JSP-00752; No of Pages 19 Journal of School Psychology xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of School Psychology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jschpsyc

Developing school psychologists as agents of social justice: A qualitative analysis of student understanding across three years Gregory E. Moy ⁎, Alissa Briggs, David Shriberg, Katie Jackson Furrey, Portia Smith, Nicole Tompkins Loyola University Chicago, USA

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 12 April 2013 Received in revised form 3 March 2014 Accepted 4 March 2014 Available online xxxx Keywords: Social justice School psychology Graduate training consensual qualitative research Service-learning Cohort-sequential design

a b s t r a c t This study employed a cohort-sequential design with four cohorts over 3 years to investigate school psychology graduate trainees' (n = 37) understanding of social justice. Using consensual qualitative research methods, participants' perspectives on social justice writ large, social justice as it applies to school psychology, and effective aspects of social justice training in their graduate training program were collected through semi-structured focus group interviews. Field-based training though service-learning in diverse communities provided trainees with exposure to experiences that were viewed as instrumental in their understanding of social justice in general and as it applies to school psychology. Trainees described aspects of the training program that were viewed as conducive to educating school psychologists as agents of social justice. Based on findings from the study, a descriptive model of school psychology training for social justice is proposed. © 2014 Society for the Study of School Psychology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Although the verbiage of “social justice” is relatively new to school psychology, much of the field's history and efforts relate to events and topics with strong social justice connections (Gutkin & Song, 2012; Nastasi, 2008). For example, the history of much of school psychology in the United States in the past 40 years relates directly to the passage of Public Law 94-142 (Fagan, 2008), which was a direct outgrowth of movements related to civil and educational rights. Over the past several years, leading organizations and journals related to school psychology have begun to make this perhaps implicit connection between school psychology and social justice more explicit. For example, social justice was a central theme in special topic issues of School Psychology Review (Power, 2008) and Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation (Shriberg & Fenning, 2009). In terms of organizational affirmations of social justice, the most recent version of the American Psychological Association (APA) “Guidelines on Multicultural Education, Training, Research, Practice, and Organizational Change for Psychologists” (APA, 2003) directly encourages psychologists to view themselves as leaders in social justice. Specifically, Principle 5 of the guidelines begins by stating, “Psychologists are uniquely able to promote racial equity and social justice” (APA, 2003, p. 382) and Principle 6 concludes by stating, “Psychologists recognize that organizations can be gatekeepers or agents of the status quo, rather than leaders in a changing society with respect to multiculturalism” (APA, 2003, p. 382). Additionally, in 2010 Division 16 of the APA (School Psychology) initiated a Workgroup on Social Justice and Children's Rights.

⁎ Corresponding author at: Loyola University Chicago, School of Education, Lewis Towers, 820 N. Michigan Ave., Chicago, IL 60611, USA. E-mail address: [email protected] (G.E. Moy). ACTION EDITOR: Andrew Roach.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2014.03.001 0022-4405/© 2014 Society for the Study of School Psychology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Moy, G.E., et al., Developing school psychologists as agents of social justice: A qualitative analysis of student understanding across three years, Journal of School Psychology (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2014.03.001

2

G.E. Moy et al. / Journal of School Psychology xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

In 2007, a Social Justice Interest Group was founded in the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP). Moreover, the most recent professional standards endorsed by NASP reference social justice as a foundation for all aspects of service delivery and training (NASP, 2010). For example, the 10 domains of school psychology practice outlined in this document reflect 6 principles. One of these principles states as follows: School psychologists ensure that their knowledge, skills, and professional practices reflect understanding and respect for human diversity and promote effective services, advocacy, and social justice for all children, families, and schools. [NASP, 2010, Standard 3.2, p. 4]

1.1. Defining and applying social justice principles in school psychology Social justice is commonly defined as being related to “full and equal participation of all groups in a society that is mutually shaped to meet their needs” (Bell, 2013, p. 21). The aspirational goals of fairness, equity, and justice have quietly served as major undercurrents in the practice of school psychology. They are reflected in the legal rights to educational services provided by federal legislation, namely the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-446, 2004) and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (P.L. 107-110, 2002). These are also valued principles embodied in the ethical and professional guidelines of NASP and APA (APA, 2010; NASP, 2010). As such, there appears to be an institutional consensus among these bodies that fairness, equity, and justice may serve as aspirational beacons for educational and psychological service delivery to individuals in schools. The imprint of these aspirational goals on education and schooling is deep; however, there is a lack of research on the explicit application of social justice ideas to school psychology practice (Speight & Vera, 2009). To date, there have been three empirical studies where school psychologists or school psychology graduate students were asked to provide their opinions on social justice. The first was a Delphi study of cultural diversity experts in school psychology conducted by Shriberg et al. (2008). In this study, these cultural diversity experts most strongly endorsed a definition of social justice centered on the idea of “protecting the rights and opportunities for all.” In terms of identifying priority social justice topics, experts in this study nearly universally spoke to the importance of challenging institutional power structures via advocacy, most typically advocacy directly related to elements of cultural diversity (e.g., race and socio-economic status). Similarly, when asked to identify key social justice action strategies, experts emphasized the importance of knowledge (e.g., knowledge of best practices and the law) and action (e.g., advocacy to support children and families). Finally, when asked to identify topics that impact social justice in school psychology either positively or negatively, respondents identified “lack of diversity in the field” and “allocation of resources” as the most notable barriers and “equity of placement/services” as both a notable opportunity and barrier. In a follow-up study of 1000 randomly selected NASP members conducted by Shriberg, Wynne, Bartucci, Briggs, and Lombardo (2011), respondents provided a definition of social justice essentially identical to the definition provided by the cultural diversity experts. Additionally, 94% of respondents indicated that considerations of institutional power in schools were salient to social justice and school psychology. Respondents rated “promoting best practices in school psychology”, “conducting culturally fair assessments”, and “advocating for the rights of children and families” as the most realistic actions practitioners can take support social justice. In addition, significant age differences were evident, with younger respondents appearing to be both more apt to report exposure to social justice concepts and also less willing to take personal risks to pursue social justice aims than older respondents. The third study sought school psychology graduate students' perspectives on social justice via a focus group (Briggs, McArdle, Bartucci, Kowalewicz, & Shriberg, 2009). Participants were school psychology students in their third year of the specialist program or in their third year or above in the doctoral program—close to entering the field. When describing social justice, these students often referenced concepts of equality and equity. Specifically, they connected social justice with the distribution of resources and opportunities. 1.2. Training for social justice in school psychology If social justice is believed to be an important framework for practice, then it is important to have training and professional development models that reflect this framework. As noted by several authors (e.g., Burns & Singh, 2010; Goodman et al., 2004; Speight & Vera, 2008), scholarship documenting “the best of” social justice training in psychology is just emerging. Gutkin and Song (2012) argued that school psychologists are uniquely positioned to take leadership and educative roles in moving a social justice agenda forward. They stated, Enhancing social justice in our society will require educational interventions in which people learn about the centrality of equity, fairness, diversity, etc. to the fabric of our society. Expanding social justice is not about curing diseases and pathologies, which is what the traditional medical metaphor would have us focus on. Rather spreading social justice will require effective teaching and education, which is at the very core of our expertise as school psychologists. [p. 17] Although each situation is unique, there are some common challenges associated with teaching for social justice in school psychology. First, there are challenges inherent in the construct itself, particularly in the sense that social justice is commonly seen both as an aspirational goal and as a set of action steps. This dual function, defined with the contextual nature of social justice Please cite this article as: Moy, G.E., et al., Developing school psychologists as agents of social justice: A qualitative analysis of student understanding across three years, Journal of School Psychology (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2014.03.001

G.E. Moy et al. / Journal of School Psychology xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

3

work, makes identifying “best practices” in social justice advocacy a somewhat challenging and possibly undesirable task (Shriberg & Moy, in press). How does one know if one has truly advanced social justice when the outward indicators of socially just systems and practices tend to vary by context and the perspectives of stakeholders? Is it reasonable to hold practitioners of school psychology to common standards when it comes to best practice in social justice advocacy when they are working under vastly different professional obstacles and opportunities when it comes to “achieving” social justice? The challenges of selecting course content and pedagogies which espouse social justice are closely related to personal and political differences among parties involved in training for social justice in school psychology. Although individuals may differ in terms of their ideas of what constitutes fairness and justice in society, there exists an understanding that fairness and justice—regardless of how they may be specifically construed—are worth striving for. Thus, two ideas—the recognition of an unjust status quo and the idea of working to change an unjust status quo—are central to the notion of striving for social justice. This goal leads to considerations of the means and ends that would constitute justice, an examination of the contextual variables that may be causing the injustice, and identifying which strategies are most appropriate to solve the identified problem. For example, we can agree that racism has no place in society or in schools, but how we choose to view the problem and address the problem differs according to variables in context. Therefore, a primary objective of social justice training is to encourage individuals to examine the variables that may contribute to injustice within their own diverse contexts through a critical lens and to allow them to identify their own concepts of the means and ends of fairness and justice (Shriberg, 2012). Many individuals may identify common threats to social justice in their own contexts, such as racism, classism, ableism, and other pernicious forms of discrimination; these topics may be included in course content as they relate to school psychology. However, the degrees to which these topics are addressed and the means by which trainers incorporate them should vary according to the contextual factors of the training programs. This subtlety may create challenges for training programs in that this approach does not easily lend itself to the adoption of a prescribed set of social justice-related learning standards and competencies for trainees across contexts. Furthermore, because the considerations of justice and injustice can become hotly debated, discussions among course instructors and students in training programs that emphasize social justice are more likely to enter into more treacherous terrain than debates on less “loaded” topics. Faculty representing historically marginalized groups, such as women, racial minorities, sexual minorities, and religious minorities may be particularly at risk in these situations, as they may be accused of advancing a personal agenda over scholarship in a way that would less commonly be attributed to straight, White, Christian men who emphasize social justice (Constantine, Smith, Redington, & Owens, 2008; Shriberg, 2012). For these reasons and more, Shriberg (2012) provided the following recommendations for individuals in mental health fields seeking to teach college courses in the area of social justice: (1) engage in dialogue related to why this content is important; (2) develop a mission statement and core training goals related to social justice; (3) embed meaningful experiences that help to make “social justice” a real thing, not simply a theoretical construct or aspiration; and (4) provide a safe and supportive forum for eliciting voice and constructive dialogue. In a recent special topic issue of Trainer's Forum, the question was raised, “how can one translate the aspirational nature of the construct of social justice into effective practice in school psychology graduate education?” (Shriberg, 2009, p. 7). In one article (Radliff, Miranda, Stoll, & Wheeler, 2009), faculty and students affiliated with the school psychology program at The Ohio State University identified five key areas central to infusing social justice into their program: mission statement, student body, program courses and experiences, community partnering, and community-based projects. Similarly, in another article in this issue of Trainer's Forum, faculty and students associated with the school psychology program at Northeastern University in Boston (Li et al., 2009) described a three-pronged approach to teaching for social justice. Teaching social justice required (1) integrating social justice into courses, (2) engaging students in social justice scholarship and research, and (3) faculty and students collectively acting in concert with their core values and ethical standards for the purpose of improving the lives of others in real world settings. Finally, as previously mentioned, Briggs et al. (2009) examined advanced school psychology graduate students' perspectives on social justice. In addition, they examined the impact of a school psychology program on their views regarding social justice and how the program could improve to better help them understand and apply social justice to practice. Students indicated that applied experiences (e.g., service, practicum, and internship) had the greatest influence on their understanding of social justice. They also noted that coursework and discussions with peers in class influenced their views on social justice. When asked how the program could improve in teaching social justice, participants cited more experiences in schools with the greatest needs and instruction that addressed the connection between social justice and school psychology practice. 1.3. Service-learning as a tool for teaching for social justice in school psychology One promising approach to teaching for social justice in school psychology that addresses the connections between social justice and school psychology practice is service-learning (Hoffman & Doggett, 2012). Service-learning has been characterized as a pedagogy that bridges academic content and lived reality (Butin, 2005). The service-learning pedagogy has been employed in countless educational settings and training arenas. It is a form of pedagogy in which students are engaged in community service that is often accompanied by regular guided reflection on the service activities in order to enrich both the communities in which service occurs and the learning of the students (Britt, 2012). According to Britt, “service-learning represents the confluence of several streams of pedagogical and institutional approaches to increasing student and community capacity and strengthening connections between universities and communities” (p. 82). She offered a typology of three approaches to service-learning as a sensitizing concept to be employed by educators to better understand goals for student learning and community impact. These three service-learning approaches were (1) skill-set practice and reflexivity, (2) civic values and critical citizenship, and (3) social justice activism. Please cite this article as: Moy, G.E., et al., Developing school psychologists as agents of social justice: A qualitative analysis of student understanding across three years, Journal of School Psychology (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2014.03.001

4

G.E. Moy et al. / Journal of School Psychology xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Indeed, a body of research supports this typology. Evidence of service-learning contributing to the development of valuable professional skills has been conducted (Bennett, Henson, & Drane, 2003; Eyler & Giles, 1999; Lu & Lambright, 2010; Simons & Cleary, 2006). Civic values and critical citizenship, as a second type of service-learning pedagogy, have been covered extensively (Jacoby, 2009; Lester & Salle, 2006) in recent literature. Likewise, Britt's (2012) third characterization of service-learning, which advances social justice, is represented in numerous works (e.g., Boyle-Baise & Langford, 2004; Mitchell, 2007). Several scholars agree that service-learning that is conducted with a social justice orientation redirects the focus of activities from charity to social change (Cuban & Anderson, 2007; Kahne & Westheimer, 1996; Wade, Boyle-Baise, & O'Grady, 2001). Service learning is generally accompanied by the recognition and analysis of power and oppression in both field-based and classroom-based activities, consciousness-raising, and reflections on relevant social issues such as classism, sexism, ageism, and racism (Boyle-Baise & Langford, 2004). These types of reflective and questioning activities, coupled with a focus on developing authentic relationships between the institutions of higher education and the communities served, has been termed by Rice and Pollack (2000) and Rosenberger (2000) as “critical service-learning.”

1.4. Study purpose As potential definitions and applications of social justice as applied to school psychology practice and training continue to emerge, an under-examined component is the perspective of school psychology graduate students. To date, there has only been one published study addressing their perspective (Briggs et al., 2009). This study focused only on graduate students who were nearly ready to enter the field. In a seminal article involving school psychology and other graduate students associated with a college of education, McCabe and Rubinson (2008) presented data indicating that student attitudes regarding an oppressed group (in this case, sexual minority youth) may not always translate to ally behavior in support of this group in the field. Within counseling psychology, Caldwell and Vera (2010) presented the results of interviews with 36 counseling psychologists or counseling psychology doctoral students—all of whom met criteria as social justice experts based on their professional activities. The questions posed to this expert group related to critical incidents that cultivated a social justice orientation. Participants' responses yielded five primary categories: (1) influence of significant persons (e.g., mentors, parents and family, and peer support), (2) exposure to injustice (either personal direct experience or witnessing injustice), (3) education/learning (coursework, readings and scholarship, and graduate training philosophy), (4) work experiences, and (5) religion/spirituality. When asked to rank order which of these five categories were most impactful towards developing a social justice orientation, exposure to injustice was the top ranked category. In order to elucidate the perspectives of school psychology graduate students and how best to support them in understanding and applying social justice, the present study describes the process and results of a series of semistructured focus group interviews held over a period of three years with multiple cohorts of school psychology graduate students attending an urban Midwestern university that explicitly embraces service and social justice as a core mission. The study seeks to build upon the work of Briggs et al. (2009), which only focused on one group of advanced students. In the present study, the focus of these interviews related to three broad areas: (1) how these participants define social justice, (2) how these participants view social justice as being related to school psychology practice, and (3) students' perceptions of their training program vis-à-vis this program's ability to successfully teach social justice.

2. Method 2.1. Setting This study took place at an urban university in the Midwest that has a large school psychology Ed.S. program (admitting approximately 25 new students a year) and a moderately sized school psychology Ph.D. program (admitting 4 new students a year). All students attend this program full-time. This graduate program is oriented around a social justice mission, a mission that is made evident to potential and current students in various ways. In addition to its overt presence in the university's mission, several academic programs, co-curricular programs, research centers, and social media outlets are dedicated to the alignment of university activities to the principles of social justice. With respect to the school psychology program in particular, applicants are required to write an essay related to social justice as part of the admissions process. Applicants selected to interview participate in small group activities related to social justice and also hear this social justice mission articulated from the program faculty and current students. Program coursework is also aligned with a social justice mission. Beginning in the fall of 2010, school psychology graduate students take a course on school psychology and social justice on their first semester. The primary assignment in this course is a service-learning placement. For over 10 years, all first year graduate students in this program have been required to complete at least 75 h (in some years this requirement was as high as 100 h or as low as 50, depending upon the student's prior experience in schools) of service-learning as a requirement for obtaining their masters' degree at the end of their first year of study. Throughout, students have been encouraged to volunteer in areas and topics that were out of their personal cultural comfort zone, with several consistent field partners available. Examples of partnering service-learning sites are local tutoring programs in low-income neighborhoods and in temporary housing shelters with predominately African American and Latino American clients. Additionally, in the summer between their second and third year of study, all Ed.S. students take a course called Leading for Social Justice. All students also completed an essay related to social justice as part of their culminating Ed.S. or Ph.D. portfolio. Given that this program operates around a social justice mission, students are exposed to this topic in a variety of other ways through their other courses and applied experiences. Please cite this article as: Moy, G.E., et al., Developing school psychologists as agents of social justice: A qualitative analysis of student understanding across three years, Journal of School Psychology (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2014.03.001

G.E. Moy et al. / Journal of School Psychology xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

5

2.2. Participants and study design In January and February of 2009, 2010, and 2011, trainees enrolled in the program were recruited via email from a fellow school psychology graduate student to participate in focus groups. Participation was voluntary. Potential participants were all school psychology specialist and doctoral students attending this graduate program during the 2008–2009, 2009–2010, or 2010– 2011 academic years. Students who were involved in this project as researchers were excluded as potential participants. Of the total 37 participants, 33 were women (89.2%), and 5 (13.5%) were from racial/ethnic minority groups. These figures are very comparable to overall program demographics. All participants were in their 20s. This study employed a cohort-sequential design (Schaie, 1995) by holding focus groups with participants in four cohorts during January or February for three consecutive years. Cohort A, which consisted of 17 total trainees, was represented by seven of its members in a focus group in 2009 as second year trainees (n = 7; Participants A1–A7). Cohort B, which consisted of 26 total trainees, was represented in three focus groups; in 2009 as first-years (n = 5; Participants B1–B5), in 2010 as second-years (n = 3; Participants B6–B8), and in 2011 as third- years (n = 5; Participants B9–B13), respectively. Cohort C, which consisted of 23 total trainees, was represented in focus groups in 2010 as first-years (n = 6; Participants C1–C6), and again in 2011 as second-years (n = 5; Participants C7–C11). Finally, members of Cohort D, which totaled 24 total trainees, participated in one focus group in 2011 as first-year trainees (n = 6; Participants D1–D6). In summary, the average sampling fraction of the population (as defined by the average of the number of focus group participants divided by the total size of each respective cohort) was 23.4%. 2.3. Research team Several graduate students and one school psychology faculty member contributed to this project in some form. All members of the research team received graduate level training in educational research covering qualitative and quantitative methods. As a program requirement, doctoral-level team members had enrolled in a course focused specifically on qualitative research in education. During weekly team meetings, literature describing the process of consensual qualitative research was provided to members of the research team, and codebook reliability training was conducted prior to each phase of analysis. The majority of research team members (including the second, fourth, and sixth authors) responsible for data collection and analysis over the 3-year course of the study were White, middle-class women in their 20s enrolled as Ed.S. or Ph.D.-level trainees. One coder was African American (the fifth author), one coder was Mexican American, and two others were Asian American. The internal auditor (the first author) of the coding process of the primary data analysts was an Asian American man in his late 20s with prior professional experience with qualitative research. One White male faculty member (the third author) in his early 40s was involved primarily in an advisory role. Recognizing the potential influence of a power differential between faculty and trainees and how this might influence participants' responses, this faculty member was as far removed from the data as possible. He did not moderate, attend, or listen to any recordings of any focus groups; he was not aware of which students participated; and he did not participate in coding. As part of the informed consent process, participants were made aware of the measures taken by the research team to sequester the faculty member from the raw data audio recordings and any other phases in which their identities might be revealed. 2.4. Data collection Focus groups were used in order to investigate the research questions because they allow participants to consider and discuss their own thoughts and the thoughts of others. Such discussion can lead to a more thorough understanding of the question at hand (Kvale, 2008). The duration of each focus group held in this study was approximately 1 h. Using a procedure described by Krueger and Casey (2009), one student member of the research team moderated the focus groups by guiding the semi-structured questions while another student member of the research team facilitated the focus groups by taking notes, keeping time, running the digital audio recorder, and distributing and gathering consent documents. Research team members did not moderate or facilitate focus groups comprised of members of their own cohort or students for whom they served as a teaching assistant. Focus groups were scheduled and held on campus in private rooms at times when all potential participants were not in class. In all seven focus group interviews, the moderator prompted participants to do the following: (1) provide their personal definitions of social justice, (2) share if and how their understanding of social justice might or might not apply to the field of school psychology, and (3) discuss aspects of their school psychology graduate program with regard to preparation in understanding social justice and practicing school psychology in a socially just manner. Focus group protocols are provided in Appendix A. 2.5. Consensual qualitative research Because of the relative dearth of research on graduate students' perspectives on social justice and on elements of social justice in training programs, an inductive approach—consensual qualitative research (CQR)—was used. Closely related to grounded theory, CQR is well-suited for studying the inner beliefs, attitudes, and experiences of individuals and groups of individuals because it provides a rich, detailed understanding that is not usually possible with quantitative methods. Although primarily constructivist, CQR incorporates elements of post-positivism in its use of consensus through multiple analysts and auditors in Please cite this article as: Moy, G.E., et al., Developing school psychologists as agents of social justice: A qualitative analysis of student understanding across three years, Journal of School Psychology (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2014.03.001

6

G.E. Moy et al. / Journal of School Psychology xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

order to decrease threats to internal validity (Hill et al., 2005, p. 197). An additional strength of CQR compared to grounded theory is the use of a relatively fixed method of data analysis (Hill, 2012, p. 16) that more readily permits replication and a reduction of threats to external validity. CQR has been successfully applied to the study of other complex social phenomena in graduate training, such as perspectives of graduate advising relationships, nondisclosure in predoctoral internship supervision, White students' responses to racism, and familial influences in career development (Hill, 2012). In CQR, raw transcript data are analyzed in multiple stages, and these raw data should be revisited at each stage to safeguard the trustworthiness of each iterative stage. The first stage results in the identification of themes that are used as coding domains and associating raw data to these domains in order to provide “an overall structure for understanding and describing each individual participant's experiences” (Hill, 2012, p. 103). CQR permits for the possibility that, for any given statement (the coding unit), either zero coding themes may be identified, one coding theme may be identified, or multiple coding themes may be identified. Therefore, it is possible that the percentage of statements covered by each thematic coding domain does not sum to 100%. The likelihood that a single statement is laden with multiple themes may be increased with the statement's length and the depth with which the speaker addressed the discussion promptly. The next step in the analysis is constructing core ideas or summaries of the data that paraphrase the essence of participants' statements that enable researchers to organize and compare data across cases and across domains. Core ideas are then organized under each domain, and the cross-analysis of common core ideas within domains results in the creation of a category structure via a discovery-oriented process (Hill, Thompson, & Williams, 1997). This categorization process, which is referred to as cross analysis, may serve to underscore the comprehensiveness of domains if subcategories are not found to be better suited to describe the data, or this process may result in the creation of subcategories within domains that better represent the discrete ideas that comprise more complex core ideas. In the cross-analysis and abstraction of the coded data, statements are permitted to represent multiple themes in order to ensure pertinent messages within complex responses were not lost as a result of unnecessary elimination. The cross-analysis culminates with a determination of the representativeness of the categories or domains to the study sample. This representativeness is determined by the frequency of the themes expressed, or it may be determined by the percentage of the text covered by statements expressing themes. The presentation of CQR data may take many forms. The experiences of overall samples may be described in terms of the thematic categories which emerge from their statements; subsamples may be compared with each other in terms of how they experience the phenomena under study; and these preliminary stages of synthesis may culminate as descriptive pathway models constructed from thematic elements of the data by analysts who are familiar with the purpose and scope of the research. 2.6. Analysis All focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed. The coding unit, or the boundaries of the text analyzed, was set as the complete utterance of one participant in response to the moderator or another participant before another participant began a response. In some instances, utterances were as short as a few words, whereas lengthier statements contained as many as 400 words. As mentioned in the previous section, each of these coding units could potentially be covered by more than one code. Transcripts of the focus groups were analyzed using CQR methods outlined previously. The assumption of the consensus process that characterizes this methodology is that the multiple perspectives offered by a team of researchers can more closely approximate accurate representations of the meaning of qualitative data derived from open-ended questions. This methodology requires the development of a codebook of domains based on the major conceptual themes that emerge from the transcripts. 2.6.1. Coding In order to develop coding domains, research team members read through the transcripts and took notes on topics discussed. The team met to discuss their notes, and from this discussion, a consensual set of domains by which to conduct further analyses emerged. Members of the research team were trained to identify the domains as consensually defined and to code all transcripts according to these domains. Members of the research team coded the transcripts independently, tracking their work in a uniform spreadsheet. Meetings were scheduled to discuss any discrepancies in coding and to establish consensus where those initial discrepancies existed. All transcripts were coded by at least two research team members in order to reduce threats to internal validity. After dyads coded the transcripts and met to discuss discrepancies and provide feedback on the pilot codebook, the research team reconvened and revised the coding manual based on the feedback from the first round of coding in order to enhance the precision of the instrumentation. Research team members then coded the transcripts in dyads again, but, in the second round of coding, they coded a different transcript with a different partner in order to minimize the likelihood of coder drift and potential impacts of drift on the representation of participant responses. Again, pairs coded independently then met to discuss and resolve discrepancies. After the pairs discussed discrepancies, the research team met to discuss the codebook and any discrepancies in coding that could not be resolved. 2.6.2. Coding reliability Percent agreement was defined as the percent of codes agreed upon and included both the codes dyads agreed did not apply and the codes dyads agreed did apply. Pre-consensus agreement ranged from 78% to 87% among coding dyads, and post-consensus agreement was between 98% and 100% among coding dyads. Miles and Huberman (1994) recommended 80% agreement as an acceptable rate of inter-coder reliability. With appropriate codebook development and training, CQR lends itself to relatively high inter-coder reliability statistics after consensus due to the intent of CQR to stay “closer to the explicit level of meaning of participant statements rather than interpreting the implicit meanings of events” (Hill et al., 1997, p. 521). Please cite this article as: Moy, G.E., et al., Developing school psychologists as agents of social justice: A qualitative analysis of student understanding across three years, Journal of School Psychology (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2014.03.001

G.E. Moy et al. / Journal of School Psychology xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

7

2.6.3. Internal audit A member of the research team with experience in qualitative research who recused himself from the initial coding process audited the coding and other phases of analysis by reviewing the codebook and the coding of each transcript. This auditor evaluated whether or not statements were accurately coded from transcripts by reviewing each coded transcript and indicating his agreement or disagreement with the coding of each statement. After the coding audit, the coding team met to discuss coding recommendations made by the auditor and revisited the coded data to arrive at a consensus. 2.6.4. Core ideas and cross-analysis After textual data was coded into domains, core ideas were synthesized in each domain, and a consensual determination was made that additional sub-categories based on the positive or negative valence of core ideas added descriptive nuance to the data. For example, the core ideas representing the domain of “Instruction” could have either positive or negative valances. Responses which spoke to activities that were instructive in learning about social justice carried a positive valence, whereas statements which identified activities that were not instructive carried a negative valence. Statements were allowed to carry both positive and negative valences. The frequency and percent coverage of each of the domains were determined using QSR International's NVivo 9 qualitative research software (Anonymous, 2010). Representativeness of categories was determined for the overall sample and compared across cohorts. The questions and prompts provided by focus group moderators impacted the statements provided by participants. Recognizing this impact, cross-analysis was also performed on discrete sections of the transcripts partitioned by moderator prompts that moved the discussion to different topics corresponding to each of the three major research questions. Results reflect the overall representativeness of the thematic domains with comparisons made across different cohort subsamples; they also reflect the representation of thematic domains as they pertain to the three research questions: (1) How do participants define social justice? (2) What are participants' thoughts about how social justice may pertain to school psychology? (3) What are participants' evaluations of their graduate program's effectiveness in training for social justice? 3. Results 3.1. Major themes Twelve major themes emerged and persisted through multiple rounds of coding, codebook revision, auditing, categorization, and cross-analysis of focus group discussions on defining social justice, relating social justice to the practice of school psychology, and evaluating a school psychology graduate training program on its teaching of social justice. These themes were (in alphabetical order) “Advocacy”, “Application”, “Awareness”, “Exposure”, “Fairness/Equity”, “Instruction”, “Monetary Resources”, “Program Features”, “Reflection”, “Relationships”, “Service”, and “Time”. These themes pervaded the discussions on social justice in school psychology practice and training, but to varying degrees. A brief description of each theme is provided in Appendix B. 3.2. Valence balance Most core ideas were categorized as positive representations of each thematic domain. Themes in which negative representations were notably present included “Fairness/Equity”, “Monetary Resources”, and “Instruction.” The relatively higher proportions of core ideas carrying a negative valence in these three themes suggest that trainees were sensitized to potential and existing obstacles to social justice and social justice training related to school psychology in these areas. Higher proportions of negative “Fairness/Equity” and “Monetary Resources” core ideas were representative of participants' identification of practices or structures that were viewed as unfair or that contributed to inequitable educational or economic opportunities for students. For example, one participant stated: A lot of times the unequal distributions of funds contributes to a lot of the social injustices that students face in schools, so even if they want to learn and want to do their best, they may not be at a school that has the best resources or the best teachers, so they're automatically disadvantaged, and that puts them in a cycle of not being able to achieve as much as they could. I think in a socially just educational system, every student would have the same opportunity. [Participant C7, 2011] Core ideas related to “Instruction” that carried a negative valence tended to represent components of coursework that were not viewed to enhance social justice training as effectively as others. A conversation held by members of Cohort D revolved around the discussion component in one particular course. The following statements are illustrative of this conversation: One thing that hurt our class was the lack of diversity. I'd say the majority of people in our cohort fall into majority populations and we're all well off from the socio-economic standpoint. I think it hurt us in a way because we weren't able to get … a wide range of perspectives because a lot of us have fairly similar backgrounds in a lot of senses. [Participant D5, 2011] Please cite this article as: Moy, G.E., et al., Developing school psychologists as agents of social justice: A qualitative analysis of student understanding across three years, Journal of School Psychology (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2014.03.001

8

G.E. Moy et al. / Journal of School Psychology xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

I really enjoyed the voices section of our textbook, and I thought we learned a lot about different people's experiences.… I think we all came to the class in with very similar backgrounds and very similar viewpoints, so we had to rely on the voices section to give us different perspective as opposed to having people from the class sharing some of their personal experiences. [Participant D1, 2011] 3.3. Most prominent themes Aggregated percentages of statements falling under each thematic domain provide a gross indicator of the topics that were most salient to focus group participants across all 3 years of data collection. Fig. 1 shows the percentage of statements covered by each thematic domain across all seven focus groups held between the 2008–2009 and the 2010–2011 academic years organized by cohort. Note some percentages do not sum to 100 because each statement can have more or less than one code applied to it. The “Application”, “Awareness”, and “Instruction” themes were most prominent throughout the discussions. These overall results provide an indicator of the salience of field-based application, classroom instruction, and increasing awareness of social issues to the participants during the focus groups. Focus group moderators asked a series of questions to participants, and the statements elicited were closely related to the moderators' prompts. After coded transcripts were cross-analyzed for overall representativeness of the thematic domains, the cross-analysis was also conducted with respect to each research question across all participant groups. Figs. 2, 3, and 4 show the representativeness of the twelve thematic domains with relation to each research question by cohort. The following sections describe the results with respect to each of the research questions. In addition, due to the prominence of statements referring to service-learning experiences that were captured by the “Application” theme across all three research questions, it is important to highlight these statements in a separate section. 3.4. Research question 1: Definition of social justice Participants from all cohorts across all three years of data collection provided responses relevant to their understanding and definitions of social justice. Fig. 2 depicts the percentage of statements covered by each thematic domain, organized by cohort, specific to participants' definitions of social justice. Three themes prominent in the definitions of social justice provided by participants were “Fairness/Equity”, “Awareness,” “Advocacy”, and “Service” was an idea represented in all cohorts as well but to a lesser degree. The “Fairness/Equity” theme appeared in nearly every definition of social justice provided during the focus groups. For example, a participant in Cohort B defined social justice as “[making] sure that everyone in my school has an equal learning opportunity and …gets all the services …and accommodations that they need to have a successful education” (Participant B3, 2009). Two years later, someone from the same cohort explained, “What's fair isn't equal and what is equal isn't fair .…The kids that we work with, they are all—they are not given the same lot in life, and opportunities, so doing the same thing for every child is not socially just” (Participant B13, 2011).

Cohort A

% of Statements Coded

90%

Cohort B

80%

Cohort C

70%

Cohort D

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Themes Fig. 1. The percentage of statements coded with each theme by cohort. Note that percentages may add up to more than 100% because multiple codes may apply to each statement.

Please cite this article as: Moy, G.E., et al., Developing school psychologists as agents of social justice: A qualitative analysis of student understanding across three years, Journal of School Psychology (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2014.03.001

G.E. Moy et al. / Journal of School Psychology xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

9

Cohort A

% of Statements Coded

90%

Cohort B

80%

Cohort C

70%

Cohort D

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Themes Fig. 2. The percentage of statements coded with each theme by cohort when prompted to define social justice. Note that percentages may add up to more than 100% because multiple codes may apply to each statement.

The “Awareness” theme captured a range of ideas expressed by participants. Multiple participants stated how their personal definitions of social justice would likely change over time in response to new experiences (Participant A6, 2009; Participant C8, 2011). Some participants connected social justice to cultural awareness. For example, “social justice to me is being very aware of cultures and keeping all that in mind as we try and help children in schools” (Participant C9, 2011). In addition, “I agree [that social justice] is acting in a culturally competent way [that] involves also knowing your own limitations and biases” (Participant B3, 2010). A third-year participant characterized awareness as a helpful precondition to understanding and working for social justice: [Defining social justice] is more of awareness that this is the situation out there. Depending on different backgrounds, some of us weren't as exposed [as others] to different social injustices that were happening [and] that are happening. So having that awareness now is what is going to help us try to be more socially just wherever we are. Whatever we are doing in the future, just the awareness of it all has really helped us out. [Participant B13, 2011]

% of Statements Coded

Cohort A 90%

Cohort B

80%

Cohort C

70%

Cohort D

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Themes Fig. 3. The percentage of statements coded with each theme by cohort when prompted to discuss how social justice applies to school psychology practice. Note that percentages may add up to more than 100% because multiple codes may apply to each statement.

Please cite this article as: Moy, G.E., et al., Developing school psychologists as agents of social justice: A qualitative analysis of student understanding across three years, Journal of School Psychology (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2014.03.001

10

G.E. Moy et al. / Journal of School Psychology xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

90%

Cohort A

% of Statements Coded

80%

Cohort B

70%

Cohort C Cohort D

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%

0%

Themes Fig. 4. The percentage of statements coded with each theme by cohort when prompted to evaluate the graduate program's social justice training. Note that percentages may add up to more than 100% because multiple codes may apply to each statement.

The theme of “Advocacy” also appeared with relative frequency in participants' definitions of social justice, which speaks to an active component or something individuals do in the pursuit of social justice. For example, one participant stated, “I think it also has a lot to do with advocating for students and people in general who may not have anybody to advocate for them, whether it be educationally or economically” (Participant C7, 2011). Advocacy was viewed as being especially critical for social justice when carried out in the face of opposition or institutional inertia that would otherwise perpetuate unfair practices (Participant B5, 2009). In many responses, the theme of advocacy was viewed as a means to fairness or equity as an end. As one participant put it, “A society that really looks to the members who are most in need and makes sure that their needs are met … looking after the children, people who are marginalized, the homeless. Really looking to see that everyone's needs are met to the extent that they have them” (Participant D6, 2011). To a lesser degree, the theme of “Service” appeared in all four cohorts' discussions of social justice. This theme was related to participants' expression of a disposition or personal commitment to working in the interest of others. It also related to actions based on that disposition or commitment. With significant accordance from others participating in the focus group, one participant defined social justice as “being in the service of others regardless of any ethnicity, religious belief, [or] any type of background” (Participant C2, 2010). 3.5. Research question #2: Application of social justice to school psychology practice As the focus group interviews progressed to discussions about the relevance of social justice in relation to school psychology practice, the themes of “Awareness” and “Fairness/Equity” continued to permeate the conversation. Although Cohorts C and D referenced “Fairness/Equity more frequently than Cohorts A and B, core ideas from Cohorts A and B related to “Fairness/Equity” were consistent with those from Cohorts C and D in that the social justice principles of fairness and equitable opportunities for students were viewed as aspirational goals for school psychology. As one might expect, ideas reflecting the “Application” theme were well-represented during discussions of the pertinence of social justice in school psychology. When participants were asked to consider ways in which social justice might be applied to school psychology practice, one of the most commonly cited mechanisms was “Advocacy”. Fig. 3 depicts the percentage of statements covered by each thematic domain, organized by cohort, specific to how participants viewed social justice applying to school psychology practice. One participant said, echoing a very common sentiment, “When I think of social justice… the word that just literally lights up in my mind is advocacy” (Participant C6, 2010). Another participant identified advocacy as a tool for promoting equity by describing social justice as “advocacy for those who don't always get the same entitlements that the rest of society gets” (Participant D3, 2011). Many participants indicated that school psychologists must engage in advocacy by speaking on behalf of those who, for whatever reason, are unable to speak themselves. For example, one participant conveyed [school psychologists can] also kind of help the kids who don't have the parents who are knocking down the principal's door every day, you know it's the parents who don't realize their kid maybe isn't getting what they need from the school. [Participant B4, 2009] Please cite this article as: Moy, G.E., et al., Developing school psychologists as agents of social justice: A qualitative analysis of student understanding across three years, Journal of School Psychology (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2014.03.001

G.E. Moy et al. / Journal of School Psychology xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

11

Another participant went beyond the theme of “speaking for those who are unable to speak for themselves” by describing empowerment as a form of advocacy: I also think empowering parents is really important. Letting them know what their rights are, that they do have rights, and that they are very active members of the school team. [It is important] because I think that family-home connection [is] something that could really help expand our reach for kids. [Participant C10, 2011] Other participants went beyond describing advocacy at the child and family level. These participants emphasized the importance of alerting people in powerful administrative and political positions about ways to promote social justice and equitable distribution of resources at systems or policy levels. For example, Participant D6 (2011) explained that working towards social justice requires “going a little bit beyond helping the individuals in your community or those around you and trying to kind of change how things are structurally.” In discussing how to be an effective advocate, many participants referenced the idea of awareness. They indicated that in order to be an effective advocate, they needed to utilize their expertise in a way that would make others aware of social justice issues and inspire them to address these issues. For example, a participant explained the following: I remember a school psychologist talking about how there was a marginalized group within their student body that was underperforming and not doing as well. Because the school wasn't obligated to specifically look at that population, it went unnoticed for a long period of time. I think part of the school psychologist's role is to be the person that pays closer attention to the groups in the school and check to see… why they're not doing as well as the other people in the school. [Participant D5, 2011] Another participant noted that advocating for students may entail promoting awareness in others in subtle ways: Yes, utilize data, but then take it a step further … and ask the right questions to people. You're not saying, “This isn't right, this isn't socially just!” because they're like, “what the heck are you talking about?” … but you're saying, “Wow! Did you guys see that this subset of students is never meeting their benchmark, and they've been tracked since second grade?”….You know, and just asking questions, and using, not only their data skills, but all their interpersonal skills, that's a huge role for the school psychologist. [Participant B13]

3.6. Research question #3: Student evaluation of social justice training Focus group participants were prompted to discuss the potential role of the graduate training program in their understanding of social justice. Participants were also asked to provide feedback on how social justice instruction and opportunities could be enhanced. Fig. 4 depicts the percentage of statements covered by each thematic domain, organized by cohort, specific to participants' evaluation of the graduate training program. “Application” and “Awareness” remained prominent during this phase of the focus groups, and the themes of “Exposure”, “Instruction”, “Program”, “Reflection”, and “Time” emerged in this part of the discussion to a greater degree than they did in the discussion of other topics. Structurally, aspects of the program that were viewed favorably were the university's social justice mission (Participant A5, 2009), the school psychology program's explicit emphasis on social justice (Participant B3, 2009; Participant B6, 2010), its use of an entrance essay on social justice as an entrée to thinking about social justice (Participant A1, 2009; Participant B1, 2010), and readings and class assignments focused on social justice in school psychology (Participant A1, 2009). One participant shared the following: Even though every class may not talk about it, we do talk about it in some way. Even though a professor may not have defined it for us, it's still always there…Making [us] think about it that has been the most important for me., It is giving me a little more time to one deal with it and find my own experiences and self-reflect about it. I mean, it's putting me in a good position to think about how I want to deal with socially just and unjust things later in life. It's more like: “you are in graduate school now. Be selfreflective on the topic and keep it in the back of your head.” I feel like it has been a little more subtle [in some classes] than in others. Sometimes it's a distinct component, like writ[ing] a paper about social justice, but I think that's OK. [Participant A6, 2009] In terms of areas for growth, participants identified some aspects of the program as not matching the degree of declared emphasis on social justice. Many suggestions for further improving the program's ability to teach about social justice included having more practicum and internship sites in underserved communities available to provide trainees with more opportunities to understand and enact social justice (Participant B10, 2011, and Participant B5, 2009). Others identified the potential benefits of receiving training in school settings with contrasting levels of social and economic support (Participant C2, 2010). Many trainees expressed conflicting feelings regarding how to reconcile their motivations to serve and train in impoverished schools and the Please cite this article as: Moy, G.E., et al., Developing school psychologists as agents of social justice: A qualitative analysis of student understanding across three years, Journal of School Psychology (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2014.03.001

12

G.E. Moy et al. / Journal of School Psychology xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

likelihood that these schools would not be best positioned to offer the training opportunities in evidence-based practices that more adequately resourced schools could offer (Participant B2, 2009, and Participant B8, 2010). Some participants identified barriers to understanding social justice through graduate training in school psychology. Statements pointed to the lack of cultural and economic diversity among enrolled graduate trainees in school psychology. This homogeneity was attributed to the high cost of tuition in statements by trainees in Cohort B (Participants B12 & B13, 2011). Notable differences were observable in the degrees to which “Instruction” was mentioned across cohorts. A higher proportion of core ideas categorized under “Instruction” carried a negative valence than core ideas representing other themes. Therefore, the greater representation of “Instruction” in Cohorts A and D should not necessarily be interpreted as these cohorts placing more value in classroom activities than Cohorts B and C. However, these differences may coincide with differences in cohorts' experiences with field-based training, including practicum and service-learning. When Cohort A engaged in service-learning activities, the requirement was not explicitly intended to enhance social justice training. Cohort A expressed a desire for more instructional support in understanding and applying social justice. Additionally, Cohort D had been the first group enrolled in a specific course focused on social justice training—developed in response to concerns such as those mentioned by Cohort A—which was discussed at length during focus group interviews. Overwhelmingly, participants reported fieldwork as one of the most pivotal training experiences in helping them to define and understand social justice. Several participants identified service-learning as meaningful experiences that contributed to their understanding of social justice, especially in conjunction with support from program faculty and classmates. A participant in Cohort B put it aptly: I think the service-learning project is great, and I think that has helped us to … get some leg work going with the skills we are learning in class. To come back and talk with our professors and talk with our peers if there are things that we are seeing that are frustrating; if there are things that we are seeing that are exciting; and just kind of build our repertoire of how we would handle challenging situations or things that maybe are really unfamiliar to us. I am really glad that we have that [opportunity]. I think that's really strong. [Participant B2, 2009] 3.7. Service-learning to engage trainees as agents of social justice All study participants engaged in service-learning activities during their first year of graduate study as a program requirement. Statements referring to these service-learning activities were captured in the “Application” coding domain, which persisted as one of the most prominent themes across all four cohorts when discussing social justice. The most prominent themes that co-occurred with the theme of “Application” were “Instruction”, “Exposure”, and “Awareness.” Several participants' statements highlight the relation between these components of social justice training and service-learning activities. Participants expressed how exposure to cultural and economic diversity through service-learning influenced their thinking and awareness of social justice issues within the practical realities of working in schools and other agencies serving school-age children. Several participants offered reflections on how field-based experiences impacted their awareness of social justice issues and how that, in turn, impacted the way they have defined social justice for themselves. One participant shared, “I would say that not only our coursework, but having the opportunity to be out in schools and see social justice in action has really complemented each other” (Participant C2, 2010). One participant reflected on the value of being pushed outside of one's cultural and economic comfort zone through fieldwork in order to grow in understanding of social justice: Because we were specifically told to go outside of your comfort zone, you had an opportunity to see something you would in other instances would not be exposed to. You wouldn't want to be there, but you get a chance to see and maybe confirm some of those thoughts that you had, or completely deny some of those things that you thought. [Participant B6, 2010] Service-learning experiences exposed participants to diverse groups and helped make them more aware of social justice issues. A second year trainee explained, “I think the main thing is being able to see what's out there and see differences than what you're used to” (Participant B6). Another second year trainee expressed, I think [service-learning] exposed a lot of us to communities that we might not necessarily have been in before, schools that we haven't been in before, to kind of see the type of injustices or differences in resources that exist in [the city]. [Participant C7, 2011] Continuing on, this participant stated that the service-learning experience does a good job of exposing you to very profound issues within the field of education right off the bat. Not only were we talking about it but we were seeing it with our own eyes, so I think that was beneficial. [Participant C7, 2011] In describing how the service-learning experience exposed them to diversity, a first-year trainee explained, “In my service-learning, I've been working with a population that I've never really worked with. I have also started to become more just Please cite this article as: Moy, G.E., et al., Developing school psychologists as agents of social justice: A qualitative analysis of student understanding across three years, Journal of School Psychology (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2014.03.001

G.E. Moy et al. / Journal of School Psychology xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

13

aware of some, unfortunately some of the injustices going on in the school system” (Participant B4, 2009). A participant from Cohort D noted that the service-learning provided a perspective one might not otherwise have had: I learned a lot from my service leaning site because I was at a community resource center type thing and I got to see families in a context outside of school, and [I] really got to see their needs, and [the agency's] function specifically working with a population that doesn't speak fluent English. [Participant D3, 2011] Several participants described the service-learning experience as eye-opening. Participant A4 said, “I think that a lot of the schools that we volunteer at are high minority students or populations and that I think that opens our eyes to a lot of injustices that really occur” (2009). Similarly, Participant C8 indicated that service-learning “helped me see how great the disparity was between [schools]” (2011). Participants noted that the service-learning experience was particularly influential in their understanding of social justice when they engaged in experiences that initially resulted in some discomfort. A third-year student explained, “I think that is part of the process of becoming a socially just person is being uncomfortable” (Participant B10, 2011). Two years earlier, Participant B1 noted: For my service-learning I am doing something that I've never done before, and a lot of times it makes me really uncomfortable. But at the same time…I know I am going to benefit from it and they are benefiting from me being there. [2009] Participants identified exposure to diversity and social justice issues were critical to their professional growth and ability to work towards social justice as professionals. For example, a participant said, “in order to enact social justice in the future, you have to have some sort of basic understanding of what it is, and how you've seen it before” (Participant B7). A year later, a participant in the same cohort explained, Depending on different backgrounds, some of us weren't as exposed to different social injustices that were happening… So having that awareness now …is what is going to help us try to be more socially just wherever we are… just the awareness of it all has really helped us out. [Participant B9, 2011] Some participants also indicated that the service-learning experience made them more passionate about working towards social justice as school psychologists. For example, I don't know that the service-learning project actually expanded my outlook, because I feel like I knew that all these inequalities and injustices existed, but it made it a lot more real. I did a part of my project in a low-income [city] public school elementary classroom, and I remember just walking in, and there were 35 kids in the class. It was a 2nd and 3rd grade combination class. I was working there for maybe a few months and they had gone through 3 teachers. I think…it just made me more passionate about it. I don't think it made me any more aware, but it just made me … develop stronger feelings that I would want to work toward social justice in my career. [Participant C10, 2011] In addition, Participant B11 explained, I think the difference between having the insight and awareness of social justice and having that intrinsic passion about it as well stems from experience. I don't think you get that intrinsic passion to pursue social justice related activities without having some kind of experience in your life that motivates you in that kind of way. We all definitely come from different backgrounds, and we all come to the same program, but our backgrounds are definitely different, and our life experiences are different, and I think the key to the program's success [in] pursuing social justice is not just talking about it and learning about but really getting practical – getting grass roots – and making a huge effort to get those experiences. Just to really pursue that practical experience part of it, and maybe not even put much emphasis on the academic side of it, because I really think [the experience is] going to be important. [2011] In terms of self-reflection, Participant C2 characterized exposure to a low-resource setting as a “wake-up call, especially compared to the educational environment I was in growing up” (2010). Other participants spoke about service-learning as a major experience to explore oneself, one's own understanding of social justice, and how discomfort ultimately led to a growth in understanding (Participant B6, 2010; Participant D6, 2011). Conducting service-learning activities in low-resource settings “energized” another participant to be an advocate and an ally for clients, and this participant also desired more conversations about alternative ways to handle situations observed in the field in order to be more socially just (Participant D5, 2011). Please cite this article as: Moy, G.E., et al., Developing school psychologists as agents of social justice: A qualitative analysis of student understanding across three years, Journal of School Psychology (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2014.03.001

14

G.E. Moy et al. / Journal of School Psychology xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

3.7.1. Changes in the service-learning requirements over time In response to trainee feedback about the program requirements that impacted their understanding of social justice, program faculty made adjustments to the service-learning component to increase its utility. Aspects of the program that were viewed as sufficiently effective in teaching social justice were retained, but hour requirements were changed to provide trainees with more time at a primary site and less time dedicated to assisting schools with curriculum-based measurement (CBM). Additionally, a graduate assistantship for a service-learning coordinator was established in 2010 to maintain relationships with partnering agencies and help trainees identify service-learning opportunities that would benefit their understanding of social justice. Many students spoke to the value of spending extended hours at one location, and they spoke to the value of the program forging stronger ties with a few sites rather than students being spread out across a wide range of sites across the area. A second-year trainee identified the dynamic that an increase in time spent at a primary service-learning site provides more opportunities to forge meaningful relationships; relationships that contribute not only to greater impact on clients, but a greater understanding of social justice (Participant B8, 2010). Helping schools with CBM was a component of the service-learning requirement for participants representing Cohorts A, B, and C. This component was subsumed by a data-based decision-making course and was no longer a component of service-learning for Cohort D. The CBM experiences were instructive in terms of social justice for a small minority of participants who were able to contrast different school contexts through the CBM experiences. The utility appeared to be limited to the potential for exposure to resource disparities. For example, a participant expressed, I thought it was really interesting to see how CBM hours were different in the suburbs compared to some of the inner city schools that I did them at because … the whole school was behind it in the suburbs. We had the whole cafeteria to ourselves and no one could hear anybody else. And then I went to see some [city] schools and saw it. We were in the hallway; we were in the closets; these kids were not in good testing environments… I'm glad it was getting done, and I'm glad we could be of service, but I think it is interesting. [Participant C5, 2010] 4. Discussion Individuals enrolled in a school psychology graduate training program with an explicit emphasis on social justice were provided opportunities to discuss their understandings of social justice and how it applies to school psychology. They were also asked to evaluate program effectiveness in contributing to their understanding of social justice as it relates to school psychology. These moderated discussions covering four cohorts of students over 3 years combined with the work of Briggs et al. (2009), which sampled one student cohort at one point in time, comprise the first documented attempts to investigate how social justice is introduced and explored in a school psychology training program. The findings of this cohort-sequential research identified similar trends across graduate student cohorts with respect to social justice. These trends point to the salience of “Advocacy”, “Awareness”, and “Fairness/Equity” as themes that pervaded discussions of understanding and defining social justice, and they were also found to be relevant to trainees applying social justice principles to school psychology practice. “Exposure”, “Awareness”, “Reflection”, “Application”, “Instruction”, “Program”, and “Time” were themes relevant to participants' identification of program strengths and areas for growth with regard to training psychologists as potential agents for social justice. 4.1. On social justice and school psychology Findings from the present study are resonant with findings from earlier studies of practitioner perspectives on social justice in school psychology. One such study highlighted ideas of advocacy, elements of cultural diversity, and the importance of knowledge and action in defining social justice (Shriberg et al., 2008). Just as experts in the field of school psychology viewed a lack of cultural diversity in the profession and disparate allocations of resources as barriers to social justice in their work, school psychology students in the present study, who had been engaged in explicit social justice training, also identified these barriers. In addition, experts in the Delphi study (Shriberg et al., 2008), NASP members (Shriberg et al., 2011), and the graduate trainees in the present study identified advocacy as an activity school psychologists could reasonably take to advance fairness and equity—concepts that are central to graduate students' understanding of social justice (Briggs et al., 2009). In addition to communicating their definitions of social justice, students in the present study discussed factors contributing to how they arrived at their definitions of social justice. Participants frequently referenced graduate program features including field work, course work, and the university's mission. Consistent with Caldwell and Vera's (2010) and Briggs et al.'s (2009) findings, program-facilitated opportunities for exposure and awareness were highlighted as being particularly influential in trainees' understandings of social justice. These opportunities were provided both through classroom instruction and through guided fieldwork activities that allowed trainees to view topics in education and society through the lenses of justice, fairness, and equal opportunities. A number of participants observed a phenomenon that seemingly contradicted the social justice mission of the program, which was the placement of several students in practicum sites which were in schools that served middle-class communities and not in economically disadvantaged communities. The primary goal of practicum is to match each trainee with a supervisor and a placement that best contributes to their growth as a professional. It is crucial that the practicum supervisor is in a position to provide the trainee with a sufficiently broad range and depth of experiences consonant with professional training standards. Because barriers to social Please cite this article as: Moy, G.E., et al., Developing school psychologists as agents of social justice: A qualitative analysis of student understanding across three years, Journal of School Psychology (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2014.03.001

G.E. Moy et al. / Journal of School Psychology xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

15

justice and the corresponding activities that contribute to the pursuit of social justice vary across contexts and communities, what one student perceives as an opportunity to work in the service of social justice may be different from another trainee's perception. The program has prioritized the overall breadth of experiences available to trainees and this permits them to recognize the social justice issues that face their site. A school with adequate resources may face different obstacles to social justice than schools with lower resources, but opportunities to adopt and apply a social justice mindset are present in all schools nevertheless. Research on social justice in school psychology and school psychologists' training is important to conduct for a number of reasons. One of the most compelling reasons ought to resonate with professionals and scholars who understand the value of prevention. School psychologists trained to recognize injustices perpetrated intentionally or unintentionally in schools are positioned to advocate for alternative practices that are consistent with more fair treatment of students, parents, and other school stakeholders. If school psychologists are not sensitized to areas of injustice, they may be prone to unknowingly engage in practices that perpetuate an unjust status quo. In the interest of preventing the unwitting perpetuation of unjust practices in schools by school psychologists, models of social justice training for school psychologists need to be pursued. 4.2. On social justice training through service-learning In many ways, early experiences in graduate training and fieldwork influence school psychologists' understanding of the field and the profession. The original purpose of the program's service-learning requirement was to provide trainees with experiences in schools. Intentionally framing these early learning experiences as opportunities to provide assistance to underserved and marginalized communities may contribute to the adoption of a social justice orientation that graduate trainees carry into practice as professionals. Guided fieldwork experiences in the forms of service-learning projects and school-based practica were identified by participants as being especially meaningful for students' understanding of social justice. Although the originally intended purpose of the service-learning requirement did not preclude its use as a vehicle for teaching social justice, as students continued to identify its role in their understanding of social justice, a greater emphasis was placed on its potential as a means for social justice training by program faculty. Other graduate programs may be interested in examining the practicality of infusing service-learning components with a social justice-oriented pedagogy as a way to enhance the capacity of their program to advance social justice through school psychology. As stated in earlier works (Butin, 2005), service-learning is capable of bridging academic content and lived realities. This capability appears to be true for graduate trainees in this program. The connection of field- and classroom-based activities seems to have raised trainees' awareness of barriers to the social justice principles of fairness and equity, and this awareness has contributed to the ongoing development of trainees' respective understandings of social justice. The service-learning requirement's emphasis on partnering with economically and culturally divergent schools and community agencies provided predominately White middle-class graduate trainees with opportunities to learn from interactions with historically marginalized children, families, and communities. The facilitation of cross-cultural service-learning experiences is one way a graduate program can ameliorate some of the problems associated with the lack of diversity in school psychology. As reported by Radliff et al. (2009), White trainees described benefits related to being enrolled in a school psychology graduate program with a culturally diverse student body. In the present study, predominately White and middle to upper-class training cohorts engaged in facilitated exposure to diverse perspectives of clients, other service providers, and community partners outside the university, which was viewed as a valuable supplement to the lack of cultural diversity among students within the graduate program. 4.3. Descriptive model of school psychology training for social justice A descriptive model of training for social justice in this school psychology program is proposed based on the most prevalent themes in trainee discourse on the topic (see Fig. 5 for a depiction of this model). The descriptive framework for training includes features of the program, such as institutional and curricular variables that have been identified as conducive to teaching graduate students about social justice and producing desired training and applied outcomes. One institutional feature of the model is how the program is organized around a social justice mission. This mission to advance social justice is made evident from the admission process onward to prospective students. Given faculty members' interest in advancing social justice and fulfilling the university's mission, professors are positioned to infuse social justice principles into their course materials and activities. Formal classroom-based coursework is crucially important to the training of school psychologists in general as well as in a program with a social justice mission. Incorporating elements of social justice instruction into school psychology coursework has been viewed by the trainees in this study as beneficial. Coursework not only helps to form a theoretical foundation on which fieldwork is based, but it also guides the learning which happens in the field as it is occurring. Classroom components of field-based training are essential; trainees valued the vicarious learning that occurred as they share field experiences with one another. Other components of coursework such as the reading of texts and self-reflective activities can also enhance social justice training. As previously stated, the history of school psychology follows the history of the advancement of civil and educational rights (Shriberg & Moy, in press). As such, it is not difficult to identify social justice principles in common school psychology courses. For example, a course on data-based decision making might emphasize the importance of objectivity and unbiased interpretation of data in the service of fair and equitable treatment of students based on strengths and needs, and a course focused on counseling might remind trainees of the potential impact patterns of historic oppression and marginalization might have on some clients' and their needs. Fairness and cultural sensitivity are also of paramount importance in courses on psychological assessment. Introductory courses on the roles and functions of school psychologists, legal issues in special education, and courses on professional ethics may be structured to highlight the deep imprint of social justice principles on school psychology's history. Please cite this article as: Moy, G.E., et al., Developing school psychologists as agents of social justice: A qualitative analysis of student understanding across three years, Journal of School Psychology (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2014.03.001

16

G.E. Moy et al. / Journal of School Psychology xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Explicit institutional social justice mission

Faculty commitment to social justice

Social justice-oriented classroom activities and discussions

Readings on diversity and social justice

Strong Community Partner Network

Service Learning

Strong School Network

Practicum & Internship

Increased exposure to social justice issues in relevant contexts

Increased awareness of social justice issues in relevant contexts

Desired Educational and Desired Applied Outcomes social Outcome

Desired Training Outcomes

Curricular Variables

Institutional Variables

Descriptive model of school psychology training for social justice

Increased awareness of and reflection on one’s role in impacting social justice issues

Increased understanding of school psychologists as agents of social justice

Advocacy

Fairness and Equity

Fig. 5. Descriptive model of school psychology training for social justice.

In addition to classroom instruction, field-based training has been identified as one of the most important components to social justice training in school psychology. Applied training and service in the field exposes trainees to elements of cultural and economic diversity they may not have experienced prior to entering a graduate program. Guided exposure to real-life situations in which trainees are encouraged to examine issues relating to fairness and equity increases their awareness of how these social justice principles may pervade their work as school psychologists. The establishment and maintenance of a network of formal partnerships between the graduate program, schools, and community agencies serving school-age children is vitally important to social justice training. These partnerships make it possible for trainees to engage in longer term service-learning activities with agencies and schools who are familiar with the graduate program's training goals. Through concerted efforts, university partnerships with schools and community agencies serving children can contribute to a more fair and just society through service-learning in which all involved parties are positioned to experience mutual benefits. Service-learning sites and their clients gain access to well-educated graduate students who agree to help meet service objectives; graduate training programs are able to supplement their own offerings with practical field experiences that are consistent with mission-driven work; and trainees gain valuable insights and experiences that can prepare them to actualize their potential as agents of positive social change in the schools in which they will work through advocating for fairness and equitable opportunities for students. One of the desired training outcomes of this model is increased exposure to social justice issues in applied contexts. This increased exposure creates a necessary yet insufficient precondition to the other desired training outcomes: awareness and understanding of social justice issues, school psychologists' roles in advancing justice, and students' own personal and professional roles in advancing justice. This model (presented in Fig. 5) proposes that gaining awareness of the social justice issues relevant to school psychology may promote an advocacy role for school psychologists, and the advocacy activities that arise from this role may, in turn, contribute to decreasing the hurdles to fair and equitable educational opportunities for students. The findings of the present study and the resultant descriptive model are consistent with findings from previous research describing infusions of social justice approaches into school psychology training (Briggs et al., 2009; Li et al., 2009; Radliff et al., 2009). The present study and descriptive model underscore common key ingredients shared across training settings in which previous research on social justice training has been conducted. These varied training programs have all incorporated social justice topics into coursework and into other training experiences intended to extend training beyond the confines of the university and into real world settings. 4.4. Limitations and strengths of the present study One limitation of this study is that the data reflects the viewpoints of students affiliated with only one graduate program. Additionally, this program explicitly embraces its social justice mission, such that there may be some self-selection in terms of which students choose to apply and ultimately attend this program. As such, the generalizability of these findings may be limited Please cite this article as: Moy, G.E., et al., Developing school psychologists as agents of social justice: A qualitative analysis of student understanding across three years, Journal of School Psychology (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2014.03.001

G.E. Moy et al. / Journal of School Psychology xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

17

to similar students and programs with similar missions. Another limitation is that, due to the dynamic nature of this process in which data obtained during one year of focus groups influenced program decisions the following year, each cohort of students represented in this study experienced a slightly different program in terms of the specifics of the service-learning requirements and the instructors for certain courses. However, the cohort-sequential sampling technique used over 3 years of data collection enhances the external validity of the research in comparison to smaller scale and temporally confined qualitative studies. Another potential limitation to the study relates to the representativeness of the sample of voluntary participants to each cohort in each year of data collection. The comfort of participants to share their true thoughts about the topics discussed may also be viewed as a potential limitation. One can never be sure participants felt fully free to share their opinions, particularly if their opinions were negative, sensitive, or perceived as harmful to the group dynamic in some way. However, measures were taken to remove foreseeable obstacles to authentic participation, such as sequestering the faculty advisor involved in the study from all phases of data collection, arranging focus groups so moderators did not lead sessions with their own cohort, informing participants they were free not to respond to any question or to leave the study completely at any time, and using a culturally diverse group of focus group moderators and coders that were well-matched to cultures represented in the study sample. A caution that must be taken in qualitative research is to identify and acknowledge the biases of the individuals engaged in the specifics of inquiry. In doing so, measures can be taken to either disclose identifiable biases or to systematize data analysis in ways that enhance the fidelity of transmission of experience from the sample to the audience. As such, the reiterative, collaborative, and consensual analysis of data by a varied group of coders and analysts prevented any single researcher from interpreting data in aberrant ways; coding reliability statistics provide evidential support for the fidelity of the analysis. A potential shared bias among research team members is an academic interest in social justice and membership in a research team driven by that shared interest. 4.5. Directions for future research and application The present study represents a multi-year research effort which examined school psychology graduate trainees' perspectives on social justice and social justice training. As the focus on social justice in school psychology continues to emerge, graduate training programs may be encouraged to introduce aspects of social justice training into their program offerings. This study has highlighted the role of field-based training in providing students with opportunities to increase their awareness of social justice issues in school psychology and the connections between this increased awareness and action steps school psychologists can take to advance justice through practice. More research should be conducted related to training for social justice in school psychology at both the pre-service and professional development levels, including further evaluation related to the proposed model of social justice training put forth in Fig. 5. More research on the potential impact of service-learning as a mechanism for developing social justice competency in school psychology is also needed, as well as ways in which social justice objectives might be accomplished and measured in school psychology practicum and internship. Ways in which social justice advocacy can best be reflected in school psychology practice is another avenue of research that should be pursued. Given that social justice is recently written into the NASP Standards and APA multicultural guidelines, and given the extent that guidelines such as these drive school psychology training and professional development offerings, it may be assumed that more persons are trained in a “social justice framework.” However that framework may be defined locally, there is a need to critically evaluate whether this framework for action translates to changed attitudes, practices, and outcomes among practitioners. McCabe and Rubinson (2008) with school psychology and other education graduate students suggest that an orientation towards social justice does not necessarily translate to changed behaviors, particularly when those behaviors come with risk or otherwise go against the grain, as social justice advocacy strategies by definition often do. The present study examined the opinions and descriptions of behaviors of school psychology graduate students at different levels of their graduate training over three years of time. A logical next step would be to examine potential differences in the attitudes, behaviors, and professional practices of school psychologists who either do or do not identify with a social justice orientation and who have or have not had significant training experiences related to social justice. Appendix A. Focus group protocols January–February 2009 Protocol 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

How would you define social justice? Does your view of social justice apply to field of school psychology? If so, how? Has the school psychology program at XXX prepared you to understand social justice as it applies to school psychology? If so, how? Has XXX prepared you to practice in a socially just manner? If so, how? Please describe if and how you see social justice reflected in the practice of: a. Your work b. The work of others at your service-learning sites/practicum site(s)/internship site(s)

Please cite this article as: Moy, G.E., et al., Developing school psychologists as agents of social justice: A qualitative analysis of student understanding across three years, Journal of School Psychology (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2014.03.001

18

G.E. Moy et al. / Journal of School Psychology xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

c. The work of your supervisor at your service-learning sites/practicum site(s)/internship site(s) d. The work of others at your service-learning sites/practicum site(s)/internship site(s) 6. What are the facilitators and barriers to socially just practice that you see at your service- learning sites/practicum site(s)/ internship site(s) 7. Is there anything else about social justice that you would like to share? January–February 2010 Protocol 1. How would you define social justice in general? 2. Has the school psychology program prepared you to understand social justice in general and, if so, what aspects of the program have prepared you to understand social justice? 3. How would you define social justice as it applies to the field of school psychology? 4. Has the school psychology program prepared you to understand social justice in as it applies to school psychology? If so, how? 5. Has the service-learning requirement furthered your understanding of social justice as it applies to school psychology? If so, how? 6. How do you view the service-learning requirement's relation to enacting social justice? 7. How might the service-learning requirement improve to better support students' understandings of social justice? 8. How might the program in general improve to better support students' understandings of social justice? January–February 2011 Protocol 1. How would you define social justice? 2. Has the school psychology program prepared you to understand social justice in general and as it applies to the field of school psychology? If so, what aspects of the program have prepared you to understand social justice? 3. Has the service-learning requirement furthered your understanding of social justice as it applies to school psychology? If so, how? 4. How do you view the service-learning requirement's relation to enacting social justice? 5. How might the program in general improve to better support students' understandings of social justice? Appendix B. Thematic categories and explanation of themes Thematic category

Brief explanation

Advocacy

Related to acting or speaking out with/for others with recognition that school psychologists may be negatively affected by existing privilege/oppression dynamics. Includes empowerment efforts. Active field-based work on specific activities related to school psychology practice; role exploration during practicum and internship Encompasses statements that reflect thinking about: individual or group differences across multiple dimensions; recognizing personal and institutional biases, assumptions, and values; differences in school and neighborhood settings. Presence in a setting that permits observation or interaction with new experiences and perspectives or a desire for such opportunities. Discussed in a number of ways, including: resource allocation, attitudes or actions towards people Statements pertaining to structure of graduate instruction, integration and synthesis of instruction, values espoused/assumed in instructional approach taken in classroom; excludes discussion of field-based training Mention of school, district, community, personal finances or economic standing Applies to references to university program not included by “Instruction” or “Application” codes. Examples include enrollment, faculty, staff, and changes in program requirements over time. Refers to thinking about how experiences impact personal understanding or the intent to engage in such thinking. Building a personal connection with other people but does not include statements summarizing direct service (Application). Refers to the disposition or personal commitment to working in the interest of others and actions based on that disposition. Pertaining to the dimension of time as a metric and as a resource.

Application Awareness Exposure Fairness/equity Instruction Monetary resources Program Reflection Relationships Service Time

References American Psychological Association (2003). Guidelines on multicultural education, training, research, practice, and organizational change for school psychologists. American Psychologist, 58, 377–402. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.5.377. American Psychological Association (2010). American Psychological Association ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Washington, DC: Author Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx. Anonymous (2010). NVivo qualitative data analysis software. QSR International Pty Ltd. (Version 10). Bell, L. A. (2013). Theoretical foundations. In M. Adams, W. J. Blumenfeld, C. Castañeda, H. W. Hackman, M. L. Peters, & X. Zúñiga (Eds.), Readings for diversity and social justice (pp. 21–26) (3rd ed.). RoutledgeNew York, NY. Bennett, G., Henson, R. K., & Drane, D. (2003). Student experiences with service-learning in sport management. The Journal of Experiential Education, 26, 61–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/105382590302600203. Boyle-Baise, M., & Langford, J. (2004). There are children here: Service learning for social justice. Equity & Excellence in Education, 37, 55–66. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1080/10665680490422115. Briggs, A., McArdle, L., Bartucci, G., Kowalewicz, E., & Shriberg, D. (2009). Students' perspectives on the incorporation of social justice in a school psychology graduate program. Trainer's Forum, 28(4), 35–45. Britt, L. L. (2012). Why we use service-learning: A report outlining a typology of three approaches to this form of communication pedagogy. Communication Education, 61, 80–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2011.632017. Burns, T. R., & Singh, A. A. (2010). Integrating social justice training into the practicum experience for psychology trainees: Starting earlier. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 4, 153–162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019385.

Please cite this article as: Moy, G.E., et al., Developing school psychologists as agents of social justice: A qualitative analysis of student understanding across three years, Journal of School Psychology (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2014.03.001

G.E. Moy et al. / Journal of School Psychology xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

19

Butin, D. W. (2005). Service-learning as post-modern pedagogy. In D. W. Butin (Ed.), Teaching social foundations of education: Contexts, theories, and issues (pp. 109–126). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Caldwell, J. C., & Vera, E. M. (2010). Critical incidents in counseling psychology professionals' and trainees' social justice orientation and development. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 4, 163–176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019093. Constantine, M. G., Smith, L., Redington, R. M., & Owens, D. (2008). Racial microaggressions against black counseling and counseling psychology faculty: A central challenge in the multicultural counseling movement. Journal of Counseling & Development, 86, 348–355. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2008.tb00519.x. Cuban, S., & Anderson, J. B. (2007). Where's the justice in service-learning? Institutionalizing service-learning from a social justice perspective at a Jesuit university. Equity & Excellence in Education, 40, 144–155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10665680701246609. Eyler, J. S., & Giles, D. E., Jr. (1999). Where's the learning in service-learning? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Fagan, T. K. (2008). Trends in the history of school psychology in the United States. In A. Thomas, & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 2069–2085). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. Goodman, L. A., Liang, B., Helms, J. E., Latta, R. E., Sparks, E., & Weintraub, S. R. (2004). Training counseling psychologists as social justice agents: Feminist and multicultural principles in action. The Counseling Psychologist, 32, 793–837. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0011000004268802. Gutkin, T. B., & Song, S. Y. (2012). Social justice in school psychology: A historical perspective. In D. Shriberg, S. Y. Song, A. H. Miranda, & K. M. Radliff (Eds.), School psychology and social justice: Conceptual foundations and tools for practice (pp. 15–28). New York, NY: Routledge. Hill, C. E. (2012). Consensual qualitative research. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Hill, C. E., Knox, S., Thompson, B. J., Williams, E. N., Hess, S. A., & Ladany, N. (2005). Consensual qualitative research: An update. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 196–205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.196. Hill, C. E., Thompson, B. J., & Williams, E. N. (1997). A guide to conducting consensual qualitative research. The Counseling Psychologist, 25, 517. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/0011000097254001. Hoffman, J. A., & Doggett, K. (2012, August). Win–win: A service learning approach to training school psychologists. Poster presented at the American Psychological Association annual meeting, Orlando, FL. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004). Jacoby, B. (2009). Civic engagement in today's higher education. In B. Jacoby (Ed.), Civic Engagement in Higher Education (pp. 1–4). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kahne, J., & Westheimer, J. (1996). In service of what? The politics of service learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 1–14. Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Kvale, S. (2008). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. London: SAGE Publications. Lester, J., & Salle, M. (2006). Review of service-learning research. Los Angeles: University of Southern California Civic Engagement Initiative. Li, C., Kruger, L., Mulé, C., Lippus, K., Santora, K., Cicala, G., et al. (2009). Including social justice in the training of school psychologists. Trainer's Forum, 28(4), 24–34. Lu, Y., & Lambright, K. T. (2010). Looking beyond the undergraduate classroom: Factors influencing service learning's effectiveness at improving graduate students' professional skills. College Teaching, 58, 118–126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/87567550903583777. McCabe, P., & Rubinson, F. (2008). Committing to social justice: The behavioral intention of school psychology and education trainees to advocate for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered youth. School Psychology Review, 37, 469–486. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded source book. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Mitchell, T. D. (2007). Critical service-learning as social justice education: A case study of the citizen scholars program. Equity & Excellence in Education, 40, 101–112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10665680701228797. Nastasi, B. K. (2008). Social justice and school psychology. School Psychology Review, 37, 487–492. National Association of School Psychologists (2010). Model for comprehensive and integrated school psychological services. Bethesda, MD: Author (No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C.A. § 6301 et seq. (2002)). Power, T. J. (2008). Editorial note: Promoting social justice. School Psychology Review, 37, 451–452. Radliff, K. H., Miranda, A. H., Stoll, S., & Wheeler, A. (2009). A conceptual framework for infusing social justice in school psychology training. Trainer's Forum, 28(4), 10–22. Rice, K., & Pollack, S. (2000). Developing a critical pedagogy of service learning: Preparing self-reflective, culturally aware, and responsive community participants. In C. R. O'Grady (Ed.), Integrating service learning and multicultural education in colleges and universities (pp. 115–134). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Rosenberger, C. (2000). Beyond empathy: Developing critical consciousness through service learning. In C. R. O'Grady (Ed.), Integrating service learning and multicultural education in colleges and universities (pp. 23–43). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Schaie, K. W. (1995). Cohort-sequential longitudinal studies of personality and intelligence. In A. Kruse, & R. Schmitz-Scherzer (Eds.), Psychologie der Lebensalter (pp. 200–208). Dresden: Steinkopff. Shriberg, D. (2009). Teaching for social justice in school psychology graduate programs: Strategies and lessons learned: Introduction to the special topic issue. Trainer's Forum, 28(4), 5–9. Shriberg, D. (2012). Graduate education and professional development. In D. Shriberg, S. Y. Song, A. H. Miranda, & K. M. Radliff (Eds.), School psychology and social justice: Conceptual foundations and tools for practice (pp. 311–326). New York, NY: Routledge. Shriberg, D., Bonner, M., Sarr, B., Walker, A., Hyland, M., & Chester, C. (2008). Social justice through a school psychology lens: Definitions and applications. School Psychology Review, 37, 453–468. Shriberg, D., & Fenning, P. (2009). School consultants as agents of social justice: Implications for practice: Introduction to the special topic issue. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 19, 1–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10474410802462751. Shriberg, D., & Moy, G. (2014). Best practices in social justice advocacy for school psychologists. In A. Thomas, & P. Harrison (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology VI. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists (in press). Shriberg, D., Wynne, M. E., Bartucci, G., Briggs, A., & Lombardo, A. (2011). School psychologists' perspectives on social justice. School Psychology Forum: Research in Practice, 5(2), 37–53. Simons, L., & Cleary, B. (2006). The influence of service learning on students' personal and social development. College Teaching, 54, 307–319. http://dx.doi.org/10. 3200/CTCH.54.4.307-319. Speight, S., & Vera, E. (2008). Social justice and counseling psychology: A challenge to the profession. In S. D. Brown, & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (pp. 54–67) (4th ed.). WileyNew York, NY. Speight, S. L., & Vera, E. M. (2009). The challenge of social justice for school psychology. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 19, 82–92. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/10474410802463338. Wade, R., Boyle-Baise, M., & O'Grady, C. (2001). Multicultural service-learning in teacher education. In J. B. Anderson, K. J. Swick, & J. Yff (Eds.), Service learning in teacher education (pp. 248–259). Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

Please cite this article as: Moy, G.E., et al., Developing school psychologists as agents of social justice: A qualitative analysis of student understanding across three years, Journal of School Psychology (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2014.03.001

Developing school psychologists as agents of social justice: a qualitative analysis of student understanding across three years.

This study employed a cohort-sequential design with four cohorts over 3 years to investigate school psychology graduate trainees' (n=37) understanding...
681KB Sizes 1 Downloads 4 Views