MFT 555 – Module 2 – Recovery-Oriented Practice
There is a strong parallel between how we teach and learn about mental health, and how we expect students to treat clients in recovery-oriented practices. Using Paolo Freire’s problem-posing dialogue as a template for both, we can see the difficulties in supporting and evaluating recovery and learning are similar. For example, there is potentially no limit to the individual accommodations and needs for services for both self-directed students and people in recovery, which can feel chaotic and overwhelming for teachers and mental health workers alike. What will my students or clients need or ask for next? How can I help them access those resources? Allowing students and people in recovery to set their own goals, design their own programs, and evaluate their success involves significant risk, and requires trust in those people to direct their own progress without strict guidance. In this regard it makes sense that WISR has remained a small, intimate school, with a focus on collaboration, and that recovery-oriented practice emphasizes rapport and deep understanding of the client and their context. A strict problem-posing approach might also make it difficult to evaluate a program for things like insurance reimbursement and coverage in the realm of recovery, or accreditation and licensing in the realm of education for mental health workers. Compromise seems inevitable, but this is the kind of philosophical coherence that I feel is lacking in so many fields and institutions, and which I am happy to have found at WISR.
what others think of how WISR addresses some of these questions (mostly from the article): How much latitude do students have in deciding how to demonstrate their learning, beyond standard essays, exams, and presentations? To what extent can students determine the parameters of assignments? Are students respected as intellectual authorities in the school? Does the school consult students about the courses? How culturally responsive are the teaching materials? Is culture treated as an asset? Do students encourage and support each other? And, do you think learning by using problem-posing dialogue would help you to see the potential and risks in recovery-oriented practices? That is, do you think learning in the WISR way will make you a better therapist?
Article:
Oh, Hans; Solomon, Phyllis, Teaching and Providing Recovery-oriented care Through Problem-posing Dialogue. Social Work Education. Oct2013, Vol. 32 Issue 7, p933-943.
Is it possible to answer the questions to the response: I am curious what others think of how WISR addresses some of these questions (mostly from the article): How much latitude do students have in deciding how to demonstrate their learning, beyond standard essays, exams, and presentations? To what extent can students determine the parameters of assignments? Are students respected as intellectual authorities in the school? Does the school consult students about the courses? How culturally responsive are the teaching materials? Is culture treated as an asset? Do students encourage and support each other? And, do you think learning by using problem-posing dialogue would help you to see the potential and risks in recovery-oriented practices? That is, do you think learning in the WISR way will make you a better therapist?
