Addressing the Community Psychology Competency Dialectic through Participatory Pedagogy By Kelly Collins1, Christopher Keys1, Martina Mihelicova1, Kris Ma1, Nicole Colón- Quintana1, Jordan Reed1, Madison Sunnquist1, Carolyn Turek1, Christopher Whipple1 Keywords: Community Psychology Practice Competencies, Pedagogy, Dialectic, Training Author Biographies: Kelly Collins is a graduate student in the Community Psychology program at DePaul University. She received her B.A. in Psychology with a minor in Women’s and Gender Studies from Michigan State University. Her research focuses on violence against women and homelessness. She is interested in community engagement and improving systems and policy through multidisciplinary collaboration. Chris Keys has been teaching community psychology to graduates and undergraduates for over four decades. He has used participatory teaching methods in community, clinical, social and organizational psychology courses and as a finalist for a university-wide teaching award for one of his participatory courses. He helped develop and directed community-organizational, community-clinical and free-standing community psychology doctoral programs at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC). He also helped develop an undergraduate major in applied psychology which included a gateway course in community psychology. He helped found an undergraduate concentration in community psychology and contributes to doctoral programs in clinical-community and freestanding community psychology at DePaul University. He has served as treasurer and chair of the Council of Community Psychology Program Directors, forerunner of the SCRA Council of Educational Programs, and as chair of the Council of Training Councils. Martina Mihelicova is a graduate student in the Clinical- Community Psychology PhD program at DePaul University. Martina is involved in 1 DePaul University Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 2 conducting qualitative research with various communities, including people experiencing homelessness, homeless service providers, and rape crisis workers. Through community- based research, Martina works with and learns from people experiencing trauma and barriers to recovery, including stigma, lack of services, poverty, and staff turnover. She is also committed to supporting direct service providers in light of the impact of trauma exposure on well-being. Kris (Pui Kwan) Ma is a third-year doctoral student in the Clinical- Community Psychology program at DePaul University. She received her Bachelor of Social Science’s degree in Psychology in 2013 from the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Her current research centers on addressing health and mental health disparities in underserved communities. She aims to design culturally responsive behavioral health interventions for racially and ethnically diverse communities. She is also keen on developing evidence-based public health interventions to reduce physical comorbidities among individuals with mental illness. Kris recently worked with a community mental health clinic to examine the effectiveness of the wellness intervention in a primary care-behavioral health integrated care setting for Asian Americans with mental illness. Nicole Colón-Quintana is a graduate student in the clinical psychology PhD program at DePaul University. Currently, her research centers on understanding the relationship between language fluency and depression in low income, bilingual minority youth. In her community, Nicole serves as a youth mentor and family counselor for Spanish-speaking families. She also works as a group therapist in Chicago public schools, teaching coping skills to middle school students who experience depression. Nicole is interested in advancing evidence-based treatments for youth and families from different socioeconomic, linguistic, and cultural backgrounds. Jordan Reed is a 3rd year doctoral student in the Community Psychology program at DePaul University. His current research interests relate to the experience of first-generation college students, and increasing empathy for persons experiencing mental health issues through the use of computer simulations. Madison Sunnquist is a doctoral student in DePaul University’s Clinical-Community Psychology program. Her research interests relate to stigma reduction and access to quality health care for individuals with invisible chronic illnesses. She hopes to utilize participatory research to inform policy decisions that would provide more support and resources to individuals with these illnesses. Carolyn Turek is a graduate student in the Clinical Psychology PhD program at DePaul University. Her http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 3 research interests include family management of chronic childhood illnesses, family health behaviors, and the role of stress in chronic illness management. Christopher Whipple is a graduate student in the Community Psychology doctoral program at DePaul University. His research interests include community and school-based prevention programs for adolescents, specifically prevention programs aimed at violence and substance use, and novel recovery programs for individuals with substance use disorders. Recommended Citation: Collins, K., Keys, C., Mihelicova, M., Ma, K., Quintana. N.C., Reed, J., Sunnquist, M., Turek, C., and Whipple, C. (2016). Addressing the Community Psychology Competency Dialectic through Participatory Pedagogy. Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, 7(4), pages 1-68. Retrieved Day/Month/Year, from (http://www.gjcpp.org/). Acknowledgements: We would like to thank our classmates, Michelle Gilchrist, Juline Girts, Carlos Luna, Amy Rhodes, and Kurtis Simonich, for their contributions to the class sessions. We also thank Tom Wolff for his helpful editorial comments. http://www.gjcpp.org/ http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 4 Addressing the Community Psychology Competency Dialectic through Participatory Pedagogy Abstract Ongoing discussions persist regarding the potential usefulness and/or harmfulness of a defined set of core competencies in the field of community psychology. The competency thesis is that identification of core competencies can help define the field and distinguish the capabilities of community psychologists (Dalton & Wolfe, 2012). A set of competencies has implications for training and education, including clarity regarding what skills current and future students can expect to learn and what community psychologists may be expected to do. However, others have criticized the nature of standardized competencies. Presenting the antithesis to the competency thesis, Dzidic, Breen and Bishop (2013) question if compartmentalized competencies focus too much on static, individually oriented skills. They may distract from considerations of context, ethics and power within the dynamic ecologies of community psychology practice. Community psychology education and training programs are challenged with exposing students to a variety of central competencies while preparing them to engage in value- based research and practice in context. This article focuses on three applications of participatory pedagogy within the classroom that sought to synthesize the dialectic between core competencies and values-based, dynamic community psychology practice. Instructional materials for all three sessions are appended both for readers’ perusal as examples and for possible future adaptation and use in other community psychology courses. Participatory pedagogical approaches seek to foster student engagement, reflection, and collaboration to promote critical thinking, knowledge application and problem solving. In so doing, participatory pedagogy can bridge the gap between competencies and context, and offer at least a partial synthesis for the competency dialectic in community psychology education and training. The Society for Community Research and Action (SCRA) released the first public draft of Core Competencies for Community Psychology Practice in 2012 which identified 18 core competencies for the practice of community psychology (CP) (Dalton & Wolfe, 2012). The identification of core competencies has helped define the field and describe the skills of trained community psychologists. The set of competencies stimulates dialogue regarding the roles and contributions of community psychologists, and provides a framework for informing fellow psychologists, colleagues from other disciplines, and potential employers about effective CP practice. The set of competencies has important implications for CP training and education. Those interested in CP training can use the list to gain a clearer idea of what community practice involves, in turn promoting their ability to set developmental and career goals. The set of competencies can also be used to systematically review, tailor and enhance graduate education curricula and teaching strategies (Dalton & Wolfe, 2012; Hazel, 2007). Notwithstanding the benefits of core competencies for community psychology practice, there remain a variety of challenges when it comes to teaching these skills, especially within a classroom setting. Some http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 5 have expressed concern about the set, based on the inherent qualities of traditional competencies as relatively static and siloed individual abilities. For community psychologists, competencies that are decontextualized may create a disconnect between the idea of the competencies and the process of their ethical application in community-based practice (Dzidic, Breen, & Bishop, 2013). Of concern is the risk of educational programs teaching CP competencies as static, procedural goals that can be mastered quickly with limited reflection and attention to context and values. Therefore, in contrast, CP training and education programs that actively involve students in the development of competencies in use best prepare students for the complexities of dynamic practice in community settings. While it is recommended that, at a minimum, students are exposed to each of the core competencies and taught relevant ethics and potential applications, Dalton and Wolfe (2012) acknowledge that it would not be likely for graduate programs to provide in- depth training, such as supervised practice in the form of fieldwork over time, for the entire set of competencies. Rather, the set is intended to outline what CP can look like, recognizing that CP practice is inherently situated within complex, ever changing ecological realities. Thus, CP education and training programs are challenged with exposing students to a variety of central competencies at a conceptual level, while also providing opportunities for students to use their developing competencies in dynamic contexts and to reflect critically on their use. Hazel (2007) explains the need to develop alternative teaching and learning strategies that provide an education that “focuses not just on content, but also on process, the process of practice as well as the process of learning” (p.85). To help accomplish the substantive and process goals of CP training and education (Dzidic et al., 2013; Hazel, 2007), this article suggests the use of participatory pedagogy in CP classrooms. The authors begin with an overview of participatory pedagogy and discuss the potential value of this approach within CP training. We then provide three examples of applications of participatory pedagogy within the classroom that sought to constructively synthesize the dialectic between core competencies and values-based, dynamic community psychology practice. Teaching Core Competencies through Application of Participatory Pedagogy Freire (1972) asserts that traditional pedagogy is founded on passive listening and storing deposits of knowledge that stifles students’ ability to critically think in a way that limits their opportunities to apply information to understand reality. Constraining critical thinking and application of knowledge impedes students’ ability to transform knowledge into creative solutions and actions. Research indicates traditional pedagogies produce lower rates of information retention, ability to apply knowledge to novel situations, critical thinking, and problem solving. When compared to increasingly popular participatory and collaborative classroom formats, traditional pedagogy also yields lower levels of motivation, attitude change and peer collaboration (Eagan, Stolzenberg, Lozano, Aragon, Suchard, & Hurtado, 2014; Fink, 2013; Johnson, Johnson, & Stanne, 2000) In contrast to traditional approaches, participatory pedagogy redefines the student’s role from a passive listener and optional discussant to an active participant in the teaching and learning process. It encourages thinking deeply and critically, reflecting on and sharing experiences and prior knowledge, solving problems and actively applying new knowledge gained through course content (Auerbach, 1993; Faust & Paulson, 1998). Siemens (2008) http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 6 describes participatory pedagogy as “one that does not fully define all curricular needs in advance of interacting with learners...multiple perspectives, opinions, and active creation on the part of learners all contribute to the final context of the learner experience” (“A pedagogy of participation,” para. 4). Participatory pedagogical approaches can provide a framework to help bridge the gap between the theoretical knowledge and static understanding of the competencies with the dynamic skills needed to practice CP competencies within active community settings. If the set of core competencies provides substance for CP courses (cf. the competency thesis above), the application of participatory pedagogy can provide dynamism and context to the learning material to address the concerns of stasis and decontextualization (cf. the antithesis above) suggested by Dzidic and colleagues (2013). The synthesis achieved through participatory pedagogy lends itself to the critical examination of social issues and CP theoretical foundations, and deep understanding of community psychology readings. This participatory synthesis also provides opportunities for collaborative learning with colleagues, problem solving related to community concerns, and reflection on the values and ethics of community-based work. This article discusses the application of participatory pedagogy within a graduate community psychology course. It explores three illustrative examples of student- designed sessions that promoted participatory, collaborative learning concerning competencies in community psychology. These examples are followed by a discussion of the benefits and challenges to teaching CP competencies using this pedagogical approach, and potential use of these activities in other undergraduate and graduate courses. Instructional materials for all three sessions are appended for readers’ information, adaptation and use in other courses. Illustrative Examples of Participatory Pedagogy and CP Training: Our Community Psychology Course The community psychology course discussed is a graduation requirement for community, clinical-child and clinical-community psychology doctoral students, and is optionally available to graduate students in various other graduate programs (e.g., education, counseling, general psychology) at DePaul University. The instructor (Chris Keys) and the students met in the classroom for one and a half hours twice weekly throughout the 10-week academic quarter. The purpose of the course was to introduce students to major theories, research studies, and interventions within the field of community psychology. The course syllabus explained that, core values in community psychology include “awareness of strengths, prevention of problems and promotion of health, empowerment of those who are oppressed, valuing of diversity and difference, appreciation of ecology, community ties and context, community participation in research, and the use of multiple levels of analysis to understand social issues.” From the first day, the instructor approached the seminar course as a collaboration between all students and himself. For example, he asked students for feedback on the syllabus content, encouraged students to suggest alternate reading assignments, and sought student recommendations for guest speakers whom they would like to have visit throughout the quarter. Students were encouraged to tailor writing assignments, discussions, and the large final project to their individual areas of interest (e.g., chronic illness, at-risk youth, violence against women) to maximize the application and relevance of learning material. The following three examples are of participatory student–generated sessions, in http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 7 which student planning group members used course materials (viz., assigned readings) to promote learning of CP core competencies as both content and processes (cf. Auerbach, 1993). Generating, facilitating and participating in sessions provided students an opportunity for meaningful engagement to conceptually learn about CP competencies while also building the skills needed for practice (Dalton & Wolfe, 2012; Dzidic, Breen, & Bishop, 2013). It also gave them experience in empowerment as instructors for their session. While each of the three groups approached the sessions differently, there were common, active learning experiences present in all three sessions. In terms of preparation, three class sessions of reading and discussing a cluster of individual articles on focal topics preceded each of these three student-created and led participatory sessions. The sessions encouraged critical thinking, reflection, and collaboration and multi-way learning among students. Students engaged course content in a meaningful way that reinforced, challenged, and integrated their own prior knowledge, as well as that of their peers. Incorporating opportunities for students to engage with others as both learners and teachers allowed students to practice competencies related to forming and participating in groups that work together as equals, acknowledging that everyone has valuable expertise to contribute. The class pursued collective goals that neither individuals nor a single group could accomplish alone. These process skills prepare students to effectively practice competencies such as community inclusion, partnership, and collaboration, ethical reflective practices, and small and large group processes (Dalton & Wolfe, 2012). At the same time the activities sought to foster other process-oriented skills as outlined by Dzidic and colleagues (2013) including an engagement in lifelong learning, humility, and fostering participatory approaches. Engagement in life-long learning promotes humility as learning in these sessions did not focus primarily on learning the definitions of experts, but privileged the ongoing development of one’s own imperfect ideas and process-based skills in ways that encourage growth over time (Dzidic et al., 2013). In addition to these shared benefits, each session synthesized learning particular course content with activities that promoted process-oriented skills. These distinctive elements are highlighted below; for details on how each of these sessions was conducted, see Appendices A, B and C. These materials can act as examples to help students develop their own participatory sessions. In addition, they may highlight specific elements that are important to participatory learning, or may be more closely replicated as detailed in the appendices. Given the substantial benefits to students of conceptualizing, designing and conducting their own sessions, we recommend that option. Example Session 1: Thinking Ecologically when Applying CP Concepts to Community Programs Purpose and goals. The first session was relatively cognitive in emphasis. It addressed the competency category of foundational principles more heavily than other sessions, especially the ecological perspectives competency. It aimed to develop students’ ability to apply ecological perspectives in complex community contexts and strengthen their theoretical understanding of CP concepts. This section of the course covered a wide range of diverse CP foundational concepts including: (1) feminist approaches, (2) critical community psychology, (3) physical environment within social ecology, (4) cultural competence, and (5) social support, social capital, and sense of community. Students were asked to collaboratively define these major CP concepts, and then explore applying each within the ecological context of a community- http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 8 based intervention or prevention program. Students were encouraged to consider factors at multiple ecological levels, how they relate to the CP concepts listed above, and how they might impact the design and implementation of the program. In addition to exposing the students more fully to the CP concepts listed, this session provided the opportunity for students to practice dynamic applications of the ecological perspective competency. The ecological perspective competency is defined by Dalton and Wolfe (2012) as the ability to, “articulate and apply multiple ecological perspectives and levels of analysis in community practice (p. 10).” The overall goals of the session were for students to be able to: (a) define major concepts in community psychology, (b) consider how the presence or absence of these concepts may impact program effectiveness based on factors at multiple ecological levels, and (c) think about how the incorporation of the concepts might be prioritized given the ecological context of the program. For more detailed information and instructions on Example Session 1, please see Appendix A. Development and implementation. During session development, the facilitating group organized students into smaller groups based on research interests (e.g., at-risk youth, chronic health issues). Relevant samples of actual community-based programs were selected for each small group, such as the Healthy Environments and Response to Trauma in Schools (HEARTS), a program that “aims at addressing the impact of community and family violence on children through a trauma-informed, school-based prevention/intervention” (UCSF HEARTS Program, 2015). By exploring a sample program in their area of interest, students were better able to integrate their previous knowledge with the five CP concepts (i.e., feminist approaches, critical community psychology, physical environment within social ecology, cultural competence, and social support, social capital, and sense of community) being presented and then apply an ecological perspective. Student leaders used small and large group processes. The session began with the small groups co- constructing definitions of the five CP concepts. The small groups all came back together as a one large group and worked together to finalize definitions of each CP concept. This cognitive group activity provided the opportunity to conceptualize, to hear how others defined each concept and to practice collaborative decision making. Each small group was provided information regarding their assigned sample program (e.g., HEARTS). In order to explore potential applications of CP concepts with consideration of context (Dzidic et al., 2013), students were asked to become familiar with the details of the program (e.g., population served, programmatic principles or theory, intervention goal or outcomes). Then they considered ecological factors at macro-, meso- and micro-levels impacting the program (e.g., geographic location, public policy, interactions with additional systems such as public schools). Within small groups, students were asked to collaborate to identify: (a) which of the five CP concepts were present and absent in their intervention, (b) which would be beneficial and feasible to incorporate based on the ecological factors influencing the program and why, and (c) how they could go about incorporating the concepts. During small group discussions, facilitators engaged with the groups to ensure that the activity’s purpose was understood and to answer any questions. The class session concluded with a large group discussion of each small group’s experiences during which facilitators asked broad questions that created a space for reflection. Sample questions included, “After thinking about applying these concepts to actual interventions, do you think differently about these concepts? If so, how?” “What thoughts did you have about intervening at http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 9 different ecological levels of the project?” This large group reflection was an opportunity for students to expand their understanding of how the various concepts could be utilized in diverse, multi-level ecologies. Group members openly reviewed their collaboration process and rationales, including ethics involved in deciding how to prioritize application of concepts given the dynamic, multi-level context of the community programs. Outcomes and reflections. While working to deepen their understanding of diverse CP concepts, students found the session activities exposed them to thinking ecologically. They gained introductory experience with the foundational competence of articulating and applying an ecological systems perspective to a community-based program. Participants mentioned that collaboratively describing and defining the concepts at the beginning of the session helped them feel more comfortable and prepared to discuss application to interventions. Additionally, working together in both small and large groups helped diversify the activities and made it easier for each person to have a chance to share their ideas. It promoted a process competence— employing group-based skills such as articulating a point of view and building consensus (Dalton & Wolfe, 2012). Session facilitators also engaged in learning by listening to conversations, answering questions, and asking questions to encourage further critical thinking. By reflecting on the multiple contextual factors at macro-, meso- and micro-levels that created barriers or facilitators to incorporating the CP concepts, students learned that there was no one-size- fits-all formula for application. The session leaders encouraged critical self-reflection of values and assumptions to prepare students to think about and apply context dependent CP concepts in diverse ecologies. Example Session 2: Simulating the Start of Community Program Development Purpose and goals. This next participatory session focused more on process issues. In particular, the emphasis was on the second major competency category, community program development and management. The centerpiece of this session simulated the initial planning stages of an intervention, in which students took on roles as various stakeholders. See Appendix B for more details on how to conduct this session. After two weeks of reading and discussion on prevention, promotion, and empowerment, students used this role-playing activity to integrate these principles in a real-time scenario situated within a community context. The session also helped to develop skills needed for the initial stages of program development, implementation and management within a collaborative group setting. As defined by Dalton and Wolfe (2012), this competence includes the ability to, “partner with community stakeholders to plan, develop, implement and sustain programs in community settings” (p. 11). This experiential activity aimed to highlight: (a) processes and skills related to assessing “community issues, needs, strength and resources” (Dalton & Wolfe, 2012, p.11), (b) collaboration-related challenges in designing an intervention with diverse stakeholders, and (c) practical issues in identifying and acting in accord with community psychology values and ethics in developing and implementing interventions. Development and implementation. The student developers of this group activity were inspired by a class reading, Ready, willing, and able: Developing a support system to promote implementation of school-based prevention programs (Flashpohler, Meehan, Maras, & Keller, 2012). This article described a process to determine school readiness for the implementation of new programs or initiatives. Brainstorming sessions by the http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 10 planning group resulted in the decision to facilitate a dynamic practice scenario in which class members were assigned roles as community psychologists, school administrators, teachers, or parents. Class members were divided into three groups: community psychologists, a cross section of individuals from a well-resourced school, and a cross section from an under- resourced school. Each class participant was given confidential information on his or her specific role that included a title (e.g. school principal, teacher, research assistant, etc.), background history, and motivations related to the intervention. To mimic the realistic challenges and advantages of collaborating with groups of diverse stakeholders, the scenario incorporated power dynamics and varying perspectives. Additionally, each school team was given information on their strengths, weaknesses, and resources. After each class member read these documents, the facilitators informed the class that the schools had each applied to work with the group of community psychologists to implement a school-derived intervention. Unfortunately, the community psychologists could only work with one school. Next, the community psychologist group interviewed teams from both schools to get acquainted with each school’s stakeholders and assess each community’s needs and readiness for the intervention. Subsequently, the team of community psychologists selected a school with which to work. The selected school and the community psychologists then collaborated to develop an intervention and create a plan to implement it. The other school that was not selected was instructed to do the same solo, i.e., without the assistance of the community psychologists. Each of the groups, the school solo group and the school with community psychologists group, presented their final intervention to all. Then the facilitators asked probing questions to encourage participants to reflect on their roles and personal reactions at various stages throughout the scenario. Participants discussed challenges and solutions when collaborating with diverse groups of community partners and the importance of including these diverse perspectives. They also explored the ethical complexities of assessing community needs and readiness, and whether they incorporated aspects of prevention and/or promotion in their interventions. The team of community psychologists was asked if and how they empowered the school team, and the non- selected school was asked to reflect on how their non-selection empowered and/or disempowered them. If these concepts of empowerment and/or prevention were not applied, class members were asked to reflect upon the challenges they faced in incorporating them. Outcomes and reflections. Overall, this activity was well-received by class members and led to rich discussion about the nuances of collaborating with community stakeholders to assess community needs and resources and plan, develop, and implement a community-based program. The role-playing allowed the students to consider multiple worldviews and experience the complex nature of starting community program development. The session encouraged students to examine how empowerment and prevention may be used in schools to help students achieve goals. At the same time, students considered the complexity of addressing ethics in this dynamic community context; specifically, students reflected on complicated ethical decisions in choosing which school to work with. They considered a variety of factors such as available resources, and how, if it all, the community psychologists could also empower the unselected school. This process fostered understanding of some of the contextual facilitators and barriers associated with community participation and intervention development. http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 11 Additionally, because empowerment and prevention were not explicitly discussed when the scenarios were initially presented, students could reflect upon how an intervention development process could unintentionally fail to incorporate these values. Thus, the activity underscored the need for purposeful group planning in order to successfully incorporate the concepts learned in the classroom when working in the community. Example Session 3: Using a Diversity Game to Experience Systemic Inequity and Build Sociocultural and Cross-Cultural Competence Purpose and goals. The previous two sessions focused on learning concepts and applying theories in dynamic community contexts. The first more cognitive session emphasized the readings and thinking about their use ecologically. The second more process- oriented session emphasized development of a community prevention program in a school, using the readings as a resource. Building on these successful experiences, the third session took learning to another level – an experiential simulation of systemic inequality. Modeled from the television game show Jeopardy, a diversity game tested students’ knowledge of course content within a simulated systemic dynamic of privilege and oppression. The ultimate goal was to build students’ sociocultural and cross-cultural competence by grounding their understanding in the experience of inequity in the diversity game followed by reflection on the presence and impact of the structural power imbalances in the game. These power differences exemplified the need for community inclusion and partnership and bottom-up approaches in CP. Specifically, the session sought to develop students’ ability to “analyze social inequality and power imbalances,” and to articulate “how the dynamics of culture, privilege and power influence interactions within the community context in which one is working, including one’s own interactions.” (Dalton & Wolfe, 2012; p. 10). Instead of presenting students with paradigms of diversity, this participatory approach allowed students to experience diversity, oppression and privilege in their own ways. Then they generated a wide variety of ideas on the topic that guided the discussion in a beneficial path for their learning. The same perspective speaks to the value of community psychologists encouraging indigenous interventions. Participating community members drive these interventions rather than having others impose novel, extra- community interventions that may challenge the community’s culture (Kelly, 1988). Development and implementation. The facilitation group was comprised of four students from various ethnic and academic backgrounds (Puerto Rico, Hong Kong, United States and Mexico; clinical psychology program, community psychology program, and counseling program). The purpose was to question the dominant narratives in society about diversity and identify other neglected worldviews (Dzidic et al., 2013). As members of minority race and ethnicity groups, student planners’ own experiences spoke to how society promotes the value of diversity yet avoids the inconvenient truth of the systemic inequality and stereotypes faced by oppressed populations. Inspired by Jane Elliott’s blue eyes/brown eyes exercise on race and discrimination (Byrnes & Kiger, 1992), we invited our class to play a Jeopardy-like game with assigned roles associated with unearned privileges or disadvantages assigned at random for each student. To simulate power imbalances and systemic oppression in this activity, we assigned disadvantages (e.g. language restrictions, disability) and unearned privileges (e.g. Earn twice as many points as others) to each student. We also prepared candies as resources that were unevenly distributed through an unfair reward system. The instructions of the game were also http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 12 carefully designed to represent a dysfunctional system characterized by power imbalances, inequities, and a lack of opportunities for collaboration. When the game began, each class member was given a card and instructed to silently read their role description. See Appendix C for details on playing the diversity game including suggested role characteristics. The class was briefed on the instructions of the diversity game. Parallel to Jeopardy, the class could choose questions from one of the four categories; the diversity game categories were: 1) Advocacy, 2) Acculturation, 3) Oppression and 4) Multicultural Competence. These topics had been considered in the readings during the previous two weeks of our class. Each category was comprised of ten questions, ranging from 100 points (the easiest question) to 1000 points (the hardest question). During the game, multiple forces were in play to simulate the dynamic context of systemic inequality. First, students might employ strategies to circumvent their own or a classmate’s disadvantage in order to answer questions. For example, one student was assigned to a disadvantaged role of not pronouncing any words with a letter “c”. She chose to write the answer on a piece of paper in order to avoid saying the word “advocacy”. Second, group leaders who facilitated the game had the highest authority, and they could change their power influences from time to time to illustrate the dynamics of shifting power. In the above example, group leaders might or might not accept the student’s workaround answer such as one written on a piece of paper. Third, aspects of the unfair scoring and rewarding systems were sometimes made explicit to enlarge the inequality effect. For example, everyone could see that the person who answered the question correctly received candy and that one privileged student received candy after any question was answered correctly or incorrectly by anyone. Others did not receive any candy. Fourth, barriers to understanding and communicating among group members were deliberate. For example, one disadvantaged member had to turn his back to all other players and the diversity game board. Class members played the game for about 35 minutes until they were clearly expressing some frustration about the inequities. A 35-minute discussion was held after the game ended. Group leaders debriefed about the design of the simulation activity and each class member revealed their role descriptions. All shared observations and reflections about their experiences. Potential parallels between game processes and CP practice were discussed. These included reflecting upon their worldviews and assumptions, considering the intersections of culture and systematic inequality, and implications of understanding cross cultural competence as a value that requires reflexivity (Dzidic et al., 2013). For instance, how was participants’ experience similar to or different from the reality in which people of diverse backgrounds were living? How did multiple worldviews, cultures and social identities play a role in class members’ interpreting of their experience? The class further discussed diversity at two levels: diversity at the individual level – how their own unique role descriptions affected the way they participated in the game; and diversity at the contextual level – how the structure and norms of the game affected the way they participated. These discussions helped students think about and experience diversity, and relatedly inequity, as rooted in both individual and context. Outcomes and reflection. This activity turned out to be a remarkable learning experience for both the planning team and participants. Participants rapidly developed strong feelings towards their roles and the differential treatment they received during the game. For those who had unearned privileges, they were either answering the questions http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 13 comfortably or not doing anything (e.g., There was one participant whose unearned privilege was earning extra points for any correct answer question he gave. He thought this unfair and therefore answered very few questions). For those who were assigned disadvantages, frustration was clearly seen on their faces when they knew the answer to questions but could not answer. They also shared their surprisingly intense experience of “learned helplessness” in face of their limitations in game participation. The frustration was an important take-away message about how difficult it may be for people who have knowledge that may be of value to a community, but lack a platform to have their voice heard and share their knowledge with others. On the other side, group leaders learned that their leadership was powerful enough to change the power dynamics – either perpetuating the oppression or redefining the status quo – to determine the outcomes for each participant. By simply making instructions that privileged some students while oppressing others, and implementing game instructions and rules inconsistently, the facilitating group created unfair dynamics that clearly worked in favor of the privileged. Overall, the simulation of systemic inequality inspired each one of us to think how diversity and power are intertwined with our lives and allowed us to discuss these issues from various perspectives. Discussion The set of core competencies for community psychology practice help to define and move the field forward, and serve as a useful guide for training and educational programs (Dalton & Wolfe, 2012). The question remains, however, of how to “walk the talk”; that is, how CP training and education programs can effectively combine core theoretical knowledge with skills training needed in the dynamic context-dependent practice of community psychology (cf. Hazel, 2007)? When teaching community psychology in a classroom setting, participatory pedagogy provides a tool for bridging the disconnect between competencies and applied practice, the static and the dynamic. In this article, we have outlined three examples of participatory student-generated sessions that incorporated CP core competencies as both content and processes (cf. Auerbach, 1993). In all sessions, the student planning group members created, planned and implemented an intervention activity and facilitated group interaction. Class members took part in the activities providing valuable contributions as participating members and facilitating leaders. Everyone involved reflected on their experiences as part of each session and its meanings for the planners and participants. The first relatively cognitive session worked to strengthen students’ ecological thinking and sought to enhance their knowledge of multiple CP theories (viz., feminist approaches, critical community psychology, physical environment within social ecology, cultural competence, social support, social capital, and sense of community). At the same time students were exposed to and experienced the process of articulating and applying ecological systems perspectives within specific community settings (Dalton & Wolfe, 2012).They considered how multilevel ecological factors in real examples of community-based programs would impact their desire and ability to incorporate these CP theories, and reflected on the complex process of context-dependent application. In the second process-oriented session, the focus was on the dynamic environment of the simulated community setting. In it, students applied the community psychology principles of prevention, health promotion, and empowerment in a role-play concerning the initial stages of community program development. They practiced the nuanced processes of meeting with community stakeholders to assess community needs and http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 14 resources and to start planning a community- based program. The session showed how the ethical application of CP principles and theories may be neither readily predictable and nor clearly right and wrong, given the multitude of dynamic factors in a given community setting (Dzidzic et al., 2013). The third experiential session on diversity created a simulation of systemic inequality to build students’ experience of and their ability to analyze injustice (Byrnes & Kiger, 1992). Students reflected on how their privilege and oppression influence their attitudes and interactions in the diversity game context of the structural power imbalances. Ultimately, they identified the need for community inclusion and partnership and bottom-up approaches to “value… and bridge multiple world views, cultures and identities” (Dalton & Wolfe, 2012, p. 10) We offer these three sessions as examples of teaching that move away from both the traditional pedagogy that Freire (1972) critiques and the static view of competencies that Dzidzic et al. (2013) deplore. However, we value identifying the talents of community psychologists even as we strongly appreciate the dynamism of the field and the evolving nature of its practice and contextualism. By themselves these kinds of active sessions may provide part of a valuable beginning to community psychology graduate education and training (cf. Faust & Paulson, 1998). We believe these sessions are likely to be successful learning opportunities when students develop and lead class activities as well as participate in them. However, even when successful, such sessions only expose students to community psychology competencies and offer a modest amount of experience enacting them. Thus, they introduce the competencies but are insufficient in and of themselves for providing adequate experience and developing meaningful expertise. Other innovative approaches to classroom learning and beyond are needed to develop competencies (Fink, 2013; Hazel, 2008; Johnson, Johnson & Stanne, 2000; Siemens, 2008). High quality fieldwork, practice and research experiences with excellent mentoring in community settings over significant periods of time are also essential (Serrano-García, Pérez-Jiménez, & Rodríguez-Medina, 2017; Dalton & Wolfe, 2012). Implications for Community Psychology Training and Future Research The establishment of a well-defined set of CP competencies for practice enables CP students to set developmental skill and career goals. The set provides a framework for educators and encourages ongoing discussion of how these skills can best be taught within CP educational and training programs (Dalton & Wolfe, 2012). The application of participatory pedagogy in CP classrooms promotes the aforementioned benefits while honoring the qualities of process- oriented virtue competencies outlined by Dzidic and colleagues (2013), such as reflexivity and humility. Moreover, the dynamics of participatory pedagogy encourage the students to understand the flexible nature of competencies as ever evolving (viz., living, changing and acquired throughout the entire course of one’s career). Such dynamic, reflective practices also situate future community psychologists to identify important emergent competencies in the field; that is, competencies not yet articulated by Dalton and Wolfe (2012) that in time become increasingly recognized and important. Having an open-system view of competencies will help community psychologists keep abreast of new developments and update the list of competencies to be current and relevant for different people and contexts (Dalton & Wolfe, 2012). While a great amount of work has been done to develop a useful set of competencies (Dalton & Wolfe, 2012), there is still more work to do including: 1) define community http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 15 psychology practice both across and within graduate programs without restrictive standardization or accreditation, 2) identify and communicate pedagogical approaches for effectively incorporating core competencies within training and educational programs, and 3) evaluate graduate programs’ ability to successfully prepare students for community psychology practice. Serrano-García, Pérez- Jiménez, & Rodríguez-Medina’s (2017) thoughtful overview of educational methods, programs and curricula in community psychology offers a valuable point of departure. Future research may explore benefits and limitations of participatory pedagogy compared and contrasted with traditional pedagogical approaches, such as lecture- based learning, within CP classrooms. It would be beneficial to determine empirically if and how participatory pedagogy is an effective approach for increased understanding and application of core competencies as emergent, contextual, and value-based. Moreover, is it differentially effective for different sets of competencies (e.g., those addressed in research and evaluation courses versus group process and fieldwork courses)? Finally, through follow- up with previous CP graduate students, it would be beneficial to explore how types of learning in graduate education have impacted community psychology practice. Limitations and Strengths Notwithstanding the value of the approach illustrated in this article, our examples of participatory pedagogy in a community psychology course are not without limitation. Firstly, these three sessions were limited primarily to the context of one classroom, teacher, and set of students. We also successfully shared the diversity game in a participatory session at the 2015 Midwest Eco-Community Psychology Conference. Based on these experiences we have seen how participatory pedagogy in the classroom can mirror the dynamism of community psychology practice in local organizations and communities. Thereby the quicksilver of community competencies in use becomes evident and the complexity of their use more obvious. At this point, participatory pedagogy needs to be implemented and studied more broadly in diverse settings, such as larger undergraduate courses, to yield a better understanding of its potential usefulness and challenges. It is important to synthesize the dialectic and thereby bridge the gap between content and process, static and dynamic, and competence and context in all areas of community psychology training and education, including both the classroom and the community (e.g., fieldwork, service based learning). We hope our positive experiences will encourage others to use and study the impact of participatory pedagogy to bring these competencies to life within community psychology learning environments. References Auerbach, E. (1993). Putting the P back in participatory. Tesol Quarterly, 27, 3, 543- 45.Byrnes, D. A., & Kiger, G. (December 01, 1992). Prejudice-reduction simulations: Ethics, evaluations, and theory into practice. Simulation & Gaming, 23, 4, 457 Dalton, J., & Wolfe, S. (2012). Competencies for community psychology practice: Society for Community Research and Action draft, August 15, 2012. The Community Psychologist, 45(4), 7-14. Dzidic, P., Breen, L. J., Bishop, B. J. (2013). Are our competencies revealing our weaknesses? A critique of community psychology practice competencies. Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, 4(4), 1-10. Retrieved 08/08/2015, from (http://www.gjcpp.org/). Eagan, K., Stolzenberg, E. B., Lozano, J. B., Aragon, M. C., Suchard, M. R., & Hurtado, S. (2014). Undergraduate teaching faculty: The 2013–2014 HERI faculty survey. http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 16 Faust, J. L., & Paulson, D. R. (1998). Active learning in the college classroom. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 9(2), 3-24. Fink, L. D. (2013). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses. John Wiley & Sons. Flashpohler, P., Meehan, C., Maras, M., & Keller, K. (2012). Ready, willing and able: Developing a support system to promote implementation of school-based prevention programs. American Journal of Community Psychology, 50, 428-444. Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Transl. by Myra Bergman Ramos. Herder and Herder. Hazel, K. (2007). Infusing practice into community psychology graduate education. The Community Psychologist, 40(2), 81-88. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Stanne, M. B. (2000). Cooperative learning methods: A meta-analysis. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis: Cooperative Learning Center. Retrieved from www.co- operation.org/pages/cl-methods.hKelly, J. G. (1988). A guide to conducting prevention research in the community: First steps (Vol. 6, No. 1). Psychology Press. Serrano-García, I., Pérez-Jiménez, D. & Rodríguez-Medina, S. (2017) Educating community psychologists in a changing world. In Bond, M., Serrano-García, I., & Keys, C. (Eds.) Handbook of Community Psychology. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. Siemens, G. (2008). New structures and spaces of learning: The systemic impact of connective knowledge, connectivism, and networked learning. Paper Presented for Universidade doMinho, Encontro sobre Web 2.0, Braga, Portugal, October 10. Retrieved from http://elearnspace.org/Articles/systemic_ impact.htm Society for Community Research and Action. (2015). Competencies for community psychology practice. Retrieved from http://www.scra27.org/what-we- do/practice/18-competencies-community- psychology-practice/ UCSF HEARTS Program: Healthy Environments and Response to Trauma in Schools. (2015, July 16). Retrieved October 03, 2016, from http://coe.ucsf.edu/coe/spotlight/ucsf_heart s.html http://www.gjcpp.org/ http://www.scra27.org/what-we-do/practice/18-competencies-community-psychology-practice/ http://www.scra27.org/what-we-do/practice/18-competencies-community-psychology-practice/ http://www.scra27.org/what-we-do/practice/18-competencies-community-psychology-practice/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 17 Appendix A: Example Session 1 A Participatory Session Exploring Major Topics in Community Psychology Kelly Collins, Martina Mihelicova & Carolyn Turek The participatory session presented below has been used successfully within the context of a graduate-level Advanced Community Psychology course at DePaul University taught by Dr. Chris Keys. Graduate students Kelly Collins, Michelle Gilchrist, Martina Mihelicova, Kurtis Simonich, and Carolyn Turek, developed and conducted this session. Sequence of Contents Overview Context Purpose Objectives Preparation Session Development Materials Needed Procedure and Timeframe Presentation Instructions (see Appendix A for simplified activity outline) Appendix A.1: Community Psychology Topics and Readings Appendix A.2: Session Outline Appendix A.3: Topics Handouts Appendix A.4: Intervention Handouts Intervention Group 1: At Risk Youth/Trauma Intervention Group 2: Chronic Illness Intervention Group 3: Cultural Diversity and Mental Health http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 18 Overview Context The exercise presented above has been used successfully within the context of a graduate-level Advanced Community Psychology course at DePaul University. The course was comprised of 14 Masters and Ph.D. candidates in various fields (e.g. Community Psychology, Clinical Psychology, and Counseling Psychology). The course sought to introduce students to the main principles and primary readings in the field of community psychology. Students entered the course with varying degrees of understanding and exposure to the field of community psychology. Purpose The purpose of this activity was to engage students in thinking ecologically as they engaged in critical reflection on community psychology topics from an ecological perspective. They used an ecological lens to apply what they have learned through readings to sample community interventions. Students would be able to: (a) summarize major topics in community psychology, including feminist approaches, critical community psychology, physical environment within social ecology, cultural competence, and social support, social capital, and sense of community (Note that any topics may be used), (b) begin to parse out the presence or absence of major topics in existing interventions and their ecology, (c) consider how the presence or absence of topics in interventions might impact the effectiveness of the intervention given multi-level ecological factors, and (d) think about how changes to interventions based on these topics might be prioritized given the intervention’s ecology. This session encouraged collaboration and two-way learning among students, and for students to share and reflect on their previous knowledge and experiences that informed their understanding of the topics present in course reading. The exercise was created in order to foster classroom engagement and to bring together main ideas from various course readings. The exercise was carried out midway through the academic quarter and sought to examine five course topics in a participatory context. At this point in the quarter, students had a good understanding of basic community psychology principles such as the ecological perspective. The activity encouraged students to think about course topics and applications of the ecological perspective in applied settings and to integrate various ideas from selected course readings. We encourage interested readers to adapt this activity for use with important topics from other readings. Objectives 1. Apply ecological perspectives to real-life community intervention examples. (Examples were drawn from a variety of interest areas, tailored to the interests of students in the http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 19 course. Note: By this point in the term, students had made their interests clear in class discussions and assignments.) 2. Engage with course readings on a deeper and more applied, dynamic level using an ecological lens. Consider five specific topics from course readings: 1. Feminist Perspectives and Approaches 2. Critical Community Psychology 3. Physical Environment within Social Ecology 4. Culturally Appropriate/Competent Approaches 5. Social Support, Social Capital and Sense of Community 3. Think critically about course principles, such as the ecological perspective and cultural competence, considering practical challenges (and solutions) to the application of community psychology principles given the ecology of community contexts. Preparation Session Development 1. Created a Google Doc on which we posted the various readings we would cover in our presentation a. This was important because it established a way for us to begin contributing before we met as a group, enabling us to hit the ground running and basically finish our presentation in one meeting b. Readings are included for this particular course (NOTE: Readings may be adjusted to fit any course description. The following are simply suggestions fitting with the DePaul Advanced Community Psychology course syllabus; see Appendix A.1 below for readings within each topic): i. Topic #1: Feminist Perspectives and Approaches ii. Topic #2: Critical Community Psychology iii. Topic #3: Physical Environment within Social Ecology iv. Topic #4: Culturally-Appropriate/Competent Approaches to Community Psychology v. Topic #5: Social Support, Social Capital, and Sense of Community 2. Each planning group member posted their summaries/notes/interpretations for each reading a. This was important because it: i. Helped hold each member accountable for readings ii. Gave everyone the ability to share their interpretation of the readings, potentially start conversations to make sure we were all on the same page http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 20 3. We spoke briefly in class to mention various ideas we had, and designate time outside of class to meet a. This was important because it gave us some sense of where we wanted to go with the presentation (because we had so much creative freedom), and helped us get on the same page or understand where each other was coming from to some extent 4. At that meeting we collaborated to: a. Identify underlying topics of the various readings, altering the scope so that we had a manageable number of topics b. Define each topic (to some extent) c. Decide to use an ecological lens for examining the topics and its application d. Decide we would divide classmates into teams based on shared areas of interest and give them sample interventions to work with (we wanted to make the presentation and activity personally relevant to each member of the class). e. Worked together to find these interventions and pull key info about them f. Decided to have classmates identify and apply the topics to apply to their intervention g. Developed summaries of each intervention and “questions to consider” to put on handouts for each group h. Discussed the presentation organization including timing and which team member would present each piece Materials Needed • Access to blackboard, whiteboard, or projector • Internet access • Readings from which to draw topics • Packets detailing real-world interventions to be analyzed by students (ideally, relating to students’ areas of interest) o NOTE: You may reference and/or use the attached “Handouts” (Appendix A); however, please properly cite this data. Information was taken from various websites describing community interventions. Procedure and Timeframe Presentation Instructions (see Appendix A.2 for simplified activity outline) Activity 1 http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 21 a) Begin by dividing the class into groups of 3-4 people according to their research interests and/or personal experience in accordance with the population/focus of the intervention. a. Students were also told they could switch groups if they preferred. b) Pass out the ‘five topics’ handouts (see Appendix A.1) a. Students were asked to take 10 minutes to define a list of topics within their small groups. i. Topics included: (a) feminist perspectives and approaches, (b) critical community psychology, (c) physical environment within social ecology, (d) culturally appropriate/competent approaches, and (e) social support, social capital, and sense of community. c) Next we went through a PowerPoint presentation (Appendix A.3) with basic definitions of each topic, encouraging each small group to contribute their understandings and interpretations to the definition. Activity 2 d) After defining the topics, pass out the ‘intervention example’ handout (Appendix A.4) to each respective group. a. The task was to become familiar with the intervention by reading the description on the sheet and access additional information on the internet, if desired. i. Students were asked to identify ecological elements of the intervention (e.g., what are the intervention settings (e.g., school, clinic, shelter)? In what geographic location (e.g., urban, suburban, rural)? With what populations?) b. The groups were asked the following: i. “Which topics are already present in your intervention?” ii. “Which topics aren’t?” iii. What are important ecological factors to consider for this intervention? c. During small group discussions, session facilitators engaged groups to ensure that the activity purpose was understood and to answer any questions. d. Students were given 15 to 20 minutes to do this and allow the class to use any of the class readings or the computer as a reference guide. e) Next, the larger class came back together to discuss the interventions. a. First, the session facilitators described the interventions so that the entire class was familiar with each of the three interventions. b. The facilitators asked small groups to reflect the presence or absence of the five topics with the large group. Activity 3 http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 22 f) After this discussion, students broke back into their small groups and were asked to consider applying each topic within their intervention a. Working as a group, students were encouraged to critically consider which topics would be beneficial to incorporate and which would be more difficult to include given the ecology of the intervention. b. They were given 10 minutes. g) This was followed by another 5-10 minute large class discussion. a. During the class discussion, groups were asked to reflect on how certain topics were easier or more difficult to incorporate based on the ecological factors of the intervention. b. Each group was asked to share what revisions they would make to the intervention and its ecology. Discussion Questions h) For the remainder of class, facilitators allowed space for the class members to answer the discussion questions below and create a dialogue to reflect on the process of this collection of activities. a. What topics did you leave out and why? i. How were these decisions impacted by factors at different ecological levels? b. Your funding has been cut and you must choose only one topic to address in your program. i. Which do you choose and why? ii. How were these decisions impacted by factors at different ecological levels? c. After thinking about applying these to actual interventions, do you think differently about these topics? d. How did it feel to work together to make decisions within your small groups? The large groups? e. How would implementing these topics influence your methodological choices and/or your ability to evaluate the effectiveness of your intervention? i. How were these decisions impacted by factors at different ecological levels? f. How would you engage community members and or key stakeholders in order to develop these topics in your interventions given its ecology? http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 23 Appendix A.1: Community Psychology Topics Topic #1 --Feminist Perspectives and Approaches Campbell, R., Greeson, M. R., Bybee, D., & Fehler-Cabral, G. (2012). Adolescent sexual assault victims and the legal system: Building community relationships to improve prosecution rates. American Journal of Community Psychology, 50(1-2), 141-154. doi: 10.1007/s10464-011- 9485-3 Bond, M. A., & Mulvey, A. (2000). A history of women and feminist perspectives in community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28(5), 599-630. doi: 0.1023/A:1005141619462 Topic #2 --Critical Community Psychology Fryer, D., & Fagan, R. (2003). Toward a critical community psychological perspective on unemployment and mental health research. American Journal of Community Psychology, 32(1-2), 89-96. doi: 10.1023/A:1025698924304 Topic #3 --Physical Environment within Social Ecology Kloos, B., & Shah, S. (2009). A social ecological approach to investigating relationships between housing and adaptive functioning for persons with serious mental illness. American Journal of Community Psychology, 44(3-4), 316-326. doi: 10.1007/s10464-009-9277-1 Topic #4 --Diversity in Community Psychology Theory and Research Sampson, E. E. (1993). Identity politics: Challenges to psychology's understanding. American Psychologist, 48(12), 1219. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.48.12.1219 Keys, C. B., McMahon, S., Sánchez, B., London, L., & Abdul-Adil, J. (2004). Culturally anchored research: Quandaries, guidelines, and exemplars for community psychology. In Jason, L. A., Keys, C. B., Suarez-Balcazar, Y., Taylor, R. R., Davis, M. I., Durlak, J. & Eisenberg, D. (Eds.), Participatory Community Research: Theories and Methods in Action (pp. 177-198). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. Topic #5 -- Social Support, Social Capital, and Sense of Community http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 24 Cline, R. J., Orom, H., Berry-Bobovski, L., Hernandez, T., Black, C. B., Schwartz, A. G., & Ruckdeschel, J. C. (2010). Community-level social support responses in a slow-motion technological disaster: The case of Libby, Montana. American Journal of Community Psychology, 46(1-2), 1- 18. doi: 10.1007/s10464-010-9329-6 Xu, Q., Perkins, D. D., & Chow, J. C. C. (2010). Sense of community, neighboring, and social capital as predictors of local political participation in China. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45(3-4), 259-271. doi: 10.1007/s10464-010-9312-2 http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 25 Appendix A.2: Session Outline Activity 1 1. Divide into small groups 2. Complete 5 topics handout (Appendix A.1) in small group (10 minutes) 3. Discuss and define topics as a class (Appendix A.3) Activity 2 4. Pass out ‘intervention example’ handout (Appendix A.4) 5. Small groups identify ecological factors of intervention and consider the presence of absence of each of the 5 topics (15-20 minutes) 6. Larger class comes back together to discuss the interventions and their ecologies Activity 3 7. Small groups critically consider which topics would be beneficial to incorporate in their intervention and why (10 minutes) 8. Large class reflects on challenges and utilities of incorporating various topics given the ecological context of the interventions Discussion Questions 9. Large group continue to engage in sharing and critical reflection of session http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 26 Appendix A.3: Topics Handouts Topics in Community Psychology Feminist Perspectives and Approaches Critical Community Psychology Physical Environment within Social Ecology Culturally Appropriate/Competent Approaches Social Support, Social Capital, and Sense of Community Ecological Perspective Including Relevant Factors at Different Levels Micro- Meso- Macro- http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 27 Appendix A.4: Intervention Handouts Intervention Group 1: At Risk Youth/Trauma Healthy Environments and Response to Trauma in Schools (HEARTS) Children may experience a variety of trauma that affects their success in schools. Experiencing trauma may, in turn, be associated with long-term consequences, such as dropping out of school, which can increase risk of imprisonment. UCSF has partnered with the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) to implement the Healthy Environments and Response to Trauma in Schools (HEARTS) program. HEARTS aims at addressing the impact of community and family violence on children through a trauma-informed, school-based prevention/intervention. The intervention includes three pieces: (1) therapeutic interventions, skill-building groups, and class presentations on coping; (2) providing training to parents and school staff, including teachers, such as psychoeducation, skill- building workshops, trauma background and trauma-informed practices training, and addressing staff burnout; (3) improving policies and procedures (e.g., discipline policies.) Soure: UCSF HEARTS Program: Healthy Environments and Response to Trauma in Schools. (2015, July 16). Retrieved October 01, 2016, from http://coe.ucsf.edu/coe/spotlight/ucsf_hearts.html Link to anecdotes: http://coe.ucsf.edu/coe/spotlight/ucsf_hearts_story.html Questions to consider: • Where has this intervention been implemented? How would you characterize these ecologies? o In what settings (e.g., school, clinic, shelter)? o In what geographic location (e.g., urban, suburban, rural)? o With what populations? ▪ Ages? ▪ Genders? ▪ Ethnicities/Cultures? ▪ Sexual Orientations? ▪ Disabilities/Abilities? • How is the intervention designed and implemented? o What are the programmatic principles/theory? o What are the activities/elements (e.g., one-on-one mentoring, group therapy, online modules)? http://www.gjcpp.org/ http://coe.ucsf.edu/coe/spotlight/ucsf_hearts_story.html Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 28 o What are the intended outcomes/goals of the intervention? • What are specific strengths and weaknesses of the intervention? o What are parts (i.e., core components) of the intervention that must be implemented and/or should not be adapted? o What are parts of the intervention that should be removed or adapted? o What ecological factors affect the intervention, its success and its shortcomings? • Of the five topics from the readings, which can or should be applied to your intervention? o How can the topic be applied? o Why is this topic important to incorporate? o What ecological factors facilitate and which inhibit your application of this topic? • Which topics are more difficult or cannot be applied to your intervention? o Why can’t this topic be incorporated? Or why doesn’t it make sense to incorporate this topic? How does ecology play a role in these considerations? http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 29 Intervention Group 2: Chronic Illness Sandy Lake Health and Diabetes Project A multifaceted diabetes prevention program implemented over the past 20 years in a remote fly-in First Nations community in northern Ontario, Canada. The intervention seeks to: 1) determine the prevalence of diabetes; 2) describe biological and lifestyle factors associated with diabetes; 3) develop culturally appropriate intervention strategies based on ethnographic data; and 4) provide a model intervention strategy that could be replicated in other First Nations communities. The intervention involves: a school-based diabetes curriculum for children in grades 3 and 4; a diabetes radio show; and community activities aimed at increasing awareness and prevention of diabetes. The program was developed and monitored through a collaborative partnership between the community and academic researchers. Pre-test/post-test evaluation findings report an increase in healthy eating intention, healthy dietary preference, knowledge of health and nutrition and curriculum material, self-efficacy to eat healthy food, increase in dietary fibre and a decrease in screen time. No difference was found in intake of dietary fats although participants had a better understanding of the consequences of high-fat diets. Source: Sandy Lake Health and Diabetes Project. (n.d.). Retrieved October 01, 2016, from http://cbpp-pcpe.phac-aspc.gc.ca/~cbpp/public/wp-content/themes/wet-boew306/print- interventions.php?pID=9880 Link to article and anecdotes: http://www.thestar.com/life/health_wellness/diseases_cures/2010/03/31/inside_sandy_l akes_fight_with_diabetes.html Questions to consider: • Where has this intervention been implemented? How would you characterize these ecologies? o In what settings (e.g., school, clinic, shelter)? o In what geographic location (e.g., urban, suburban, rural)? o With what populations? ▪ Ages? ▪ Genders? ▪ Ethnicities/Cultures? ▪ Sexual Orientations? ▪ Disabilities/Abilities? • How is the intervention designed and implemented? o What are the programmatic principles/theory? o What are the activities/elements (e.g., one-on-one mentoring, group therapy, online modules)? http://www.gjcpp.org/ http://www.thestar.com/life/health_wellness/diseases_cures/2010/03/31/inside_sandy_lakes_fight_with_diabetes.html http://www.thestar.com/life/health_wellness/diseases_cures/2010/03/31/inside_sandy_lakes_fight_with_diabetes.html Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 30 o What are the intended outcomes/goals of the intervention? • What are specific strengths and weaknesses of the intervention? o What are parts (i.e., core components) of the intervention that must be implemented and/or should not be adapted? o What are parts of the intervention that should be removed or adapted? o What ecological factors affect the intervention, its success and its shortcomings? • Of the five topics from the readings, which can or should be applied to your intervention? o How can the topic be applied? o Why is this topic important to incorporate? o Which ecological factors facilitate and which inhibit your application of this topic? • Which topics are more difficult or cannot be applied to your intervention? o Why can’t this topic be incorporated? Or why doesn’t it make sense to incorporate this topic? o How does ecology play a role in these considerations? http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 31 Intervention Group 3: Cultural Diversity and Mental Health Youth Partners in Care: Depression Treatment Quality Improvement (YPIC/DTQI) Youth Partners in Care--Depression Treatment Quality Improvement (YPIC/DTQI) is a 6-month quality improvement intervention to improve depression outcomes among adolescents by increasing access to depression treatments, primarily cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and antidepressants, in primary care settings. YPIC/DTQI is a collaborative care model in which mental health is integrated with primary care. The main elements of the YPIC/DTQI model are teamwork between specialists and generalists, case management by care managers, and patient education and empowerment. Organizations implementing the program receive professional development and training, as well as manuals for clinicians and care managers to improve coordination and guide treatment planning and delivery. Patient education brochures are also provided for participating youth and their families. Link to study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15657324 Source: Intervention Summary - Youth Partners in Care--Depression Treatment Quality Improvement (YPIC/DTQI). (n.d.). Retrieved October 03, 2016, from http://legacy.nreppadmin.net/ViewIntervention.aspx?id=282 Questions to consider: • Where has this intervention been implemented? How would you characterize these ecologies? o In what settings (e.g., school, clinic, shelter)? o In what geographic location (e.g., urban, suburban, rural)? o With what populations? ▪ Ages? ▪ Genders? ▪ Ethnicities/Cultures? ▪ Sexual Orientations? ▪ Disabilities/Abilities? • How is the intervention designed and implemented? o What are the programmatic principles/theory? o What are the activities/elements (e.g., one-on-one mentoring, group therapy, online modules)? o What are the intended outcomes/goals of the intervention? • What are specific strengths and weaknesses of the intervention? o What are parts (i.e., core components) of the intervention that must be implemented and/or should not be adapted? o What are parts of the intervention that should be removed or adapted? o What ecological factors affect the intervention and its success and shortcomings? http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 32 • Of the five topics from the readings, which can or should be applied to your intervention? o How can the topic be applied? o Why is this topic important to incorporate? o Which ecological factors facilitate and which inhibit your application of this topic? • Which topics are more difficult or cannot be applied to your intervention? o Why can’t this topic be incorporated? Or why doesn’t it make sense to incorporate this topic? o How does ecology play a role in these considerations? http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 33 Appendix B: Example Session 2 Simulating the Start of Community Program Development Madison Sunnquist, Chris Whipple & Jordan Reed Session Context Purpose Objectives34 Procedure and timeframe Timeline- total time: 75-85 minutes Activity 1 Activity 2 Activity 3 Activity 4 Activity 5 Activity 6 Activity 7 Reflections Appendix B.1: Readings Appendix B.2: Class Handouts Session Context The following activity engages students within a classroom setting to better understand the process and difficulties of initiating collaboration to develop community-based intervention programs. The exercise simulated the development of prevention programs for neighborhood schools. Each student was given a role to play either at one of the schools, (e.g., parent, teacher, administrator, or student), or as part of a community psychology team of consultants. Each school identified their readiness to develop a prevention program and presented some program ideas to the community psychologists. Community psychologists evaluated each proposal and determined which school they would assist. This participatory activity has been used in an advanced community psychology course. The course was taken by graduate students within community, clinical, and counseling programs. http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 34 This exercise can be used in community psychology courses, courses on prevention and health promotion, or any course discussing community collaboration. In addition, small changes may be made to content to permit use in other situations. Purpose The purpose of this session was to help graduate students in an advanced Community Psychology course understand and apply community psychology competencies, including primarily community program development, and small and large group processes. Activities were designed to help students understand the complexities of applying these competencies in community collaborations due to issues of power and context. Through discussion, students reflected upon the types of decisions they made and whether their decisions were consistent with community psychology competencies and ethics. Objectives a. To integrate community psychology competencies especially those regarding the initiation of community program development through role-playing activities b. To understand the influence of power, diverse perspectives, and context on perceived prevention/promotion intervention viability c. To understand the challenges of collaboratively planning and designing an intervention and skills to overcome these challenges d. To identify obstacles in advocating for the adoption of community interventions and possible solutions e. To discuss practical issues in applying community psychology competencies and ethics in developing and implementing interventions. Preparation a. Readings (listed in Appendix B.1) covered topics including prevention, promotion, and empowerment. b. Materials used in the activity can be found in Appendix B.2. c. Students were assigned a role either as a stakeholder within either school or the community psychology team. a. Role play guidelines for each school stakeholder included a description of the school the student is to represent, a description and background of the role they are to play, and a school readiness assessment for the school. b. Students assigned to the community psychology team receive information about their specific roles, the center they represent, school readiness assessments for each school, and areas to consider during the interviews with stakeholders. Procedure and timeframe a. Overall instructions http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 35 i. To begin, facilitators give an overview of the activity, including the following information: following the framework established in Flashpohler et al. (2012), two schools are interested in working with a group of community psychologists to develop a school-based prevention program for their students. They are preparing for their presentations to the researchers. Each student will be given a role to play at one of the schools or on the community psychology team. Students read their background information and behave accordingly. Each school group will be given time to discuss the intervention they would like to develop and their strategy for presenting this information to the community psychology team. One community psychologist will meet with each group and hear their proposal. The psychologists will then discuss which school will receive their support. b. Steps for the procedure i. After introducing the activity, hand out the role play instructions to students. Roles may be given randomly, or facilitators may strategically place roles depending on desired outcomes and class dynamics. Members from each "school" should then get together to start Activity 1. Timeline- total time: 75-85 minutes Introductory Statements: The facilitator assigns (randomly or otherwise) each class member a role and provides them with the appropriate role description (in Appendix B.2). The facilitator notes that class members should “get into character” to portray their assigned role as accurately as possible. To model enthusiastic adherence to assigned roles, the facilitator may wish to portray a role as well. After allowing class members to read silently about their role, the facilitator directs them to move into their assigned groups: Smithsonian Elementary, Field Elementary, and Research Team. The facilitator states that the two schools are both interested in working with a group of community psychologists to develop a school-based prevention program for their students. To demonstrate their ‘readiness for intervention,’ they have been preparing for presentations to the researcher team. The facilitator informs the class that they will undergo a series of tasks and reflective discussions for the remainder of the class period. The facilitator proceeds to introduce the first session. Activity 1: 5-10 minutes Task: Discussion among members of each group. Groups are prepping for meetings where the community psychologists will ask them questions to determine which school is most “ready, willing, and able.” School groups discuss how to present themselves, their school and their program ideas and community psychologists discuss selection criteria, based on the article by Flashpohler et al. (2012). http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 36 Activity 2: 5-10 minutes Task: One community psychologist meets with each school group to ask the questions they discussed to assess “readiness.” They will have very limited info on the schools before meeting with them. Activity 3: 5 minutes Task: Community psychologist group determines which school will be awarded the opportunity to participate. 1. School groups evaluate the questions they were asked - did they properly assess the schools’ capabilities? Were there any capabilities you have that didn’t come out in the interview? Any weaknesses? 2. Community psychologists: did power dynamics between the two of you influence which school was chosen? To what extent? Activity 4: 10 minutes Task: Come together as a group: Community psychologists announce “winner”. Everyone comes out of character and reflects on the process so far - what has been easy, surprising, challenging? Other reactions? Announce next series of tasks: develop a research proposal. Non-selected schools have decided to do their own research project as well. Selected school will work with the community psychologists. Will be interesting to see if working with the community psychologist group impacts the process and if so, how. 3. Since these schools are in the same community, and there are limited resources, how might this affect empowerment? Would one school’s grant lead to the other’s disempowerment? 4. What ripple effects might the school’s grant have in the community? Activity 5: 15 minutes Task: groups try to agree upon a research question, components of intervention, and how to measure outcomes (this outcome variable could tie to the Prilleltensky (2012) article) Activity 6: 20 minutes http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 37 Task: Each group presents their study, and talks about aspects of the experience that were helpful or challenging 5. Did your group include aspects of prevention, promotion, and empowerment? Why were any excluded (if they were)? 6. What level of intervention(s) did you decide to do (e.g. community, individual, etc.)? What outcomes are you measuring (e.g. individual, relational, organizational, societal)? 7. Did power dynamics among members of the group determine which intervention(s) you choose? Elaborate. Activity 7: 15 minutes Full group discussion Prevention/Promotion: 8. Why is prevention often overlooked in research funding? How can we work to tailor prevention grant applications to be competitive? 9. What are the pros and cons of developing comprehensive prevention or promotion programs? 10. How do we define health? How did you define it in your conversations? Did it play a role in your interventions? Empowerment 11. How do we define empowerment? How did your conversations today lead to empowerment / disempowerment? Of whom? 12. How can we focus comprehensive interventions on providing people with more control over their lives? 13. Do changes in empowerment of one group always require shifts in power between groups? 14. When increasing empowerment in interventions, is there a type of power we should focus on developing over another? What are the advantages/disadvantages? (e.g., power to, power over, power from) Readiness for Intervention 15. How did you assess each school’s readiness for intervention (directed toward those with consultant roles)? How ready did you feel your school was for intervention (directed toward school-based roles)? 16. Was your assessment of readiness for intervention impacted by issues of power or context? 17. How might assessing readiness for intervention affect empowerment? http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 38 Reflections The exercise went well in class, and received both positive and negative responses. The role playing engendered identification with community partners and appreciation of the personal disappointment with being passed over for partnership when in need of help. This experience will help students to empathize with community partners. The scenario also allowed students to consider many diverse concepts and synthesize how these considerations may apply in practice. Finally, the exercise raised a more in-depth discussion about prevention, empowerment, readiness for intervention, and the community psychologist's role as students shared their experience role- playing. There were also negative responses. Some students found portions of the exercise, such as the interview between the community psychologist and school personnel, difficult to conduct in character. Also, the time constraints of the discussion sections were sometimes too short to allow for full discussion of topics. http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 39 Appendix B.1: Readings Albee, G. W. (1982). Preventing psychopathology and promoting human potential. American Psychologist, 37, 1043-1050. Durlak, J. A., Taylor, R. D., Kawashima, K., Pachan, M. K., DuPre, E. P., Celio, C. I., ... & Weissberg, R. P. (2007). Effects of positive youth development programs on school, family, and community systems. American Journal of Community Psychology, 39, 269-286. Weissberg, R, Kumpfer, C, & Seligman, M. (2003). Prevention that works for children and youth: An introduction. American Psychologist, 58, 425-432. Flashpohler, P., Meehan, C., Maras, M., & Keller, K. (2012). Ready, willing and able: Developing a support system to promote implementation of school-based prevention programs. American Journal of Community Psychology, 50, 428-444 Prilleltensky, I. (2012) Wellness as fairness. American Journal of Community Psychology, 49, 1-21. Zimmerman, M. A. (2000). Empowerment Theory: Psychological, Organizational, and Community Levels of Analysis. In J. Rappaport & E. Seidman (Eds.), Handbook of Community Psychology. (pp. 43-63). Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, NY. http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 40 Appendix B.2: Class Handouts Group: Smithsonian Elementary (4 Group Members) Smithsonian Elementary is a school that serves K-5th grade. It is situated in a middle-upper class neighborhood in a large city. Neighborhood children, as well as selected students with high test scores, can attend. Before the start of the current academic year, the school district boundaries were changed to include students from a neighboring district with high levels of crime and lower socioeconomic status. The school has adequate government funding and also receives frequent donations from wealthy parents. Most students’ parents are heavily involved in their children’s education and often volunteer to help with school activities. Role: Principal You have been the Principal of Smithsonian Elementary for the past 20 years, and you are proud of the quality education that your students receive. You know that the new students joining your school district came from an under-resourced school and many are below grade level due to their previous school’s lack of resources. You feel strongly that your efforts this year should focus on these new students, as you believe that other students already have the resources they need to succeed. School Readiness Assessment: Collected Data (Smithsonian Elementary): • Staff Survey Completion Rates: 80% • Readiness Assessment Tool Score: High o This measures the school’s capacity/ability to implement a program • Collective Efficacy Scale Score: Medium o This measures teachers’ ability to work together • Strengths-Based Practices Inventory: Medium o This measures positive/supportive practices among staff members • Percentage Students on Free/Reduced Lunch program: 15% • Budget: $500,000 To Be Measured during Interviews with Schools: • Commitment to the Planning Process • Commitment to Implementing an Evidence-Based Program • Strength of School’s Argument http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 41 http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 42 Group: Smithsonian Elementary (4 Group Members) Smithsonian Elementary is a selective enrollment school that serves K-5th grade. It is situated in a middle-upper class neighborhood in a large city. Neighborhood children, as well as selected students with high test scores, can attend. Before the start of the current academic year, the school district boundaries were changed to include students from a neighboring district with high levels of crime and lower socioeconomic status. The school has adequate government funding and also receives frequent donations from wealthy parents. Most students’ parents are heavily involved in their children’s educations and often volunteer to help with school activities. Role: Teacher Representative You have been a teacher at Smithsonian for 10 years, and you have received many awards for your teaching. You are accustomed to teaching gifted and advanced students, but 20% of your class this year is behind their grade level. You are not quite sure how to effectively cater to the needs of your full classroom, as the majority of the students in your class have advanced knowledge of the subjects you teach. You are having challenges keeping advanced children interested while trying to help other students understand more basic concepts. You know that your fellow teachers are facing similar situations, so you think the school should provide additional training opportunities to address this challenge. School Readiness Assessment: Collected Data (Smithsonian Elementary): • Staff Survey Completion Rates: 80% • Readiness Assessment Tool Score: High o This measures the school’s capacity/ability to implement a program • Collective Efficacy Scale Score: Medium o This measures teachers’ ability to work together • Strengths-Based Practices Inventory: Medium o This measures positive/supportive practices among staff members • Percentage Students on Free/Reduced Lunch program: 15% • Budget: $500,000 To Be Measured during Interviews with Schools: • Commitment to the Planning Process • Commitment to Implementing an Evidence-Based Program • Strength of School’s Argument http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 43 Group: Smithsonian Elementary (4 Group Members) Smithsonian Elementary is a school that serves K-5th grade. It is situated in a middle-upper class neighborhood in a large city. Neighborhood children, as well as selected students with high test scores, can attend. Before the start of the current academic year, the school district boundaries were changed to include students from a neighboring district with high levels of crime and lower socioeconomic status. The school has adequate government funding and also receives frequent donations from wealthy parents. Most students’ parents are heavily involved in their children’s educations and often volunteer to help with school activities. Role: Parent Representative Your child was placed in this school due to very high test scores and has recently been complaining to you that the coursework is too easy and the teacher is moving too slowly through the material. You and many other parents are concerned that your children’s education is being sacrificed for the sake of other students. Many parents are angry, as they feel their children worked hard to place into a selective enrollment school, but are not reaping the benefits of their hard work. You want the school to create more challenging courses, and many parents have informed you that they will cease donating to the school if these courses are not implemented. School Readiness Assessment: Collected Data (Smithsonian Elementary): • Staff Survey Completion Rates: 80% • Readiness Assessment Tool Score: High o This measures the school’s capacity/ability to implement a program • Collective Efficacy Scale Score: Medium o This measures teachers’ ability to work together • Strengths-Based Practices Inventory: Medium o This measures positive/supportive practices among staff members • Percentage Students on Free/Reduced Lunch program: 15% • Budget: $500,000 To Be Measured during Interviews with Schools: • Commitment to the Planning Process • Commitment to Implementing an Evidence-Based Program • Strength of School’s Argument http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 44 Group: Smithsonian Elementary (4 Group Members) Smithsonian Elementary is a school that serves K-5th grade. It is situated in a middle-upper class neighborhood in a large city. Neighborhood children, as well as selected students with high test scores, can attend. Before the start of the current academic year, the school district boundaries were changed to include students from a neighboring district with high levels of crime and lower socioeconomic status. The school has adequate government funding and also receives frequent donations from wealthy parents. Most students’ parents are heavily involved in their children’s educations and often volunteer to help with school activities. Role: School Psychologist You are the sole school psychologist at Smithsonian, and you have noticed that many incoming students did not receive the testing (for learning disabilities, ADHD, etc.) they needed due to the resource limitations at their previous school. You recognize that conducting necessary testing in a timely manner is imperative to the children’s success. Unfortunately, you know that it will be impossible for you to do this alone, and you would like the school to pay for outside psychologists to help you conduct the testing and implement any Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) or 504 plans needed for all children to have an appropriate learning experience. School Readiness Assessment: Collected Data (Smithsonian Elementary): • Staff Survey Completion Rates: 80% • Readiness Assessment Tool Score: High o This measures the school’s capacity/ability to implement a program • Collective Efficacy Scale Score: Medium o This measures teachers’ ability to work together • Strengths-Based Practices Inventory: Medium o This measures positive/supportive practices among staff members • Percentage Students on Free/Reduced Lunch program: 15% • Budget: $500,000 To Be Measured during Interviews with Schools: • Commitment to the Planning Process • Commitment to Implementing an Evidence-Based Program • Strength of School’s Argument http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 45 http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 46 Group: Field Elementary (4 Group Members) Field Elementary is a neighborhood school that serves K-5th grade. It is situated in a neighborhood of lower socioeconomic status that has high rates of violent crime. Attendance rates are low, as students sometimes report difficulty getting to school due to safety concerns. Because of low attendance and community-level stressors, students have historically performed poorly on standardized tests, and the school is at risk for losing funding. Despite these challenges, most parents are actively involved in their children’s education. The Parent-Teacher Association is working hard to try to increase attendance and determine what resources could reduce some of the students’ stressors. Further, a student was recently interviewed by a popular blog, and his positive statements about the school’s principal garnered national attention. Because of this publicity, the school has received a donation of $500,000 and wants to determine how to best use it to facilitate the students’ education. Role: Principal You are focused on creating a learning environment that empowers both teachers and students. You have won many awards for your school leadership, and you strongly believe that empowered teachers lead to empowered students. In other words, your priorities focus on providing teachers with the resources they need to be most effective. You would like to use the donation funds to raise teacher salaries and attract new, talented teachers to work at your school. You are a strong figure in your school system, and you routinely stop your students in the hallway to ask them about their short-term and long-term goals and how their actions today have contributed to achieving those goals. You believe this practice helps keep your students focused on learning. School Readiness Assessment: Collected Data (Field Elementary): • Staff Survey Completion Rates: 90% • Readiness Assessment Tool Score: Medium-Low o This measures the school’s capacity/ability to implement a program • Collective Efficacy Scale Score: High o This measures teachers’ ability to work together • Strengths-Based Practices Inventory: High o This measures positive/supportive practices among staff members • Percentage Students on Free/Reduced Lunch program: 40% • Budget: $500,000 To Be Measured during Interviews with Schools: • Commitment to the Planning Process • Commitment to Implementing an Evidence-Based Program http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 47 • Strength of School’s Argument http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 48 Group: Field Elementary (4 Group Members) Field Elementary is a neighborhood school that serves K-5th grade. It is situated in a neighborhood of lower socioeconomic status that has high rates of violent crime. Attendance rates are low, as students sometimes report difficulty getting to school due to safety concerns. Because of low attendance and community-level stressors, students have historically performed poorly on standardized tests, and the school is at risk for losing funding. Despite these challenges, most parents are actively involved in their children’s education. The Parent-Teacher Association is working hard to try to increase attendance and determine what resources could reduce some of the students’ stressors. Further, a student was recently interviewed by a popular blog, and his positive statements about the school’s principal garnered national attention. Because of this publicity, the school has received a donation of $500,000 and wants to determine how to best use it to facilitate the students’ education. Role: Teacher Representative You have taught at Field Elementary for the past 20 years, and you take pride in your school, its Principal, and your students. One of the most challenging aspects of your job is keeping all of your students up-to-date on class material due to frequent absences. You also feel pressure to cater all aspects of your lessons toward topics on standardized tests, as the school frequently risks losing funding due to low standardized test scores. You believe that your students would learn more if you had more freedom in your lesson plans, and you would like the school to use the donation funds to provide struggling students with individualized tutoring to help them keep up with classwork. School Readiness Assessment: Collected Data (Field Elementary): • Staff Survey Completion Rates: 90% • Readiness Assessment Tool Score: Medium-Low o This measures the school’s capacity/ability to implement a program • Collective Efficacy Scale Score: High o This measures teachers’ ability to work together • Strengths-Based Practices Inventory: High o This measures positive/supportive practices among staff members • Percentage Students on Free/Reduced Lunch program: 40% • Budget: $500,000 To Be Measured during Interviews with Schools: • Commitment to the Planning Process • Commitment to Implementing an Evidence-Based Program • Strength of School’s Argument http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 49 http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 50 Group: Field Elementary (4 Group Members) Field Elementary is a neighborhood school that serves K-5th grade. It is situated in a neighborhood of lower socioeconomic status that has high rates of violent crime. Attendance rates are low, as students sometimes report difficulty getting to school due to safety concerns. Because of low attendance and community-level stressors, students have historically performed poorly on standardized tests, and the school is at risk for losing funding. Despite these challenges, most parents are actively involved in their children’s education. The Parent-Teacher Association is working hard to try to increase attendance and determine what resources could reduce some of the students’ stressors. Further, a student was recently interviewed by a popular blog, and his positive statements about the school’s principal garnered national attention. Because of this publicity, the school has received a donation of $500,000 and wants to determine how to best use it to facilitate the students’ education. Role: Parent Representative You and other parents are worried about the safety of their children in getting to school. Many students must rely on public transportation, and some must wait outside in the cold for busses to arrive. You would like the school to help implement community-level interventions to make the neighborhood safer, and you also want the school to provide convenient bus service to all students to help them travel safely to school. School Readiness Assessment: Collected Data (Field Elementary): • Staff Survey Completion Rates: 90% • Readiness Assessment Tool Score: Medium-Low o This measures the school’s capacity/ability to implement a program • Collective Efficacy Scale Score: High o This measures teachers’ ability to work together • Strengths-Based Practices Inventory: High o This measures positive/supportive practices among staff members • Percentage Students on Free/Reduced Lunch program: 40% • Budget: $500,000 To Be Measured during Interviews with Schools: • Commitment to the Planning Process • Commitment to Implementing an Evidence-Based Program • Strength of School’s Argument http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 51 http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 52 Group: Field Elementary (4 Group Members) Field Elementary is a neighborhood school that serves K-5th grade. It is situated in a neighborhood of lower socioeconomic status that has high rates of violent crime. Attendance rates are low, as students sometimes report difficulty getting to school due to safety concerns. Because of low attendance and community-level stressors, students have historically performed poorly on standardized tests, and the school is at risk for losing funding. Despite these challenges, most parents are actively involved in their children’s education. The Parent-Teacher Association is working hard to try to increase attendance and determine what resources could reduce some of the students’ stressors. Further, a student was recently interviewed by a popular blog, and his positive statements about the school’s principal garnered national attention. Because of this publicity, the school has received a donation of $500,000 and wants to determine how to best use it to facilitate the students’ education. Role: School Psychologist You know that students in your school have high levels of stress, due in part to neighborhood violence and guardian financial difficulties. You believe the school should hire additional psychologists to provide individualized help to students facing these large life stressors. School Readiness Assessment: Collected Data (Field Elementary): • Staff Survey Completion Rates: 90% • Readiness Assessment Tool Score: Medium-Low o This measures the school’s capacity/ability to implement a program • Collective Efficacy Scale Score: High o This measures teachers’ ability to work together • Strengths-Based Practices Inventory: High o This measures positive/supportive practices among staff members • Percentage Students on Free/Reduced Lunch program: 40% • Budget: $500,000 To Be Measured during Interviews with Schools: • Commitment to the Planning Process • Commitment to Implementing an Evidence-Based Program • Strength of School’s Argument http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 53 Group: Research Team (2 Group Members) The Center for Excellence in Education (CEE) is a research center situated at a major public university. The CEE is comprised of community psychologists, former education professionals (e.g. teachers, principals, school psychologists), and research assistants working to gain experience prior to graduate school. Most staff have extensive experience in implementing and evaluating school interventions. The Director of the CEE is a tenure-track faculty member in the university’s Department of Psychology. He recently read Flashpohler’s 2012 article entitled “Ready, Willing, and Able.” He has decided to use the data collected from the criteria mentioned in the article (attendance at a request for proposal meeting, completion of a readiness assessment, and completion of a planning grant) to select a school with which to partner for the CEE’s next grant application: Role: Principal Investigator (Director, CEE) You have worked at your university as a tenure-track faculty member and directed the CEE for the past five years. This year, you are up for tenure. Your teaching reviews have been mediocre, so you know that you need an especially strong line of research and funding in order to get tenured. The funding of your current grant is about to end, so you want to apply for a large grant that implements and evaluates a school-based intervention. You know that being awarded this grant would significantly increase your chances for tenure, so you have decided to adhere closely to Flashpohler’s criteria; you believe that working with a school that is very “ready” would make the grant much more attractive to funding agencies. Further, a successful intervention would increase the odds of obtaining future grants. School Readiness Assessment: Collected Data (Smithsonian Elementary): • Staff Survey Completion Rates: 80% • Readiness Assessment Tool Score: High o This measures the school’s capacity/ability to implement a program • Collective Efficacy Scale Score: Medium o This measures teachers’ ability to work together • Strengths-Based Practices Inventory: Medium o This measures positive/supportive practices among staff members • Percentage Students on Free/Reduced Lunch program: 15% • Budget: $500,000 Collected Data (Field Elementary): • Staff Survey Completion Rates: 90% • Readiness Assessment Tool Score: Medium-Low http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 54 o This measures the school’s capacity/ability to implement a program • Collective Efficacy Scale Score: High o This measures teachers’ ability to work together • Strengths-Based Practices Inventory: High o This measures positive/supportive practices among staff members • Percentage Students on Free/Reduced Lunch program: 40% • Budget: $500,000 To Be Measured during Interviews with Schools: • Commitment to the Planning Process • Commitment to Implementing an Evidence-Based Program • Strength of School’s Argument http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 55 Group: Research Team (2 Group Members) The Center for Excellence in Education (CEE) is a research center situated at a major public university. The CEE is comprised of community psychologists, former education professionals (e.g. teachers, principals, school psychologists), and research assistants working to gain experience prior to graduate school. Most staff have extensive experience in implementing and evaluating school interventions. The Director of the CEE is a tenure-track faculty member in the university’s Department of Psychology. He recently read Flashpohler’s 2012 article entitled “Ready, Willing, and Able.” He has decided to use data collected from the criteria mentioned in the article (attendance at a request for proposal meeting, completion of a readiness assessment, and completion of a planning grant) to select a school with which to partner for the CEE’s next grant application. Role: Research Assistant You have been working at CEE for about six months after obtaining a Bachelor’s degree in Psychology. You hope to attend graduate school and would like to study school-based interventions. You really would like to study under Roger Weissberg for your doctorate in community psychology, so you really want this new grant to include a social-emotional learning component, as you know it would enhance your application. You think this would have a positive impact on any school you chose, so you hope to convince your PI to include this component. School Readiness Assessment: Collected Data (Smithsonian Elementary): • Staff Survey Completion Rates: 80% • Readiness Assessment Tool Score: High o This measures the school’s capacity/ability to implement a program • Collective Efficacy Scale Score: Medium o This measures teachers’ ability to work together • Strengths-Based Practices Inventory: Medium o This measures positive/supportive practices among staff members • Percentage Students on Free/Reduced Lunch program: 15% • Budget: $500,000 Collected Data (Field Elementary): • Staff Survey Completion Rates: 90% • Readiness Assessment Tool Score: Medium-Low o This measures the school’s capacity/ability to implement a program • Collective Efficacy Scale Score: High o This measures teachers’ ability to work together http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 56 • Strengths-Based Practices Inventory: High o This measures positive/supportive practices among staff members • Percentage Students on Free/Reduced Lunch program: 40% • Budget: $500,000 To Be Measured during Interviews with Schools: • Commitment to the Planning Process • Commitment to Implementing an Evidence-Based Program • Strength of School’s Argument http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 57 Appendix C: Example Session 3 The Diversity Game Nicole Colon Quintana and Kris Ma2 The participatory session presented below has been used successfully within the context of a graduate-level Advanced Community Psychology course at DePaul University taught by Dr. Chris Keys. This game is for educational use only and is not affiliated with Jeopardy!® or Sony Pictures Digital Inc. Jeopardy! is a registered trademark of Jeopardy Productions, Inc. ©2005 Jeopardy Productions, Inc. All rights reserved. Contents Context Purpose Objectives Preparation Readings Covered Materials a. Role play instructions b. Worksheets c. Other Materials Procedure and timeframe Overall instructions Procedure a. Time allotted b. Instructions c. Questions for participants d. Facilitator tips Overall discussion Principles to highlight Brief commentary on how the exercise went in our class and anywhere else it has been used Appendix C.1 Suggested Role Characteristics 2 Clinical psychology graduate students, DePaul University. Original materials created with support from Carlos Luna and Amy Rhodes. http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 58 Appendix C.2 Sample Facilitator Role Definition Record Appendix C.3 The Diversity Game Slideshow Overview Context a. What context the exercise has been used in i. This exercise was developed for a graduate course in community psychology and has been used to teach about diversity, systemic inequality, and community intervention development. b. When to use the exercise i. This exercise can be used in any course or seminar intended to foster a discussion about diversity, culture, politics, and/or systemic inequality. Purpose To create a virtual reality wherein participants can experience all elements of systemic inequality through a Jeopardy-like diversity game Objectives a. To recreate an experience of systemic inequality. b. To use the individual and collective experiences as a platform for discussion about culture, inequality, and other systems as appropriate for the class or seminar. c. To use the questions related to the game as a way of reviewing important concepts related to the overarching topics under discussion in the class or seminar (e.g., community psychology, multicultural psychology, sociology). Preparation Readings Covered No specific readings are required for this exercise. However, it is recommended that the facilitators conducting this activity have some knowledge on diversity issues and systematic inequalities. It is helpful if students participating have done some reading on diversity and power issues. Some recommended readings include: American Psychological Association. (2012). Crossroads: The psychology of immigration in the new century. Report of the APA Presidential Task Force on Immigration. Washington, DC: Author. Balcazar, F. E., Suarez-Balcazar, Y., Adames, S. B., Keys, C. B., García-Ramírez, M., & Paloma, V. (2012). A case study of liberation among Latino immigrant families who have children with disabilities. American Journal of Community Psychology, 49, 1-2. http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 59 Birman, D., Trickett, E., & Buchanan, R. (2005). A tale of two cities: Replication of a study on the acculturation and adaptation of immigrant adolescents from the former Soviet Union in a different community context. American Journal of Community Psychology, 35, 1-2. Birman, D., & Simon, C. D. (2013). Acculturation research: Challenges, complexities, and possibilities. APA handbook of multicultural psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Dowrick, P. W., & Keys, C. B. (2001). Community psychology and disability studies. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 21, 2, 1-14 Jason, L. A. (2012). Small wins matter in advocacy movements: Giving voice to patients. American Journal of Community Psychology, 49, 307-316. Materials a. Role play instructions i. Facilitators should take on specific roles during the game (See Appendix C.2). Recommended roles include: 1. Game host (reads questions and keeps track of points), 2. Monitor 1 (makes sure all participants are adhering to their assigned role), and 3. Monitor 2 (determines how each participant will be rewarded for his or her response to each question). i. Depending on the facilitator’s intent, monitor 2 may reserve the right to augment unfair treatment by making unilateral decisions regarding point distribution. Monitor 2 may also control the way participants interact with each other. The goal is to recreate different types of systemic injustices and elicit frustration among the players. Monitor 2 also keeps and distributes rewards (e.g., pieces of candy). ii. Participants will also play specific roles. a. The facilitator prepares cards ahead of the game and hands out the cards to participants at the beginning of the game. Each card contains a characteristic that either limits the individual’s participation or enhances the individual’s chances of scoring points. Participants should not share their card with others. Suggested characteristics are provided (See Appendix C.1). http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 60 b. Worksheets i. No worksheets are required for this exercise. The facilitator may decide to distribute a worksheet with discussion questions at the end of the game. ii. Participants may receive handouts detailing the main points of the presentation at the end of the game. c. Other Materials i. The use of technology is recommended. A PowerPoint presentation with the questions in Jeopardy! game format makes the game more engaging and real. (See Appendix C.3 for sample slides). ii. A white board and markers for score keeping. iii. Cards with each participant’s characteristic and brief instructions. iv. Candy or other type of reward for participants. Procedure and timeframe Overall instructions Facilitators prepare cards with each participant’s characteristic ahead of time. Each participant is assigned a characteristic that determines the way the individual can play the game. Participants are instructed not to share what they read in their card. A diversity game modeled on Jeopardy is played and participants are encouraged to demonstrate their knowledge about a specific topic. The host and monitors make sure all participants play according to their characteristic and enforce rules. At the end of the game all discuss their experience as participants and ways in which the game depicts reality. Issues about diversity, community action, inequalities and other forms of social/psychological outcomes are discussed. Procedure a. Time allotted i. The game may be played at different time lengths. A suggested total time of one hour and 30 minutes is described: 1. Introduction: 10 minutes 2. Diversity Game: 35 minutes 3. Discussion: 35 minutes 4. Closing remarks: 10 minutes b. Instructions Script i. We’ll be playing a diversity game modeled on the TV show Jeopardy! You will raise your right hand to answer a question, and your answer should be posed in Jeopardy! format (i.e., “What is…?” or “Who is…?”). For example: i. Question: The father of psychoanalysis http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 61 ii. Answer: Who is Sigmund Freud? ii. You will have one minute to answer the question, and you may check your notes! iii. The first person to answer a question correctly gets a piece of candy. We’ll keep score, and the player with the most points at the end will receive a bigger reward! iv. You will each receive a card with instructions - you are not to share the instructions on your card with anyone. You may not comment on the instructions on your card. If you have a question about your instructions, raise your hand and we’ll speak with you in the hallway. v. Once we begin to play the diversity game, you cannot comment on how anyone else is playing the game. vi. Any questions before we hand out the cards? i. Suggested instructions: “As a reminder, you must wait your turn to play. Once the facilitator tells you it is your turn to play, you must select a category of questions. There will be a number of categories from which to choose. You must also select a score level. For example, you may choose to play “Category 1” for 500 points. The facilitator will read the question and you must answer in Jeopardy! format to get a point. Participants who answer correctly get another chance to play. If a participant gives an incorrect answer, it is the next participant’s turn to play.” c. Questions for participants i. What was the characteristic on your card? 1. How do you feel about your characteristic? 2. How did your characteristic affect the way you played the diversity game? ii. What were some of the issues with the diversity game as we played it? iii. If participants tried to form alliances or help each other during the game, discuss: 1. How alliances can form when we take note of others’ experiences and strive for social justice. 2. How we naturally try to level the playing field when we witness injustice. 1. Do we try to level the playing field when we witness injustice? If so, how? If not, what is going on? iv. How social and political systems may perpetuate such inequalities and prevent empowerment. v. If privileged participants (i.e., those without limiting characteristics) decided to share their assets: 1. Why did you decide to share your assets? 2. How does just sharing a “piece” perpetuate inequality? 3. How can we change the system so that we don’t have to redistribute assets among each other? http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 62 vi. If participants did not object at any point of the game: i. Why did you not revolt? ii. What kept you going? vii. If you could change one thing about the game, what would it be? viii. If designed for a community psychology course: 1. Think of the game and try to develop an intervention from a community psychology perspective. (Invite participants to think about the need for interventions that address systemic issues and to draw parallels between the game and real life problems, such as systemic racism, that can be addressed by community psychologists). 2. Discuss the importance of ecology and the role of indigenous leaders in intervention design. 3. Why is it important for the community psychologist to take the role of the participant-conceptualizer, instead of the expert? 4. How do we engage oppressed populations in our research, interventions and/or policies? 5. How can diversity enhance our approach to systemic inequalities? b. Facilitator tips i. If possible, have a list of the participants and their assigned characteristic handy during the game. This facilitates the monitoring process (See Appendix C.2). ii. If participant names are not available or unknown because the activity is taking place at a conference or other setting where the facilitator is unfamiliar with participants, he or she may use any of the following strategies to keep track of assigned characteristics: seat participants strategically, use name labels, or assign a prop to identify participants by their assigned characteristic. Overall discussion Principles to highlight a. How characteristics may limit and or enhance an individual’s participation in social processes. b. The importance of changing systems instead of promoting temporary remedies. c. The importance of using diversity as an asset for social justice. d. The importance of developing bottom-up approaches in community interventions. e. For community psychology courses or seminars: The role of the community psychologist in the development of ecologically sound interventions. http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 63 Brief commentary on how the exercise went in our class and anywhere else it has been used This exercise was first introduced by graduate students in a community psychology course, with the intent of taking issues out of the book and into their classmate’s hearts. The game was born from a desire to foster learning by experiencing. Although seemingly simple and far removed from real-life circumstances, the exercise proved to be a powerful teaching tool. All participants experienced the crude reality of systemic inequality and were able to draw parallels to real-life circumstances. The game fostered a profound debate regarding the untapped benefits of diversity and why common approaches to inequality often fail. It also gave all participants an opportunity to experience for a brief time what different underserved, underrepresented sectors of society face on a daily basis. This game was first disseminated at the Midwest Ecological-Community Psychology Conference held at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in October 2015. http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 64 Appendix C.1 Suggested Role Characteristics 1. Earn reward every time a person answers 2. Earn an extra 50% of the scores each time a person answers 3. Earn only half of the score for each answer 4. No limitation 5. Cannot raise hand to answer 6. Cannot face the board 7. Can only answer in Spanish 8. Can only answer every other question 9. Cannot pronounce letter "c" 10. Can only answer with five words. 11. Will receive reward regardless of answer 12. Receives reward every time someone gets a wrong answer 13. Can only use hand gestures to respond 14. Can only answer questions in one category 15. Can not participate in the game http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 65 Appendix C.2 Sample Facilitator Role Definition Record Student Characteristic 1 John Earn reward every time a person answers 2 William Earn an extra 50% of the scores each time a person answers 3 Anne Earn only half of the score for each answer 4 Sophia No limitation 5 Carlos No limitation 6 Melanie Cannot raise hand to answer 7 Susan Cannot face the board 8 Emily Can only answer in Spanish 9 Peter Can only answer every other question 10 Sam Cannot pronounce letter "c" http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 66 http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 67 Appendix C.3 Diversity Game Slideshow http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 68 http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 69 http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 70 http://www.gjcpp.org/ Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 7, Issue 4 December 2016 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org/ Page 71 http://www.gjcpp.org/ Acknowledgements: We would like to thank our classmates, Michelle Gilchrist, Juline Girts, Carlos Luna, Amy Rhodes, and Kurtis Simonich, for their contributions to the class sessions. We also thank Tom Wolff for his helpful editorial comments. Addressing the Community Psychology Competency Dialectic through Participatory Pedagogy Abstract Teaching Core Competencies through Application of Participatory Pedagogy Illustrative Examples of Participatory Pedagogy and CP Training: Our Community Psychology Course Example Session 1: Thinking Ecologically when Applying CP Concepts to Community Programs Outcomes and reflections. While working to deepen their understanding of diverse CP concepts, students found the session activities exposed them to thinking ecologically. They gained introductory experience with the foundational competence of articula... Example Session 2: Simulating the Start of Community Program Development Implications for Community Psychology Training and Future Research The establishment of a well-defined set of CP competencies for practice enables CP students to set developmental skill and career goals. The set provides a framework for educators and encourages ongoing discussion of how these skills can best be taugh... Limitations and Strengths Notwithstanding the value of the approach illustrated in this article, our examples of participatory pedagogy in a community psychology course are not without limitation. Firstly, these three sessions were limited primarily to the context of one class... Session Context Purpose Objectives Preparation Procedure and timeframe Timeline- total time: 75-85 minutes Introductory Statements: Activity 1: Activity 2: Activity 3: Activity 4: Activity 5: Activity 6: Activity 7: Reflections Appendix B.1: Readings Appendix B.2: Class Handouts Context Purpose Objectives Preparation Readings Covered Materials a. Role play instructions b. Worksheets c. Other Materials Overall instructions Procedure a. Time allotted b. Instructions Script c. Questions for participants Overall discussion Principles to highlight Brief commentary on how the exercise went in our class and anywhere else it has been used Appendix C.1 Appendix C.2