Intervention Informed by Theory- Critical Exploration, Explanation and Demonstration of Intervention Form - Essay Example

Community Education: Intervention Informed by Theory- Critical Exploration, Explanation and Demonstration of Intervention Form, Reasoning Undergirding Technique and Approach Selection Table of Contents I. Introduction and Background 2 II. Intervention: Target, Aim, Reason for Intervention 5 III. Approach 7 IV. Methodology Details 11 A. First Session 11 B. Second Session 13 1References 16 I. Introduction and Background The general aim of this paper is to present an intervention tied to community educational contexts, which are grounded in sound theory, and which is discussed in terms of the intervention itself, and the reasoning that went into the selection of the technique and the approach. There is much to be desired and commended about youth learning approaches that focus on processing experiences and mining those experiences for insights and learnings that are personal and extremely useful as life tools, and which depart from traditional classroom settings by emphasizing the experiential aspects rather than academic contexts. Here the emphasis is on approaches to learning that are based on what the experiences mean subjectively, taking into account the whole person. Experiential learning offers an alternative and needed mode of learning for many of Scotland’s youth, which in the regular course of their traditional schooling are in a way deprived of more experiential learning modes because of an emphasis on book and academic learning for most of the academic year. Experiential youth learning via targeted interventions that deal with sensitive and potentially traumatic life circumstances have great value for those involved, and for the larger community too. Often young people in difficult situations have no one to turn to, and academics and school learning seem irrelevant in such instances. The experiences are too raw, and the impact not always fully understood, and there is a need to provide avenues for processing those experiences and to transform them into learning and self-improvement opportunities. It is not difficult to see, moreover, from the wealth of academic literature on the various aspects of experiential learning as they apply in youth learning contexts that there is a rich and fertile ground for exploration that is available for both educators and learners. The literature is rich and therefore there is enough theoretical grounding to be able to successfully launch an exploration of an intervention along these lines, and in the process come up with a robust approach and a viable set of techniques to give flesh to the proposed intervention here (YouthLink Scotland 2014; Dewey n.d.). The richness of the literature pertains to the value of experiential learning to process youth experiences that are often difficult to do so otherwise. In the context of this discussion, when we talk of experiential learning or learning that is experience-based, we are referring to the same set of concepts tied to that learning mode where the learner and his or her experiences are central to the learning process, or are the starting points of the learning process. In this learning style, the learning occurs via reconstruction, reflection and the evaluation and re-evaluation of the subjective experiences and their components to be able to glean insights and meaning into those, and which may lead to more nuanced and educated reactions, thoughts, behaviors and actions moving forward (Miettinen 2000; Lewis and Williams 1994, pp. 5-10)). The emphasis is on holistic learning, subjectivity that takes into account cultural as well as subjective emotional contexts, and on the active participation of the learner, who structures the learning experience and the insights and learnings that he or she gains from the experiences, as opposed to learning modes that rely on more traditional classroom-based, teacher-student dynamic where the student is the passive recipient of learning that comes from an externally structured source. Having such an extensive body of work to rely on allows for a more nuanced exploration of the theory that undergirds the proposed educational intervention in this paper, and allows too for a more rigorous formulation of the mechanics of the proposed approach and techniques tied to the intervention. At the same time, the relatively open and malleable nature of approaches tied to experiential learning allows for a more expansive and more flexible approach in aid of achieving the desired outcomes of the proposed intervention (Kolb, Boyatzis and Mainemelis 1999, pp. 2-13; Kolb and Kolb 2008, pp. 1-12). On the other hand, the literature on youth programs, while encouraging, needs to be put in the context of large and pervasive problems facing young people in Scotland, historically and in the present. The literature does support the assertion that to a certain extent ambitious Scottish government plans to engage the youth and harness their energies and talents for better community and life outcomes have worked in the past, and that the government has been working in earnest to provide meaningful and gainful employment opportunities to young people. The present plan aims for a structured and earnest approach to helping young people and engaging them productively all the way to 2019 (YouthLink Scotland 2014; Learning and Teaching Scotland n.d.). On the other hand, the other side of the coin reveals pervasive and chronic problems hounding young people in Scotland, that needs equally earnest and sincere interventions that have a chance to work. Assessments of youth problems dating back to 2002 reveal that Scottish youths face homelessness, drug addiction, and teenage pregnancy problems that are intractable, and which derail many of Scotland’s young. Drug use rates are high from 15 years onwards, and many areas in Scotland are places where young people are either unemployed in significant numbers or are not paid well, receive the lowest wages (BBC 2002). Elsewhere the authorities have recognized the existence of youth gangs in Scotland, as symptomatic of deeper and more pervasive social problems that affect young people and which drive them to lives of crime and violence, and which in the end derail their prospects for better lives as adults (Bannister et al. 2010). This does not take away, again, from the sincere and earnest efforts of government to equip young people with skills and experiences that can set them on track to productive lives moving forward, through programs that seek to provide incentives to the private sector to employ young people and put them to work in meaningful work roles in their communities. This paper recognizes that those efforts are sincere and to a certain extent effective, but the reality is that there are large problems facing young people in Scotland that can be taken as the urgent context for interventions that address those problems, and that the government programs are not able to fully address (Cook 2013, pp. 1-5; Harleigh-Bell 2013). II. Intervention: Target, Aim, Reason for Intervention Homelessness touches at many aspects of the different problems facing young people in Scotland, and is symptomatic of a host of other issues that young people face, including the use of drugs, criminality, emotional and health problems, financial problems, violence at home, and lack of income and employment opportunities, to name a few. The targets of the intervention therefore are young people that deal with the homeless and young homeless people in particular. This means aiming at an intervention that engages both young workers and young homeless people through educational, structured sessions that allow those groups of young people to process their experiences and gain insights and lessons into them. The specific target of the intervention are secondary school students below 18 years of age, who have either worked in government youth work programs that deal with homeless people, or those that have been homeless at some point. The aim of the intervention is educational and transformative, and that is to educate young people, through direct immersive experiential learning opportunities, on the underlying issues surrounding homelessness, hopefully to spur action and to arouse empathy and a deeper understanding of themselves and young people like them. Corollary reasons for the intervention relate to how, through experiential learning modes, young people hopefully will make better., wiser decisions about their futures and life choices (Cook 2013, pp. 1-5; Harleigh-Bell 2013). Harleigh-Bell (2014) further characterizes the target group for intervention as young people below the age of 25 who have approached various groups that provide accommodations and support for the homeless, and who were made homeless for various reasons, including parting ways with family, and life partners; problems related to physiology and psychology; and problems tied to drugs, alcohol and related substances. Those also targeted for this intervention are those who were made homeless due to domestic abuse, those who have been evicted from their homes or who have been served notices of eviction, those who have suffered cuts in benefits received, those who have been harassed, those who have been crowded out of their places of abode, and those who have become financially incapable to house themselves. The selection process for inclusion into the target group for intervention shall be made via a discreet survey that will be anonymous, and the educational sessions shall be likewise discreet, done outside the prying eyes of peers, and shall be conducted with participants doing so on a voluntary basis. The pool of participants shall likewise be gathered from currently enrolled secondary school students who will be polled for experiences of homelessness, couch surfing, rough sleeping, and similar such accommodations defined as precursors to homelessness or constituting de facto homelessness. To restate, the aim of the intervention is educational and transformative, and the reason is for the participants to be able to process their experiences, to learn from them and to better equip participants with wisdom gained from experience to make better life choices (Harleigh-Bell 2014, pp. 2-15; BBC 2014). III. Approach As already discussed above, the umbrella approach is experiential learning. Because the essence of learning that is based on experience is the immersion in the experience itself, this is an a priori condition for inclusion in the intervention, which in essence is about structuring the way participants in the intervention process their experiences to gain insight, to transform themselves and their understanding of themselves, to make them aware of alternative courses of action and alternative futures, and to equip them with the wisdom and the knowledge to make good life choices moving forward. This is also partly about healing from any wounds, sufferings, and pains associated with the experience of homelessness and the various difficulties and pains that have brought about the experience of homelessness, and also partly about letting the participants know of available interventions and options so as to avoid future experiences of homelessness, and to avoid the very conditions that bring them about. Partly this latter aspect is about healing relationships, but the point is to make use of the general framework of learning offered by experiential learning approaches, that first immerse the participant in a desired experience, and then structures the processing of that experience through techniques and methods for such purposes. In Dewey too we get the idea of the experiential learning process as one that results in the creation of new knowledge, that is directed from within , and takes into account the subjective experiences and modes of learning that are native to the experiencer, and here too the emphasis of the intervention is not so much to structure what are essentially internal realities, but to provide an overall framework, a guide, a structure, and a means by which participants can process their experiences for maximum learning effect. The experience is one aspect, and the reflection and synthesis of that learning, in the view of Kolb, makes up a complete loop that properly constitutes experiential learning approaches (Lewis and Williams 1994, pp. 1-10; Kolb, Boyatzis and Mainemelis 1999, pp. 2-13). Considering the sensitive nature of the object of the intervention, namely homelessness, and its subjects, young homeless people or young people who have experienced homelessness and their underlying potentially traumatic causes, such as rifts with families and life partners, there is foremost a need to consider theories discussed relating to dealing with special groups who are marginalized or made incapable of “normal” interaction and group dynamics by some related reason or other. In this sense there is a need to incorporate sensitivity components relating to communication with such a special group of participants as the young homeless selected for this intervention. Here the precautions and prescriptions made by Koprowska (2014) are relevant. Here the prescription includes sensitivity and awareness that the sensitive backgrounds of such a young group need to be taken into consideration in crafting an appropriate overall approach as well as techniques for effecting the processing and transformation of the experiences of homelessness (Koprowska 2014, pp. 158-172). As well, vital aspects of critical thinking and critical thinking skills need to be incorporated into the intervention, as necessary methods that the learners need to be able to imbibe and to apply to their concrete experiences, as discussed in the literature. Critical thinking then is an essential learning tool, and something that needs to be imparted to the learners/participants, in order for them to be able to gain maximum learnings and insights into their experiences. As the literature notes, critical thinking requires not just the use of the intellectual faculties, but the engagement of the emotional and relational aspects of a person’s subjectivity, and these are brought to bear on lived experience in order to gain the right insights and perspectives into the nature of those experiences (Brookfield 1991, pp. 3.14). As well, it is important to discuss how, in the activities tied to process the experiences of the participants, there is a need to be mindful of the dynamics of groups, how they are formed, what the internal dynamics of good groups are, how to get the best out of groups, and what to expect when it comes to individual dynamics affecting the overall function or dysfunction of groups. There is of course the danger that without a proper regard for the group aspects of the learning sessions, that participants may not be able to get the most out of them, and that in fact, for some, the learning process may end up being completely derailed by not properly considering the impact of group dynamics on learning. The models and frameworks for understanding groups ought to guide the crafting of the techniques for processing experience and effecting experiential learning in the participants (Mullins 2007, pp. 299-329; Douglas 1995). To illustrate, the second of the two sessions of focused conversations that are to make up the last part of this intervention are to be done in groups. The first session ought to be able to provide the right atmosphere and the proper amount of time for the participants to be able to undergo fundamental processes tied to getting to know other people and getting a feel for the kind of people they want to interact with for maximum learning under this approach. The group formation process for the focused conversations then will take place aware of the psychological and relational aspects of group formation, and so hopefully the group work will enhance rather than get in the way of the participants getting the most out of the focused conversation sessions in the last part of the intervention. Therefore it can be said that the proper regard for group dynamics is an essential part of this overall experiential learning approach proposed for intervening to educate homeless and formerly homeless young people. It is an important component of the focused conversation sessions in particular, and of the overall educational process through the three sessions planned for this intervention (Stevenson 2002; Huczynski, and Buchanan 2007, pp. 278-311). The overall approach therefore, as discussed above, structures the sessions in accordance with experiential learning as the overall learning framework for processing the experiences of homelessness of the participants to the intervention. The actual structure of the intervention will consist of two half-day sessions over three consecutive Saturday mornings, from 8 to 11 am, in a discreet location readily accessible to all participants and scheduled several weeks in advance. The second two sessions shall consist chiefly of a review of what the participants have learned in the previous session, followed by intensive focused conversations as outlined in the guide. The last part of the second session on the other hand shall consist of a synthesis of all the sessions, alongside a discussion of the available options for preventing homelessness and for accessing resources in aid of those who become homeless in Scotland. Those latter discussions shall be made in the context of the specific learnings and takeaways of the intervention participants, and shall be interactive and made in dialogue rather than spoon-fed (Stevenson 2002; Lewis and Williams 1994, pp. 1-10). In keeping with the spirit of experiential learning, the simplicity and directness of the sessions stem from the understanding that this whole intervention is driven not by the organizers of the intervention, who are just responsible for crafting the structure and the general theoretical foundations of the approach, but by the participants, whose experiences, subjective learnings, and psychological and emotional takes on their experiences form the core of the intervention. Under this approach, it is the participants and their experiences, as well as the way that they individually process and learn lessons from their experiences, that take center stage (Kolb, Boyatzis and Mainemelis 1999, pp. 2-13). IV. Methodology Details A. First Session There are two three-hour morning sessions conducted on two consecutive Saturday mornings, and here the understanding is that the preliminary screening and targeting of participants from the homeless group of youths discussed in previous sections have been accomplished. The goal of the first half of the first session is to establish some measure of confidence and comfort, as well as openness, on the part of the participants and the facilitators, in order to maximize the sharing and to maximize the potential learnings that the participants can get out of the whole intervention. The first half of the first session shall therefore be about letting people introduce themselves, and letting other people get to know the other participants in the group. Suitable icebreaker activities shall be crafted and implemented, with the goal of making the participants comfortable with each other, to establish trust and rapport among themselves and the facilitators. The goal of this initial part is to establish an atmosphere that is conducive to sharing. The understanding is that everything that will be shared there will be confidential, and the facilitators will make sure to get that point across. This preliminary exercise too aims to make people aware of who among their peers in the session they are comfortable being group members with, in preparation for the focused conversations that will occur, which will be done in pairs. The participants will self-select the members of their own pair groups (Stevenson 2002). The heart of the first session is the focused conversation, and will take up the bulk of the next two hours. This occurs after the group formation phase. The different groups are briefed with regard to the manner by which the focused conversations shall be conducted, in accordance with the outline and steps provided in the literature. The conversation shall proceed in stages, moving on to the different query levels prescribed by Stevenson, from the descriptive level to the reflective, the interpretive, and the decisional. The pair groups shall be asked to keep notes of the whole exercise for themselves. At the end of an hour and a half, the pair groups shall be asked to process what they have learned within themselves, and to share with each other the major learnings and decision points that they have provisionally arrived at. This paves the way for an initial closure at the end of the three-hour session, in which the participants go home with the outcomes of the focused conversation. The end of the first session too comes with a kind of assignment for the participants to further reflect on the first session, their experiences, and their initial insights and learnings, and to keep a journal for the next seven days until it is time to meet for the second session. This journal shall be the takeoff point for the second session too, and will allow the participants to further reflect on their experiences and to further process the learnings and insights, and any new knowledge, that can arise from the whole exercise. A suitable length for every journal entry shall be indicated, but the participants shall be free to write as much as they want everyday for the coming week (Stevenson 2002). B. Second Session The first part of the second session shall again be about the participants breaking into groups, either with the same pair partner or with new partners of their choosing, in order to first synthesize and to process the learnings of the past week, and to discuss the insights that they gathered from the journals that they wrote for all the days of the previous week. The first hour of this session shall be devoted to processing the learnings of the previous week and with a particular focus on the journal entries and what they signify for the participant. Having accomplished that, the second half of the second session shall be mostly about going through the whole focused conversation process again, this time with a more nuanced understanding of where the participant is coming from, from the journals and the results of the previous week’s conversations. The four stages in Stevenson shall be followed again, and here any new knowledge, insight and learning shall be surfaced. The ideal scenario is one where, at the end of this second pass through the focused conversation technique, that participants will be more secure in the insights and learnings that they were able to gather from their experiences of homelessness, and to come out of the whole process wiser and with a better perspective of themselves. The last part of the second session shall be a discussion involving the whole group about options and resources that are available to them and to others who may experience homelessness in the future, and the kinds of preventive interventions that may be pursued in the areas of keeping the family bonds intact and staying off drugs and alcohol. The closure shall come in the form of the provision of information packs and resources packs that the participants can take home with them, alongside online resources where they can continue to communicate and support each other as they deem fit. The participants shall also be encouraged by way of closure to continue to write in their journals as long as necessary to continue to process their experiences, and to venture out into other aspects of their lives that may or may not be tied to their experiences of homelessness, but are relevant and important to themselves. This is to enable the participants to have a tool for continued experiential learning opportunities well after the end of the intervention (Stevenson 2002; Kolb, Boyatzis and Mainemelis 1999, pp. 2-13). 1 References BBC. (2002). Survey highlights youth problems. BBC News. [online]. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/1875037.stm [accessed 4/25/2015]. BBC. (2014). Scottish centre aims to reduce youth homelessness. BBC News. [online]. Available at: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-26838520 [accessed 4/25/2015]. Bannister, J. et al. (2010). Troublesome Youth Groups, Gangs and Knife-Carrying in Scotland. The Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research. [online]. Available at: http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/includes/remote_people_profile/remote_staff_profile?sq_content_src=%2BdXJsPWh0dHAlM0ElMkYlMkZ3d3cyLmxhdy5lZC5hYy51ayUyRmZpbGVfZG93bmxvYWQlMkZwdWJsaWNhdGlvbnMlMkYzXzkzMF90cm91Ymxlc29tZXlvdXRoZ3JvdXBzZ2FuZ3NhbmRrbmlmZWNhcnJ5LnBkZiZhbGw9MQ%3D%3D [accessed 4/25/2015]. Cook, R. (2013). The Changing Face of Youth Unemployment and Employment in Scotland 1992-2012. The Scotland Institute. [online]. Available at: http://www.scotlandinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Youth-Unemployment-Scotland-Institute-May-2013.pdf [accessed 4/25/2015]. Dewey, J. (n.d.). Experience & Education. ruby.fgcu.edu. [online]. Available at: http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/ndemers/colloquium/ExperiencEducationDewey.pdf [accessed 4/25/2015]. Douglas, T. (1995). Different ways of seeing groups: explanations and theories. Survival in groups: the basics of group membership. Buckingham: Open University Press. Harleigh-Bell, N. (2013). Youth Homelessness in Scotland 2013. Homeless Action Scotland. [online]. Available at: http://www.homelessactionscotland.org.uk/uploads/Youth/Youth%20Homelessness%20in%20Scotland%202013.pdf [accessed 4/25/2015]. Harleigh-Bell, N. (2014). Youth Homelessness in Scotland 2014. Homeless Action Scotland. [online]. Available at: http://www.homelessactionscotland.org.uk/uploads/Youth/Youth%20Homelessness%20in%20Scotland%20Report%202014%20%28full%29.pdf [accessed 4/25/2015]. Huczynski A. and Buchanan, D. (2007). Group Formation. Organizational Behaviour: An Introductory Text. Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall Kolb, D., Boyatzis, R. and Mainemelis, C. (1999). Experiential Learning Theory: Previous Research and New Directions. Weatherhead School of Management Case Western Reserve University. [online]. Available at: http://www.d.umn.edu/~kgilbert/educ5165-731/Readings/experiential-learning-theory.pdf [accessed 4/25/2015]. Kolb, A. and Kolb, D. (2008). Experiential Learning Theory: A Dynamic, Holistic, Approach to Management Learning, Education and Development. Weatherhead School of Management Case Western Reserve University. [online]. Available at: http://www.learningfromexperience.com/media/2010/08/elt-hbk-mled-lfe-website-2-10-08.pdf [accessed 4/25/2015]. Koprowska, J. (2014). Working with people with additional communication needs: communicative minorities. Communication & interpersonal skills in social work. London: Sage Publications. Learning and Teaching Scotland (n.d.). Bridging the Gap: Improving Outcomes for Scotland's Young People through School and Youth Work Partnerships. Education Scotland. [online]. Available at: https://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/Images/Bridging_The_Gap_tcm4-552837.pdf [accessed 4/25/2015]. Lewis, L. and Williams, C. (1994). Experiential Learning: Past and Present. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 62. [online]. Available at: http://www.sunyjcc.edu/sites/default/files/Experiential-Learning-Past-and-Present.pdf [accessed 4/25/2015]. Mullins, L. (2007). The nature of work groups and teams. Management and Organisational Behaviour. Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall. Miettinen, R. (2000). The concept of experiential learning and John Dewey’s theory of reflective thought and action. International Journal of Lifelong Education 19 (1). [online]. Available at: https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10224/3680/miettinen54-72.pdf?sequence=2 [accessed 4/25/2015]. Stevenson, H. (2002). Focused Conversation. Cleveland Consulting Group. YouthLink Scotland (2014). Our ambitions for improving the life chances of young people in Scotland. National Youth Work Strategy 2014-2019. [online]. Available at: http://www.youthlinkscotland.org/webs/245/documents/National%20Youth%20Work%20Strategy%20-%202014%2015%20revised.pdf[accessed 4/25/2015]. Read More