Contents
The relevance of research
Leading domestic experts in the field of psychological assistance to the family have done a lot to master and introduce classical methods into Russian psychological practice. The choice of these methods was carried out taking into account their adequacy to the Russian socio-cultural situation. This refers to such approaches as humanistic, client-centered therapy (A.S. Spivakovskaya, A.B. Orlov); family therapy and the method of family reconstruction V. Satir (AS Spivakovskaya, Yu.B. Gippenreiter); transactional analysis by E. Bern (V.A. Petrovsky); the theory of family systems by M. Bowen (Yu.B. Gippenreiter, A.Ya. Varga); systemic family therapy (A.Ya. Varga, A.V. Chernikov).
The end of the 2004th century was characterized by a serious expansion of new therapeutic methods into the world practice of psychotherapeutic and consulting helping activities. Among them, along with narrative therapy and a number of other new trends (M. Nicholas, R. Schwartz, XNUMX), Solution Focused Brief Therapy stands out noticeably.
This trend is based on philosophical and theoretical and methodological ideas of postclassical rationality, postmodernism, poststructuralism, and constructivism, which are non-traditional compared to well-known psychotherapeutic trends. It is based on the idea of the effectiveness of not a problem-oriented (“deficient”) approach to the life difficulties of the family, but one focused on building and implementing the “solution” to the situation that clients need.
In domestic practical psychology, work on the development of Solution-Oriented Short-Term Therapy (S. de Scheizer, 1985, 1991; 1994; I. Berg, 1994) has only just begun, while the analysis of the common experience indicates that this type of psychological help, of course, has become an integral part of the modern therapeutic process and one of the most common methods of practical work with the family. At the same time, there is no educational literature on the theory of approach and teaching methods at all.
Domestic practical psychology cannot and should not remain aloof from the ongoing process in the modern world of continuous improvement of methods of psychological and psychotherapeutic assistance to the family. Meanwhile, the current situation in Russia creates a special context for the development of modern therapeutic methodology, the latest psychotherapeutic approaches and the development of methods for teaching practical work with the family.
In recent years, the demand for psychological assistance to the family has been constantly growing, which is reflected in the increase in the number of public and private psychological centers for family assistance. Family psychologists and consultants are actively involved in the work of kindergartens and schools; specialists in providing psychological assistance to the family do a lot of educational activities in the media. In this regard, the need for training specialists in the field of psychological assistance in higher and special educational institutions has sharply increased.
At the same time, the problems that arise in the process of learning the latest therapeutic methods are becoming more prominent. Often this training in Russia is of a superficial and purely “technological” nature, which leads to a break in the methodology and theory of psychotherapeutic helping activities with the actual practice of psychotherapeutic assistance and training of specialists. In today’s market of educational services in this area, one can observe an extremely diverse set of training programs in terms of their theoretical orientations and methodological arsenal. Teaching a method does not take into account and does not reflect its methodology in the very principles of teaching. Because of this, we often deal with a very superficial level of mastery of the method, which ultimately leads to «paramedicalism», or even just a gross violation of not only ethical, but simply professional criteria for providing psychological assistance.
That is why the development of a learning model for Solution-Oriented Short-Term Therapy, taking into account the methodological principles and theoretical foundations of this approach, can make an important contribution to solving the problem of developing a methodology for teaching the latest post-classical methods and significantly enrich the arsenal of existing methodological developments in the field of teaching practical psychology in general.
This, in turn, will help to ensure a higher level of professional training of practical psychologists and will allow, on «legal grounds», to include this method in the arsenal of theoretically substantiated, experimentally tested and accepted methods of practical psychological assistance to the family.
The object of the research is the process of teaching methods of family psychotherapy (in the context of classical and postclassical approaches).
The subject of the study is the structure and psychological features of the learning model of Solution-Oriented Brief Therapy.
Research hypotheses:
- The principles of teaching Solution-Oriented Brief Therapy (hereinafter referred to as SBRT) should correspond to its axiological orientation and methodological foundations of the organization, which should be expressed in the methodological methods and techniques of teaching SBRT.
- The greatest effectiveness in the process of teaching Solution-Oriented Therapy can be achieved with an appropriate combination of non-classical methods (ORCT methods) and traditional (classical) teaching methods.
- The proposed model makes it possible to ensure the optimal flow of the process of learning ORCT and its high results, which should be reflected in an increase in the level of motivation and a high subjective assessment by students of the level of learning the method.
Research objectives:
- To analyze the theoretical and methodological foundations of Solution-Oriented Brief Therapy; to analyze and formulate the main differences between classical and postclassical therapy (on the example of Systemic Family Therapy as a classic and Solution-Oriented Therapy as a postclassic).
- To analyze the specifics of ORCT as a subject of training, highlighting its main methodological provisions and principles, describing its therapeutic model and methodological techniques and techniques.
- Substantiate the principles of teaching the Solution-Oriented Approach as a post-classical direction; to analyze their relationship with the traditional principles of teaching and supervision (accompanying the therapeutic work of the student) in classical approaches (on the example of Systemic Family Therapy).
- Develop a learning model for the Solution-Oriented Approach and, on its basis, describe the methodology for teaching ORCT.
- Develop and conduct an empirical study of the proposed learning model.
- To analyze the results obtained and formulate methodological recommendations for teaching Solution-Oriented Brief Therapy. The theoretical and methodological basis of the study was:
1) methodological principles for constructing a learning model: the position on the unity of methodological and methodological principles in learning: the idea of the developing nature of learning (L.S. Vygotsky); ideas of non-classical epistemology, the idea of self-orientation of the cognitive activity of living systems (U. Maturana); idea of a student-oriented model of education (V.A. Petrovsky); idea of isomorphic processes in therapy and supervision (E. Wilms; T.S. Todd; A.Ya. Varga); understanding of the psychological features of the process of professional development in the humanities (V.I. Slobodchikov);
2) theoretical and methodological foundations of ORCT as a post-classical therapy: an idea of the informational nature of the interaction of living systems (G. Bateson); the idea of the classical and non-classical criteria of rationality (M.K. Mamardashivili), the idea of the psychotechnical nature of the study of conscious reality (L.S. Vygotsky, A.A. Bubbles, F.E. Vasilyuk, A.P. Stetsenko); the main ideas of postmodernism and post-structuralism (J. Derrida; M. Foucault; J. Baudrillard, J.-F. Lyotard), including in domestic methodological studies (N.S. Avtonomova, I.P. Ilyin,), as well as in research on the theory of psychotherapy (S. de Shazer, J. Parker and others), the ideas of cybernetics of the «second order» (U. Maturana).
Research methods
To solve research problems, the following methods were used: the method of theoretical analysis of philosophical and psychological literature; interview, simulation, formative experiment.
The sample of respondents — students of the Faculty of Psychological Counseling of the Moscow City Psychological and Pedagogical University; students of the 3rd year of specialization «Systemic Family Therapy» of the Institute of Practical Psychology and Psychoanalysis, as well as students of the second year of study of the Institute of Group and Family Therapy. Only 40 people.
The scientific novelty of the study lies in the fact that for the first time in domestic psychology, a training model for Solution-Oriented Short-Term Family Therapy has been developed and teaching methods have been developed, as well as the effectiveness of training based on this model is being studied for the first time.
The theoretical significance of the study is due to the fact that, using the example of Solution-Oriented Short-Term Therapy, one of the leading areas of world psychotherapeutic practice, the methodological principles of postclassical therapy are analyzed in relation to the methodological principles of classical therapy (using the example of Systemic Family Psychotherapy), and the differences in methodological principles are identified. teaching ORCT as a post-classical therapy from classical therapy (CCT).
The practical significance of the study lies in the development of a model for teaching solution-oriented short-term therapy, the creation on its basis of specific programs and methods that can be used in the process of training in other disciplines of practical psychology, and also formulated methodological recommendations that allow adapting the proposed model of teaching ORCT to various the level of basic practical training and motivation for groups of students.
Implementation of the research results. The materials of the dissertation research are used in a number of educational theoretical and practical courses on postclassical therapy and the theory of ORCT. The developed training model is the basis for teaching training courses on Solution-Oriented Brief Therapy in higher educational and special institutions of Moscow «Introduction to post-classical methods of psychotherapy», «Solution-Oriented Brief Therapy» at the Institute of Practical Psychology and Psychoanalysis (IPPiP); “Modern postclassical trends in psychotherapy” at the Moscow City Psychological and Pedagogical University (MGPPU), etc.
Provisions for defense:
1. Solution-oriented brief therapy has a methodological basis different from the methodological basis of the classical directions of therapy. The difference from the latter lies in the understanding of the nature of the psychotherapeutic process as informational interaction, as well as in the special interpretation of the ideas of poststructuralism, postmodernism, postclassical rationality in the basic methodological principles and ideological foundations of the approach. There are five methodological and ideological features:
a) the client is understood as an «expert» in their problems and goals of therapy, and the therapist as a facilitator of the change process;
b) the client’s «text» is considered self-sufficient, not requiring an analytical opening of the «objective problem» behind it;
c) the problem is considered as a «socially constructed» text «, which includes both the «facts» of the clients’ lives and their «perceptions» about themselves;
d) there is a circular relationship between the representations (constructs) of clients and the behavioral «facts» of their lives, therefore it is impossible to associate an effective therapeutic intervention with only one of these levels, it starts a circular process of change;
e) the process of therapy itself acts as a process of social construction of a “text-decision” that suits the client, the responsibility for the “content” of which and implementation lies with the client himself.
2. The methodological principles of OCCT are considered as the foundations of the OCCT teaching model. This, in turn, makes it possible to use the therapeutic techniques of ORCT as methodological techniques for teaching ORCT.
3. Following the methodological principles of ORCT and the use of appropriate methodological techniques in the learning process provides students with a better understanding of the content of the material being learned and increases their level of motivation in the learning process.
4. Optimal for achieving the effectiveness of the learning process is a combination of non-classical (ORCT methods) and traditional (classical) teaching methods.
5. For students with different basic levels of practical training and different motivation for the practical application of learning outcomes, the use of non-classical teaching methods (ORCT methods) can act differently in terms of the degree of influence on the level of students’ motivation to learn.
Approbation of work
The research materials were presented in the author’s publications, as well as the following reports and speeches:
1) Budinaite G.L. “Systemic family therapy and individualistic Western mentality. Peculiarities of the Problem in the Context of the Russian Cultural Situation” – speech at the X Final All-European Congress “Psychotherapy of the West – Psychotherapy of the East”, Moscow, July 1‑4, 2001;
2) Budinaite G.L. “In the direction of short-term family therapy. Logical development of a systematic family approach or retreat? — Report at the V International Conference “Psychotherapy at the Same Millennium. The experience of the past is a look into the future ”(within the framework of the regular session of the PPL), November 19-20, 2000;
3) Budinaite G.L. “Experience of Advanment of Systemic Family Psychotherapy within the Network Project of the Society of Russian Consultants and Psychotherapists “Collegium of Assisting Specialists” – a report jointly with A.Ya. Varga and E.M. Vrono at the XIV World Congress on Family Therapy of the International Association for Family Therapy. Istanbul, March 24-27, 2004;
4) Budinaite G.L. “Postclassical systems approach. The Problem and Its Solution in the System of Therapeutic Interaction” – speech at the International Conference of the Professional Psychotherapeutic League, May 2004;
5) Budinaite G.L. “Can therapy educate? Experience in the Use of Methods and Techniques of Solution-Oriented Brief Therapy in the Training of Helping Professionals” – presentation at the International Conference of the Professional Psychotherapeutic League, May 2004
The dissertation was discussed at meetings of the laboratory of helping activities of the IRDO RAO (2004-2005), a meeting of the Department of Systemic Family Therapy of the Institute of Practical Psychology and Psychoanalysis (2005); meetings of the Society of Family Counselors and Psychotherapists (2004-2005).
Dissertation structure. The dissertation consists of an introduction, three chapters, conclusions, list of references and applications.
MAIN CONTENT OF THE WORK
The introduction substantiates the relevance of developing a model for teaching ORCT as one of the leading new areas of modern therapy based on postclassical therapeutic methodology, puts forward the goals, objectives and hypotheses of the study, describes the novelty and practical significance of the work.
The first chapter — «Philosophical, methodological and methodological foundations of Solution-Oriented Brief Therapy» — analyzes the philosophical, ideological and methodological foundations of Solution-Oriented Brief Therapy as a postclassical therapeutic direction, describes the main provisions and principles of ORCT, as well as how they are concretized in methodological methods and techniques of ORCT.
Methodological principles and ideology
The methodological principles and ideology of the Solution-Oriented Approach are the result of a staged development of psychotherapeutic theory and practice. The specificity of this stage is due to the fact that the theory of systemic psychotherapy began to be strongly influenced by the ideas of postclassical rationality, postmodernism, constructivism, poststructuralism, “second order” cybernetics developed in the works of M. Foucault (1989, 1991), J. Derrida (1992) , J.-F. Lyotara (1998); U. Maturana, F. Varela (1980), G. Bateson (2000). At the same time, “within” the systemic approach, a controversy began to develop with the provisions of classical systemic family therapy (P. Vatslavik, 1984, L. Hoffman, 1986, G. Gulishian, T. Andersen, 1986; 1991). All this gave birth to a new methodology of psychotherapy. One of the most fundamental consequences of the development of psychotherapeutic theory is a different understanding of the nature of the therapeutic process and its theoretical description than in classical therapy.
An analysis of systemic family therapy shows that classical therapy, along with the systemic logic of considering intrafamily interaction of clients, is characterized by the preservation of a rationalistic idea of the nature of the therapeutic process itself (L. Hoffman) as a process of therapeutic influence on the client system, and the client system is understood as theoretically operationalized by the process of therapy ( i.e. all changes in the characteristics of the client system since the start of therapy are associated only with the process of therapy). From the point of view of the logic and methodology of classical psychotherapy, therapeutic interaction is understood as a chain of cause-and-effect relationships, which makes it possible to develop clear criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of psychotherapeutic work, to determine a clear and consistent system of requirements put forward to the therapist as an expert, but the idea of empirical effects of therapeutic interaction (such as, for example, the influence of the therapist’s attitude towards clients and his «attitude» in the perception of their problem on his interpretation of information received from clients; the influence of «counter interpretations» of clients regarding the therapist’s attitude towards them on clients’ behavior and turn back to the position of the therapist, etc.). Such an understanding and the consequences arising from it at the methodological level correspond to the philosophical ideas of modernism, structuralism and “first order” cybernetics (L. von Bertalanffy).
Solution-oriented postclassical therapy proceeds from the concept of the therapeutic process rather than as a physical impact on the client system, but as an informational interaction of living systems (G. Bateson; S. de Shaser) — therapeutic and client. This representation takes into account the multiple empirical effects of such an interaction, «leaves room for them» in the theoretical description of the process. In this case, a system of restrictions arises that are imposed on the possibility of a causal description of this process and its rational control by the therapist:
1) the dynamics observed in the client system cannot be considered unambiguously related to the therapeutic effect, but, on the contrary, it is initially considered an integral characteristic of the living system, from which the idea of therapeutic “use” of all “side” positive changes in the client system follows, including and not directly related to the process of therapy;
2) rejection of the idea of an objective explication of the client’s problem: the «problematic nature of the text» of clients depends, among other things, on the very nature of the therapeutic interaction;
3) the “problem” is considered as a result of the process of “social construction”, which opens up the possibility of constructing a “non-problem text” in the very process of therapy (S. de Shaser);
4) the expert position of the therapist is limited: the boundaries of «problem», as well as the goals of therapy, are set by the client himself, and the therapist moves to the position of a facilitator;
5) the possibility of a complete reflection of the implemented therapeutic impact is limited due to the idea of a circular, rather than linear, relationship between the “internal constructs of clients” and the behavioral facts of their lives, and the therapeutic intervention is described only as a “difference” introduced into the “problem text of clients” and capable of launching a circular process of further differences (“a difference that generates a difference” — G. Bateson).
These provisions correspond to and, in turn, themselves determine the ideas developed in the traditions of non-classical rationality (restrictions imposed on the possibility of a cause-and-effect description in the field of conscious life (M.K. Mamardashvili); postmodernism (relative, biased «status» of any description objective reality, the equivalence of various options for describing reality “as soon as descriptions”); constructivism (the idea of the social construction of any statement about reality, including “problems”; understanding the process of therapy as a process of social on the possibility of analytical disclosure of the “designated” through the “signifier”, the idea of the self-sufficiency of the “client text”), second-order cybernetics (understanding change as an integral characteristic of the functioning of a living system).
The ideological and methodological foundations of postclassical psychotherapy are implemented in the main provisions and therapeutic model of ORCT.
The solution-oriented approach is based on the following principles:
— the principle of «binocularity» (S. de Shaser), i.e. the need to combine therapeutic isomorphism (correspondence to the ideas, semantic guidelines, «behavioral patterns» of the client) with the ability of the therapist to introduce into the client’s text «a difference that generates a difference» (G. Bateson);
— the principle of constancy of changes in the functioning of the family as a living system and taking into account «useful» changes as «exceptions» from the problem;
— the idea of the client as an expert in his problem and goals, and of the therapist as a facilitator of therapeutic change;
— a constructivist view of the client’s problem as socially constructed and of the therapy process itself as the construction of a «solution» and step-by-step progress towards it;
— the idea of the need to focus not on the problem, but on its solution;
— an idea of the productivity of focusing on the «present» and «future», and not the «past» of the client, and considering the past in terms of its significance for the present and future;
— orientation towards the idea of a circular relationship between «fact» and «representation», assuming that any interaction can be realized and lead to circular changes at both of these levels;
— the idea of a minimal behavioral change as decisive for the «launch» of the positive dynamics of change;
— the idea of the goals of therapy as specific, specific, measurable universally for the therapist and the client.
These principles are actually implemented in the organization of the therapeutic process in ORCT.
Organization of the therapeutic process
At the very beginning of therapeutic interaction, an idea is constructed about the necessary “result of therapy”, about the “situation of solving the problem”, which sets the motivational certainty for the unfolding process of therapy. A single continuum is introduced that includes both the actual level of the clients’ life situation and the «decision» that constitutes the entire therapy process. The process of therapy is launched by formulating the “next step” in moving towards solving the problem, thereby setting the necessary “working therapeutic tension”, a universal system for assessing progress in the process of therapy and, in general, the current state of clients at each stage is introduced for the therapist and clients. This scoring system should allow the constant transformation of analog information (facts of behavioral changes, changes in clients’ perceptions and assessments of themselves) into digital information (for example, the score of proximity to solving a problem on a scale) and vice versa. The process of therapy develops as a progressive passage through such therapeutically defined steps — stages that are always determined by the client. Failure to achieve a particular therapeutic goal is considered as a reason for additional discussion of the motivational significance of the goal for the client himself, its authenticity, adequacy.
The process of therapy ends when the client achieves the subjectively necessary result in this particular process (which may not always mean the resolution of the problem “in general” and may not correspond, for example, to outside therapeutic interpretations.
This therapeutic model is implemented in the construction of the primary and secondary reception of ORCT, as well as in the main therapeutic techniques of ORCT (the technique of the «wonderful question», the technique of scaling, the technique of constructing the «nearest» step, the strategic compliment, etc.).
Thus, through the description of ORCT as a subject of training, the content boundaries of learning are set, and also through the description of the principles of therapeutic interaction and specific therapeutic techniques of ORCT, the methodological and methodological basis for building a model of teaching ORCT is identified.
Analysis of differences in classical and post-classical teaching methodology
In the second chapter — «Solution-oriented short-term therapy as a subject of training» — an analysis of the differences in classical and post-classical teaching methodology is carried out, methodological principles are substantiated and a model for teaching post-classical therapy is described, and an original methodology for teaching ORCT created on the basis of this model is presented.
The methodological principles of teaching and supervision in postclassical and classical therapy have significant differences, determined by different philosophical and methodological foundations of these approaches, presented in the first chapter of the dissertation.
Using the example of systemic family therapy, it can be seen that in classical therapy, at the level of teaching methodology, a “two-level” model of theoretical description is preserved and consolidated: the level of interaction “within” the client system (as an object of training or supervision) is considered as subject to systemic principles of interaction, and the level of training and supervision reinforces the causal level of the therapeutic process itself. Thus, the level of education acts as the level of «expert expert», controlling and supplementing the level of therapy. This establishes a clear distinction between the understanding of intrafamily interaction and the actual therapeutic process and unifies the description of the therapeutic process and the process of supervision. Theoretically (not empirically), they both continue to be considered as subject to rationalistic principles, which allows you to have clear guidelines in the professional control of what is happening both in therapeutic interaction and at the level of interaction between the teacher and the student in supervision and learning, however, it involves “omission” in their theoretical description empirical effects of these processes precisely as interactions.
In this classical logic, “coping” with the difficulties of the psychotherapeutic process can be ensured, first of all, by restoring at the expert level a clear cause-and-effect relationship between the problem’s characteristics (checking the adequacy of the problem’s conceptualization) and the necessary impact (checking the adequacy of the actions taken). At the same time, a different nature of supervisory influence is possible — when “difficulties” in the course of the therapy process are considered as a systemic dysfunction that has arisen, similar to the one that characterizes the intra-family interaction of the client system itself. From here follow the “therapeutic” instructions of the supervisor to the student or the therapist in training, the essence of which is related to the preservation of rational control over the processes at the level of supervision.
This understanding is in line with the classical principles that until recently have dominated the teaching of psychotherapy:
1) the assumption of a “zero” level of student knowledge at the beginning of training;
2) the idea of the independence of the level of knowledge from the psychological nature of the interaction between the student and the teacher in the learning process itself;
3) the assumption that there is no gap between the «givenness» of the content and its mastery;
4) expert position of the teacher;
5) the idea that the teacher is able to fully realize and control his teaching influences and a direct relationship can be established between the teaching influences of the teacher and the level of student learning.
The methodological foundations and principles of ORCT formulated above suggest a different approach to considering the process of supervision and learning. Understanding the interaction of living systems as an informational process implies the need to “take into account” the effects of informational interaction not only at the level of the analyzed therapeutic process, but also at the level of supervision or training itself. The supervision process is considered as a process that «includes» already three levels:
1) actual client interaction,
2) therapeutic interaction and
3) interaction that unfolds in the very process of supervision (training).
The need for the continuity of these levels can be justified not only by methodological requirements, but also by studies showing that the very nature of supervision (training) determines the nature of the interaction of a trained therapist with clients in the therapeutic process (Doehrman M., 1976).
The training of ORCT as a post-classical therapy is based on the following methodological principles:
1) the level of «ignorance» and «misunderstanding» and, in contrast to this, the level of «knowledge» and «understanding» from a constructivist point of view depends on the psychological nature of the interaction between the student and the teacher in the learning process, on how much this «knowledge» is allowed and assumed learning from a learner;
2) a change in the level of learning and understanding of the material being mastered cannot be unequivocally linked to one or another purposeful learning influence, since students’ own uncontrolled dynamics of understanding and learning should be allowed, this dynamics should be «taken into account» in the description of the learning process;
3) since the idea of “own” dynamics in the level of knowledge and understanding is allowed (not all processes are “deployed” in the process of observable and systematically carried out learning), it is assumed that students can determine the boundaries of ignorance and criteria of knowledge on their own (and not “expert”); the student, and not the teacher as an expert, can determine what he does not yet know, and what he still needs to learn in order to have a sense of “sufficient” knowledge;
4) accordingly, there should be a refusal of the role of the teacher as an expert and the transfer of this role to the student, supervisee, and the teacher should act as a facilitator of this process;
5) a provision should be made on the impossibility of full rational control of the learning process and the establishment of a causal relationship between the learning impact and its result due to the impossibility of a complete reflective deployment of the “content” of the learning impact (the teacher cannot fully control the learning process, as well as provide the same the level of mastery of the material by different students, because the teacher cannot fully control his teaching influences and, accordingly, cannot predict how the taught material will be mastered).
These methodological ideas correspond to the ideas of modern «non-classical epistemology» (U. Maturana, 1990; U. Maturana, F. Varena, 1980). They reject the “ontologization” of the learning process as a transfer of knowledge (i.e., from the idea of impact) in favor of the ideas of “self-orientation of cognitive activity” and the cognition system as establishing the area of interactions “based on its own organization”, in which it can act.
Based on the formulated methodological post-classical principles of teaching, as well as the theoretical provisions of the SSCT itself, the main provisions of the organization of the process of teaching the SSCT are formulated, and the model of teaching the SSCT is substantiated.
The main provisions of the organization of ORCT training are:
— the initial assumption about the «non-zero» level of knowledge and the availability of appropriate procedures to identify this knowledge;
— the initial «introduction» by the student himself into the learning process of his own goals («learning criteria»), their visibility;
— the creation of a single (and accessible to the observation of the teacher and students) continuum that includes the “zero” level that exists only theoretically, the current level and the “achieved level of learning”. This continuum sets the «centripetality» of the learning process, determining its specific motivational orientation;
— the constant production of «steps», or subgoals in learning, thereby creating a constant working tension between the current level of learning and the «necessary next step» as a subgoal in achieving the ultimate goals of learning — the previously identified «learning criteria»;
— systematic monitoring and evaluation by the students themselves of the achieved level of training relative to the required one;
— the presence of a visual and universal system for both sides of measuring progress in learning, «sensitive» to the dynamics of a particular learning process;
— focusing the teacher on the successes of students, on the strengths, the successes already made (ignoring weaknesses, mistakes or reformulating them in the context of the experience gained).
These principles turn out to be consonant and reproduce in a new context the methodological principles developed by the largest representatives of Russian educational psychology: the idea of the developmental nature of education and the “zone of proximal development” (L.S. Vygotsky, D.B. Elkonin, V.V. Davydov, V. .T. Kudryavtsev and others).
In this model, the learning process takes on the form of a process that is constituted by the stage of building the final learning goals by students. The process is “started” by the formation of the next step in learning and develops progressively as the passage of a certain series of steps or subgoals of learning. At the same time, the selection of these steps does not imply a uniform “breakdown” into stages along the entire continuum, as well as a logically consistent – from the point of view of a certain “objective” representation – change of stages in setting goals, since it reflects the subjective dynamics of the learning process of the students themselves. The process is completed on the condition that the subjectively necessary “from the given learning process” (and not from the process of mastering the method as a whole) level of learning is reached.
On the part of the teacher, this model of learning involves:
1) the presence of an attitude towards “possible knowledge”, or a non-zero level of students at the beginning of training;
2) interaction with students not so much from the standpoint of their “objective”, but rather their potentially possible and desired “status” in terms of learning (in other words, this is interaction with students “already now” as with those who they want, “still can only «, be);
3) rejection of expert assessment of the level of learning (problems) and learning objectives (learning goals), transferring this task to students, taking a facilitating role here in developing these criteria;
4) the adoption of an expert position in relation to the organization of training, considered as a situation of constant interaction between the teacher and students;
5) focusing on the strengths and achievements of students, rejecting criticism and negative assessments as unproductive for achieving learning goals;
6) readiness for interactive interaction with students on the selection and presentation of educational material (determining the steps in training) and, accordingly, readiness for a sufficiently flexible restructuring of the material, the sequence of its presentation, the completion of a specific stage of the process, etc.
On the part of the student, the implementation of this learning model involves:
1) the adoption of an expert position in relation to the definition of learning objectives (what should be achieved) and what is currently “lacking”, independent formulation and acceptance of responsibility for the content criteria of the main goals and “subgoals” in training,
2) accepting the facilitating, and non-expert, role of the teacher, abandoning the traditional expectations that the teacher will constantly act as the bearer of the content of learning goals, learning criteria, controlling the progress of learning;
3) constant orientation to one’s own criteria in learning and assessing one’s current level of learning;
4) greater independence in the regulation of the learning process — its direction, development, completion, etc.;
5) constant contact with the teacher and colleagues, a more intense level of interaction and an open presentation of one’s position in learning;
6) consideration of the unattained subjective «progress in learning» primarily as a personal responsibility in the sense of not fulfilling the necessary efforts or as a sign of the need to revise the goals set, i.e. taking personal responsibility for failure to achieve their goals;
7) the need to focus on the strengths in teaching both one’s own and fellow students, the willingness to abandon the position of self-criticism and criticism and focus on mistakes;
Direct comparison of learning processes and therapeutic interaction is not valid. There are limitations that the real situation of learning (and supervision) imposes on the possibility of direct implementation of the postclassical principles of learning formulated above. Such restrictions are: the availability of ready-made learning content (presented in the description of ORCT as a subject of study), the presence of formal criteria for mastering the material and learning; the need to divide the material into stages of learning and highlight intermediate learning objectives (because of the need to divide the course into separate lessons); the impossibility of the teacher completely abandoning the expert role in a formal learning situation. This results in restrictions (to a greater extent on learning itself, to a lesser extent on supervision) on considering the learning situation as an interaction due to the preservation of elements of the classical impact methodology.
This corresponds to the notion that introducing excessive «difference» (G. Bateson) into a real learning situation violates the therapeutic principle of «binocularity» in ORCT.
From the point of view of organization, the learning process follows the “matryoshka” principle, when the process is set and directed by the proposed non-classical scheme, however, its meaningful “filling” involves the inclusion of elements of the traditional learning impact. So, for example, it is obvious that the definition of subjective criteria for learning can be descriptive and should still be “filled” with content by the teacher, as a carrier of the corresponding content of the subject of study. In a sense, the educator is considered as a necessary means of realizing the goals outlined by the educator, without which the tasks identified by the students themselves cannot be realized. In this sense, the teacher paradoxically facilitates the process of defining tasks for himself as well.
Methodically, this means that the teaching of ORCT should combine classical, traditional teaching methods and modified therapeutic techniques of ORCT. Based on a review of past research on supervi- sion in ORCT, the question of the appropriateness of using specific therapeutic techniques of ORCT as teaching methods is further analyzed. The possibility of their modification and methodological ways of their combination with traditional teaching methods is discussed.
The result of this analysis was the Appendices Guide for Teaching Solution-Focused Brief Therapy.
In the third chapter — “Empirical study of the learning model of Solution-Oriented Brief Therapy” — we describe our empirical study of learning ORCT according to the learning model implemented in our methodology, and also discusses its results.
The study involved three groups of students from various higher and special educational institutions in Moscow: 5th year students of the Faculty of Psychological Counseling of the Moscow City Psychological and Pedagogical University (MSPPU) — 12 people; students of the 3rd year of specialization of the Department of Systemic Family Therapy of the Institute of Practical Psychology and Psychoanalysis (IPPiP) — 12 people; 2nd year students of the Institute of Group and Family Therapy (IGiST) — 16 people; in total — 40 people. All of them took place in 2004-2005. training according to the developed program of teaching ORCT within the framework of the courses «Modern post-classical areas of psychotherapy» (28 academic hours); «Training on Solution-Oriented Therapy» (30 academic hours — IPPiP students; 16 academic hours — IGiST students). These groups are characterized by initial differences in the level of basic practical training and experience in practical psychological work. Thus, the group of IPPiP students acted as having the greatest practical work experience of all three groups, the group of MSUPE students, on the contrary, as the least practically prepared; IGIST students were seen as having mixed characteristics.
The first task of the study was to identify the effectiveness of SPCT training based on the data of the entire sample of students according to the following criteria:
1) change in the level of subjective mastery of the method before and after training;
2) a general assessment by students of the usefulness of training according to this methodology;
3) change in the subjective level of motivation of students in the process of learning according to this method.
The second task was to identify students’ assessment of the features of the proposed learning model according to the following indicators:
1) non-traditional learning process;
2) the usefulness of using ORCT methods in teaching in terms of their influence on motivation in the learning process and the assimilation of the provisions and techniques of ORCT as a subject of training;
3) the usefulness of a combination of ORCT methods and traditional teaching methods;
4) the connection between the assimilation of the philosophical and ideological principles of the approach and the mastery of the method.
The third task was to identify the differences in each of the groups of students in the specified groups of parameters.
In addition to obtaining and analyzing these quantitative indicators, we set ourselves the task of identifying and describing, based on a qualitative analysis of students’ self-reports, the «internal» dynamics of the learning process according to the proposed model. We also set the task of analyzing interactive learning opportunities, describing how in the real learning process a specific (i.e., taking into account the characteristics of a given learning group and the real course of the learning process) interactive interaction between the teacher and students was carried out.
For this study, we used two specially designed questionnaires. The first questionnaire was filled out by students at the beginning of their studies, the second — at the end of their studies. At the same time, we did not assume a direct comparison of the answers of these questionnaires, since, given the direction of the questions, this is meaningfully impossible. The questionnaires differed significantly in the number and content of the questions asked (the questions were not repeated in them). Direct comparison of data was possible only in terms of the “level of subjective learning” parameter before and after the course. The second questionnaire included additional detailed comments on a number of points by the students, which acted as their self-report on the learning process as a whole, and on each of its individual stages. In the course of the training itself, in each of the groups, the teacher collected materials obtained as a result of the ORCT methods.
The data of the questionnaires were processed statistically (identification of statistical differences between groups in terms of indicators using Student’s t-test and determination of relationships using Pearson’s correlation coefficient).
Analysis of the data on the first questionnaire made it possible to get an idea of the difference between the three groups of subjects at the beginning of training (the difference is statistically significant). These data made it possible to characterize the group of MSUPE students as less professionally interested and motivated to study; the IPPiP group — as the most oriented of all three groups focused on professional goals, with a high level of «professional claims», and the IG&ST group as the most motivated, but with a lower representation of professional interest.
Analysis of the quantitative data of the second questionnaire for all groups of subjects revealed the following results for the first group of parameters:
1) a high level of subjective learning 7,3 (out of 10 points), with an initially estimated 7,13 after completing the training, an average increase from the initial level of learning is 5,5 points (see diagram 1);
Diagram 1. Change in the subjective assessment of the mastery of the method before and after training (in average scores for the group)
2) a high assessment of the subjective usefulness of training according to this method — (3,86 out of 4 points), more than 87% of students rated the training as «very useful». An indirect assessment of the usefulness of the training was high indicators for a number of parameters (willingness to recommend training using this method to colleagues (100% of students), willingness to continue learning this method (60% of students), a high assessment of their own potential for further work in this method (70% of students and etc.) (see Table 1 and Table 5);
Table 1. Overall assessment of the training (by trainees from all 3 groups)
3) an upward change in motivation for learning in 67,5% of students, an upward change in the idea of their own resources in 72,5% (see Table 2);
Table 2. Changes in motivation and perception of resources during training
For the second group of parameters, the following results were obtained:
1) in assessing the “non-traditional” learning according to this model, 52% of all students found learning different from the usual teaching methods and considered it possible to classify it as non-traditional (20% — very significant differences; 32,5% — significant). At the same time, a qualitative analysis of students’ written comments makes it possible to link this assessment with the use of ORCT methods and the principles of organization of interaction «teacher-student», and not with the non-traditional nature of the educational material itself (a negative correlation of these parameters was obtained);
2) the motivating role of ORCT methods in the learning process was assessed as significant — 33,33% of students rated this role as «very significant», 42,5% — as «essential» (see Table 2). Evaluation of each of the ORCT methods in providing motivation showed that students associate the greatest motivating effect with the construction of the “next step in learning”, the least with the construction of criteria for desired learning outcomes. At the same time, the level of evaluation of the motivating value of each of the ORCT methods exceeds 2,5 out of 4 (see Table 4). Correlation analysis showed that the level of motivation is associated to the greatest extent with familiarity with the worldview foundations of the approach, as well as with the orientation of training to the strengths and achievements of students;
Table 3. Evaluation of usefulness in teaching «classical» and «non-classical» methods
3) the role of ORCT methods was assessed as significant for learning — 3,59 (out of 4 points) (see Table 3). 70% of students rated their role as very useful. In the preference hierarchy (according to the averaged scores for all groups of students), among all methods, this group received the 2nd place (following the observation of the therapeutic method conducted by the teacher). Correlation analysis showed that utility is most associated with the development of simulated cases, the identification of strengths in training and work, as well as positive feedback;
4) the overall assessment of the usefulness of non-traditional and traditional methods in teaching showed that both groups of methods are rated as useful (3,7 and 3,18 out of 4, respectively). At the same time, non-classical methods are rated on average 0,6 points higher than traditional ones (see Table 3). Qualitative analysis of comments and correlation analysis showed that students refer to the group of classical methods, first of all, the theoretical presentation of the material and the development of simulated cases, and to non-classical methods — «non-expertise» of the interaction «teacher-student», as well as game exercises and methods based on on therapeutic techniques of ORCT;
5) a high assessment by students of the importance of mastering the philosophical and worldview foundations was revealed (50% — «very important», 30% — «essentially»). First of all, students associate the high motivating role of using the ORCT method with them. At the same time, the assimilation of these foundations from the point of view of students is most due to their implementation in the principles of constructing teacher-student interaction and practical training, rather than lecture transmission of the contents of these provisions.
Table 4. Comparative assessment of the usefulness of the ORCT methods
Data analysis for each of the three groups of students revealed the following differences:
1. According to the first group of parameters, the IPPiP group gave the highest assessment of the usefulness of the training among all three groups (4 out of 4), the MGPPU group — the smallest of the three groups (3,66). At the same time, in the IPPiP group there is a high correlation of usefulness with the use of ORCT methods (along with the development of simulated cases, positive feedback and familiarity with the basic provisions of ORCT), and for MSUPE, utility is mainly associated with demonstrating the practical work of a teacher; the IS&ST group gave an “average” rating (see Table 1). At the same time, in terms of the parameter of subjective mastery of the method, the IPPiP group, on the contrary, gave the lowest rating, and the MSUPE students gave the highest rating (see diagram 1). The greatest changes in the level of motivation are shown in the MGPPU group, and the smallest — in the IPPiP; IGiSP students again showed an “intermediate” level of changes (see Table 2).
2. According to the second group of parameters, MSUPE students rated the training according to the proposed model as the most non-traditional, and students of IGIST as the least non-traditional. The motivational role of ORCT methods turned out to be again the largest for MSUPE students (3 out of 4, in percentage terms for 50% of the group), and the smallest for (2,75) for students of IGIST (see Table 2). At the same time, the preference hierarchy of ORCT methods for all three groups practically coincides and is reflected in the averaged data for all groups (see Table 4). This allows us to draw conclusions about a fairly stable perception of the method of constructing the next step in learning as subjectively the most motivating, and building a general “picture of the result of learning” as the least motivating. Only the parameter “identifying the strengths in the work of the therapist” was given a higher rating by the students of IPPiP and IGiST than the students of MSUPE.
Table 5. Potential for further mastery of the method after training
3. The highest assessment of the role of ORCT methods in teaching and mastering the methods was given by the students of the Moscow State Pedagogical University and the students of the IPPiP (high correlation with the usefulness of training), it is slightly less for the students of the IGiST (see Table 3).
4. The difference between classical and non-classical methods in the proposed teaching model in the MSUPE group turned out to be the most pronounced, less in the IPP&P group, and very small in the IGIST group. At the same time, the IPPiP group gave the highest assessment of the usefulness for teaching non-classical methods (3,91 out of 4 points; 92% rated them “very useful”), and the students of IG&ST gave the highest assessment of classical methods (see Table 3).
5. The formation of a philosophical worldview corresponding to the approach is considered the most important by the students of IPPiP, the least important by the students of MSUPE. At the same time, it is precisely this second group that seems to be the most conducive to the formation of this worldview theoretical discussion of philosophical and ideological foundations, while for IPPiP students, the opportunity to observe their implementation in the practical work of the teacher and the principles of building the “teacher-student” contact is decisive here.
Thus, the differences in the results of the selected groups of students allow us to conclude that students who are characterized by extensive practical work experience and practical orientation (IPPiP) find the proposed training model as the most useful for teaching ORCT. At the same time, this category of students is guided by higher learning criteria than groups with less practical orientation and less experience in practical work (they give themselves the lowest score for mastering the method). At the same time, the motivational influence of ORCT methods in teaching is less for them than for the least practically oriented groups of students (MGPPU), although it is more than for students who are highly motivated initially, but with less practical experience — the IG&ST group.
The group of students with the least professional orientation and less practical work experience (MGPPU) gave a slightly lower assessment of the usefulness of non-classical teaching methods for teaching, while the most motivated, but with a fuzzy professional orientation (IGiST) gave the lowest assessment of the usefulness in teaching the methods of ORCT and showed the least “sensitivity” to their differences with classical teaching methods.
The assimilation of philosophical and ideological foundations is of the greatest importance for the most professionally oriented group, and the success of their assimilation is associated with their practical implementation in the learning process, while the least important is for the least professionally oriented students (MGPPU).
Non-traditional teaching methods have the greatest motivational value for the least initially motivated and professionally oriented students (MGPPU), although they are also important for professionally experienced students.
A qualitative analysis of students’ self-reports made it possible to identify a number of features of the internal dynamics of the learning process:
1) to the greatest extent, the difficulties of «entering» the proposed logic of learning are manifested at the first stages of the process. So the search for «exceptions from ignorance», or «already implicitly existing base» involves a significant restructuring of habitual attitudes — a student, starting training, must abandon the usually automatically accepted «zero» position («complete ignorance»); the experiences associated with the need to take responsibility when formulating learning goals, as well as when identifying the first step, are updated;
2) in the course of the implementation of the first stages of the learning process of the proposed model, the experience of an increasing “self-governance” of the process arises, and being the most difficult here as an experience of responsibility, then it becomes habitual and integral to the solution of all subsequent tasks in learning. At the same time, the situation, which actually acts as a “fulfillment” by the teacher of the goals outlined by the students, is experienced by the students themselves as cooperation and respectful interaction;
3) all the main methodological techniques of ORCT used in training are described as having a subjectively strong motivational impact;
4) Motivational differences in the perception of the material offered in training turn out to be very significant for students after the construction of training criteria and the first “nearest” step. This perception is described as being significantly more biased and active than the standard learning situation;
5) to the greatest extent, students are aware of the motivational value of the regular formulation of the next step (which corresponds to the obtained quantitative indicators). It is experienced subjectively as setting the progress and regularity of the learning process and as providing a constant level of motivation;
6) students are aware that they are experiencing a process similar to that experienced by the client in therapy and from a certain moment are able to consider the procedure they are going through as an additional level of education to the main content.
An analysis of the protocols reflecting the impact of the materials received in the course of training (“learning criteria” in each of the groups, specific steps identified at each stage — learning goals, etc.) on changing the curriculum showed that not so much the possibility of permanent meaningful changes in the “response” teaching influences of the teacher, but the motivational impact of such a change on the activity and personal involvement of students.
Based on the analysis of the obtained quantitative and qualitative results, methodological recommendations are formulated for a possible modification of the teaching methodology when working with different groups of students in terms of initial motivation and professional orientation.
The study allows us to draw the following conclusions:
1. When building a learning model for Solution-Oriented Brief Therapy, it is necessary to take into account the specifics of its philosophical, ideological, theoretical and methodological base. This makes it possible to ensure the unity of the content of education with the principles and methodological methods of organizing the learning process, which is important for the productivity of training.
2. Orientation to the methodological principles of training specific to ORCT allows using the therapeutic techniques of ORCT itself as methodological methods of the process in the learning model.
3. The use of ORCT therapeutic techniques in the learning process can provide an increase in the level of motivation of students in the course of training, as well as increase the level of mastery of ORCT as a subject of education. At the same time, the motivational value of ORCT methods increases for students with less practical basic training and a lesser focus on the practical application of learning outcomes.
4. The use of ORCT methodological techniques in teaching should be combined with traditional teaching methods.
5. The subjective perception of the learning process and its qualitative description by students coincides with the idea of the motivational dynamics of the process implemented in the learning model.
6. The value of interactivity in the learning process in the developed learning model is manifested mainly not in the content restructuring of the curriculum, but in the motivational influence on the course of learning, stimulating the activity of students.
The content of the dissertation is reflected in the following publications of the author:
- Budinaite G.L. In the direction of short-term family therapy. Logical development of a systematic family approach or retreat?: // Issues of mental medicine and psychology. Abstracts of the V International Conference “Psychotherapy at the Same Millennium. The experience of the past is a look into the future. — M.-Kustanai, 2001. — S. 25-26.
- Budinaite G.L. Classical Systemic Family Therapy and Postclassical Directions (Short-Term Solution-Oriented Therapy and Narrative Approach): Revolution, Evolution or… // Psychotherapeutic Journal. — 2001. — No. 3. — S. 79-90.
- Budinaite G.L. Dangerous links between generations // Modern child and modern parent: an encyclopedia of mutual understanding. – M.: OGI Publishing House, 2005. – S. 151-180.