which home economists understand themselves. East Lansing, MI.: Michigan State University. Brown, M. M. & Paolucci, B. (1979). Home economics: A definition. Washington DC: American Home Economics Association. Brundage, D. H. & MacKeracher, D. (1984). Adult learning principles and their implication to proggar_n_ planning. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Education. Bubolz, M.M., Eicher, J .B. & Sontag, M.S. (1979). The human ecosystem: A model. Journal of Home Economics, Spring, 28-31. Bubolz, M.M. & Sontag, M.S. (1993). Human ecology theory. In P. Boss, W. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. Schumm, S. Steinmetz (Eds), Sourcebopk of famin theories and methods: A conceptual approach. (pp. 419-448) New York: Plenum. 138 Constantine, L. L. (1986). Family Paradigms: The practice of theory in family therapy. New York: Guilford Press. Creswell, J .W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. deGroot, W. T. (1988). A grounded theory for human ecology: A general research design. In R.J. Bordan, J ., Jacob, G.L. Young, (Eds), Human ecology: Researph and application.(pp. 293-303). College Park, IL: The Society for Human Ecology. Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S. (1998). Introduction: Entering the field of qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln. (Eds), Strategies of qualitative ingm' . (pp. 1-34). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Chicago: Regency. Dirkx, J. M. (2000). After the burning bush: Transformative learning as imaginative engagement with everyday experience. In A. Wiessner, S.R. Meyer, D.A. Fuller, (Eds), Proceediagsiof the Third International Conference On Trapsformative Learning. (pp. 247-258).New York: Teachers College Columbia University. Dirkx, J. M. (1998). Transformative learning theory in the practice of adult education: An overview. PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning, 7, l-14. Dirkx, J .M. (1997). Nurturing the soul in adult learning. In P. Cranton, (Ed), Transformative learning in action: Insights from practice. (pp. 79-88). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Doherty, W. J. (1995). Boundaries between parent and family education and family therapy: The levels of family involvement model. Family Relations, 44, 353-358. Edgar, A. & Sedwick, P. (1999). Key concepts in cultural theory. London: Rutledge. Ennis, R. H. (1992). The degree to which critical thinking is subject specific: Clarification and needed research. In SF. Norris (Ed), The generalizability of critical thinking: Multiple perspectives on an educational idea. (pp. 21-31). New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University. Fine, M.J. & Henry, SA. (1991). The professional issues in parent education. In J. Fine (Ed), The second handbook on parent education: Contemporary perspectives, (pp. 3-18). New York: Academic Press. Freire, P. (1970). translated by Ramos M. B. (1999). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum Publishing. 139 Glaser, B.G., Strauss, AL. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative researgh. New York: Aldine Publishing. Grabove, V. (1997). The many facets of transformative learning theory. In P. Cranton (Ed), T_ransform_ative learning in action: Insights from practice. (pp. 89-96). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Habermas, J (1968). translated by Shapiro, J. J ., (1971). Knowledge and human interest. Boston: Beacon Press. (Original work published 1968, Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt am Main. Habermas, J (1971). translated by Viertel, J .(1973) Theory and practice. Boston: Beacon Press. (Original work published 1971, Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt am Main) Hughes, Jr., R. (1994). A framework for developing family life education programs. Family Relations, 43, 74-80. Imig, D. R. (1999). A conversation about interpersonal relationships, family systems and paradigms. Venice, CA: Etext.net. Imig, D.R., Bailey, DC. (2000, November). Assessing the quality of prudent productivity for an interpersonal and family relations intemet course. Paper presented at the National council on Family Relations Annual Meeting in Minneapolis, MN. Imig, D. R. & Phillips, R., G. (1992). Operationalizing paradigmatic family theory: The family regime assessment scale (F RAS). F_amily Science Review. 5. 217-234. Kantor, D. & Lehr, W. (1975). Inside the family. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. King, P. M. (1992). How do we Ignow‘? Why do we believe?: Learning to makg reflective iadgments. [Online] Liberal education, 78 (1). Retrieved January 2, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www- honors.ucdavis.edu/fl1/aa/king.html. - Kitchener, K. S. & King, P. (1994). Developingreflective figment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in flolescent; San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Klein, D. M. & White, J. M. (1996). Family theories: An introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 140 Knapp, S. J. (2000). Reading family science: an analysis of the obiectifying practices of family science discourse. Paper presented at Theory Construction Research Methodology Workshop 2000. 30th Annual Workshop. Nov. 8- 9, Minneapolis, MN. Knowles, M.S. (1984). Introduction: The art and science of helping adults learn. In M.S. Knowles (Ed), Andragogy in action. (pp. 1-21).San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Knowles, M.S. (1990). The adult Ieamer: A neglected species. (4th ed.). Houston: Gulf Publications. Kolb, DA. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Kreber, C. & Cranton, RA. (2000). Exploring the scholarship of teaching. Journal of Higher Education. 71. 476-495. Kuzel, A. J. (1999). Sampling in qualitative inquiry. In B.W. Crabtree, Millevedo, Doing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lasker, H., Moore, J. & Simpson, E. (1980). Adult development arfi approaches to Iearnirg. Washington, DC: US. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Institute of Education. Superintendent of Documents, US. Government Printing Office. Markman, H.J. (1979). Application of a behavioral model of marriage preparation in predicting relationship satisfaction of couples planning marriage. Journal of Counseling and Clinical Paychology. 47. 734-49. Markman, H.J., Floyd, F (1980). Possibilities for the prevention of marital discord: A behavioral perspective. American Journal of Family Therapy, 8, 24-48. Markman, H. J ., Floyd, F ., Stanley, 8., & Jamieson, K. (1984). A cognitive / behavioral program for the prevention of marital and family distress: Issues in program development and delivery. In K. Hahlweg & N. Jacobson (Eds), Mm] interaction: Analysis an_d modification. New York: Guilford Press. Maxwell, J. A. (1999). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Meyer, S. R. (2000). Joumaling and transformative learning. In A.Wiessner, S. Meyer, D. A. Fuller, (Eds), Proceedings of the Third International Conference On _T__ransformative Learni__n_g. (pp. 61 -70). New York: Teachers College Columbia University. Mezirow, J. (1998). On critical reflection. Adult Education Quarterly. 48 185-198. 141 Mezirow, J. (1996). Contemporary paradigms of learning. Adult Education Quarterly. 16, 158-173. Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimension_sgf adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Mezirow, J. (1981). A critical theory of adult learning and education. Adult Edfltion. 32, 3-24. Miles, M. 13., Huberman, AM. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysia 2"d edition. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage Publications. Miles, M. B. (1983). Qualitative data as an attractive nuisance: The problem of analysis. In J. Van Maanen (Ed), Qualitative methodolgy. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage Publications. Morgaine, C. A. (1994). Enlightenment for emancipation: A critical theory of self- formation. Family Relations. 43. 325-335. Morgaine, C. A. (1992). Alternative paradigms for helping families change themselves. F_amin Relatioas. 41. 12-17. National Council on Family Relations. (1999). Tools for ethical thinking and practice in family life education. Minneapolis, MN: Author. Norris, S. P. (1992). The generalizability of critical thinking: Multiple perspectives on an educational ideal. In SF. Norris (Ed), Clarifications and direction_s for research. (pp. 17-20). New York: Teachers College, Columbia University. Olsen, DH. (1983). How effective is marriage preparation? In D. Mace (Ed), Prevention in Family Service. (pp 65-756). Beverly Hills, CA.: Sage Publications. Paolucci, 8., Hall, O.A. & Axinn, N. (1977). Family decision makipg: An ecosystem approach. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Rudestam, K. E. & Newton, RR. (2001). Smivinwm dissertation: A comprehensive guide to content apd process. 2"d edition. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage Publications. Russell, M.N. & Lyster, F. (1992). Marriage preparation: Factors associated with consumer satisfaction. Family Relations, 41, 445-451. Paul, R. W. (1990). Critical thinking: What every person needs to survive in a rapidly changing world. A.J.A. Binker, (Ed), Rohnert Park, CA.: Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique. 142 Schvaneveldt, J. D. & Young, M. H. (1992). Strengthening families: New horizons in family life education. F_amily Relations. 41. 385-389. Schdn, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass. Schdn, D. A. & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: Basic Books. Schdn. DA. (1995). The new scholarship requires a new epistemology. Change, 27, pp. 26-34. Retrieved January 30, 2001, from OCLC Firstsearch (Wilson Select Plus) on the World Wide Web: (http://newsfirstsearch.oclc.org). Small, SA. (1990). Some issues regarding the evaluation of family life education programs. Family Relations. 39, 132-135. Sollie, D. L. & Kaetz, J. F. (1992). Teaching university level family studies course: Techniques and outcomes. Family Relations, 41, 18-24. Sontag, M. S. & Bubolz, M. M. (1988). A human ecological perspective for integration in home economies. In R.J. Bordan, J. Jacob, G.L.Young, (Eds), Human ecolcgy: Research and application. (pp 117-128). College Park, Maryland: The Society for Human Ecology. Stanley, S.M. & Markman, H.J. (1997). Acting on what we know: The hope of prevention. Retrieved April 26, 1998, fi'om Smart Marriages on the World Wide Web: (http://www.smartmarriages.com/hope.htrnl). Stanley, S.M., Markman, H.J., St. Peters, MI. & Leber, 3D. (1995). Strengthening marriages and preventing divorce: New directions in prevention research. Family Relations. 44, 392-401. Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N.K. Denzin, Y.S. Lincoln, (Eds), Strategies of Qualitative iaquiry. (pp. 158-183). Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage Publications. Svinicki, M.D., & Dixon, NM. (1987). The Kolb model modified for classroom activities. College TeachingiS. Heldref Publications, 1319 Eighteenth St. N., Washington, DC. 20036—1802. Taylor, K. (2000). Developing adult learners. In A. Wiessner, S.R. Meyer, D. Fuller, (Eds), Proceedings of the Third International Conference On Transformative Learning. New York: Teachers College Columbia University. Thomas, J. & Arcus, M. (1992). Family life education: An analysis of the concept. Family Relations, 41, 3-8. 143 Thompson, J. B. (1981). Critical hermeneutics: A study in the thoaght of Pearl Ricoeur and J urgen Habermas_. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Webster’s encyclapedic unabridged dictioaary of the English lggpaga (1996). New York: Gramercy Books. Westney, O. E., Brabble, E. W. & Edwards, C. H. (1988). Human ecology: Concepts and perspectives. In R. Bordan, J. Richard, J. Jacob, & G.L. Young, (Eds), Human ecoltfl Research and application. College Park, Maryland: The Society for Human Ecology. Yost, D.S., Sentner, S.M. & F orlenza-Bailey, A. (2000). An examination of the ~ constructs of critical reflection: Implications for teacher education programming in the 21St century. Retrieved March 13, 2001, from Proquest on the World Wide Web (httpp://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?TS=9845069. . .=1&Dtp=1&Did=000000048865893 &Mtd=1 7&Fmr=3). i. .I. . HI..." 5' 144 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 31293 02199 0316