Social Media as a Tool for Educational Reform

I recently attended a workshop to learn about social media marketing. I’m sure you’ve all heard about or use Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, and other online community-building resources. The ability to exploit these tools gives coaches, trainers, authors, and schools a marketing advantage. That’s not particularly new–that’s just another way of getting one’s message out, like advertising or public relations.

My first reaction to using social media as a marketing tool is dismay: I am so tired of hype and hustle. So many messages I see are attempts to disguise a sales-hungry pitch with warm fuzzy clothing of friendliness and sociability. Are we all becoming marketing wolves in social media sheeps’ clothing?

Then I temper my mistrustful thoughts with the realization that people don’t buy things they consider to be worthless. How judgmental of me to think otherwise. If we don’t get to know one another, how do we know what clients or customers or students find worthwhile? So the value of social media networking is, at least in part, the opportunity to discover value. That’s a straightforward marketing justification, also not particularly new.

But I have come to what I consider a more thoroughgoing reform: social media change the playing field, not only for marketing books and speaking engagements, which was the topic of the workshop I went to, but also for developing professional education, going beyond mere training and into solid degree programs.

Here’s the old story for books: the author in her attic reads and researches a topic, organizes a proposal, and sends it to a publisher. The publisher, based on past experience, what else is selling at the time, and expertise of editors, decides whether the book will sell, and agrees to publish it if the decision is positive. The author finishes the book, the publisher edits, prints, and distributes it. Somewhere near the end of this process, the marketing department comes up with a plan for how to market the book.

This story of publishing is going through a major rewrite: At the workshop, Steven Piersanti, President of Berrett-Koehler Publishers gave a talk entitled “The 10 Awful Truths About Book Publishing,” ending with number 10: “The book publishing world is in a never-ending state of turmoil.” That is, it is changing rapidly. What will be the outcome? I think social media could play a part in quite a new process for publishing.

The widespread use of social media has put the old story of writing and publishing a book into a mixmaster–or, because it is much more powerful, a VitaMix. The very development of what to write about and how to write it and even specific content can be a collaborative process for the author who uses social media. An already-developed community of people who are fans, and who even consider themselves co-authors, of the book make it more likely a publisher will recognize its potential. If no publisher sees this potential, the existence of this community makes self-publishing more viable. In writing the book, the author is already marketing it.

If that is so, the same potential exists for developing curriculum for professional education (going beyond mere workshops and training). The old story for curriculum development is that a qualified academic expert is given a course title, brief description, and learning outcomes and is asked to write a course outline. But higher education is experiencing almost as much turmoil as publishing. Students in class tweet one another in real time with comments about the lecture. How can the power of social media be harnessed to provide greater value for students, elicit more of what instructors have to offer, and avoid the passing on of information that is no longer current or useful?

Given that professional education at Adler is primarily for adults who already have a wealth of experience, can social media play a part in the very development of curriculum? Any of us who have had the privilege of teaching mid-career-changing adults know that students in a class learn as much from one another as they do from the instructor. How can this exchange be built into the very design of a course, rather than waiting for students to come together for it to begin? How can the very designing of a course engage the people who will apply the material in their work lives?

I am not advocating a free-for-all approach, where the curriculum designer abdicates responsibility for organizing material and the instructor ignores responsibility for presenting it effectively. There are certain things that students need to know and certain things they need to do to get credit for a course, and these standards have to be decided upon and upheld by the school and faculty. But I believe the adult learning principles of collaboration that serve modern professional training so well can be applied earlier in the process of developing a degrees, to the benefit of students, faculty, and the professions involved. How could social media help in implementing this reform?

Linda J. Page, Ph.D., President

Graduate Professional School
www.adler.ca
416 400 5871
ljpage@adler.ca
twitter: adlergps

ITTM: A Promising New Model for Treating Trauma

by Susan Rosenthal, MD, CGPP

Despite having spent two decades researching, studying, teaching, supervising, and practicing trauma psychotherapy, by the fall of 2009 I was feeling overwhelmed. One reason was that rostered general and family physicians had begun to refer more of their patients with chronic mental illness to GPPs like me.[1] A decade ago, a minority of my practice was composed of patients with histories of disabling trauma. By the end of last year, my practice was completely composed of these high-needs patients, my wait list had ballooned to six months, and new patients were being referred every day.

The heavy load was reason enough for my sense of overwhelm. But new discoveries in neuroscience (Solomon & Siegel, 2003) and my own preference for a systems approach left me questioning traditional trauma treatments. I had observed in sessions that the effects of trauma and therefore the potential for healing were not limited to the identified victim, but also involved significant others in the patient’s support system. As a result, I had developed a practice of insisting on the involvement of significant others in treatment. My biggest concern was the traumatized children who were either brought to me for treatment in isolation from their traumatized families, or who were not included in the treatment of traumatized parents and caregivers.

I was fortunate to meet Valerie Copping, whose experience working with children affected by chronic and complex trauma led her to develop the Inter-generational Trauma Treatment Model (ITTM) (Copping et al., 2001). Copping explained that the model had been implemented in a number of mental health clinics in Ontario and that she had partnered with Dr. Katreena Scott, Assistant Professor and Clinical Psychologist in the Department of Human Development and Applied Psychology at the University of Toronto, to conduct research on the efficacy of the approach. In 2009, Dr. Scott was assigned the Canada Research Chair in the prevention and treatment of family violence based on her extensive research and publications in the field.

Dr. Scott’s review of the literature (Scott, 2009) confirmed my own conclusions about research trends in trauma treatment, as well as my own experience as a practitioner:

• I had seen case after case of difficult behaviours and other symptoms of insecure attachment in children of traumatized parents. It is not surprising that parents pass their experiences on to their children, however inadvertently, and both trauma and attachment research has confirmed the increased probability of children of traumatized parents also experiencing trauma symptoms.
• In my experience, treating parents’ traumatic reactions made a difference in children’s well-being. In particular, when families faced subsequent traumatic events such as illness or job loss, parental resolution of previous trauma seemed to be associated with better outcomes for children. This, too, was borne out by Scott’s review of research.
• I had also observed that treating parents had positive effects on children, even when the children were not treated directly.  Dr. Scott cited studies confirming that, for some problems, treating parents alone had as favorable a result as treating children.
• Although I have long been an advocate of “co-therapy,” especially in a training setting, and although I believed that involving parents in treating children results in improved outcomes, I was uncertain how to incorporate these elements in trauma treatment. Dr. Scott claimed that inconsistent outcome in research on involving parents in trauma treatment had to do with whether parents’ trauma history was dealt with directly and separately from the children. The ITTM resolved this inconsistency by treating parents before involving them in the treatment of their children.

As a manualized treatment model, the ITTM lends itself to outcome research. Dr. Scott and Copping conducted pilot research on the efficacy of the ITTM at a children’s mental health center in Hamilton, Ontario (Scott & Copping, 2008). Twenty-seven families were recruited for the study. Over the course of the study, measures of parental depression showed significant reduction, and children’s behavior and social relations were significantly improved. A province-wide research study is currently under way in conjunction with the University of Toronto and the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) Centre of Excellence for Child and Youth Mental Health.

I was convinced that the ITTM was a promising approach in agencies, but would it be effective in private practice? To observe the model firsthand, I selected three patients who agreed to work with Copping (as my co-therapist) for one session each. It became clear to me in those sessions that this model could lead to a more effective and more satisfying psychotherapy practice, and so I committed to the two-year training program.

Eight months later, I remain convinced of the effectiveness of the ITTM. I am seeing results that are far superior to those I was achieving previously. I no longer have a wait list and can see most new patients within a week or two of initial contact. And I no longer feel overwhelmed.

What is the ITTM? The short answer is that it is an attachment-based, cognitive-behavioural, manualized model for deconstructing the maladaptive behaviour patterns that arise in response to traumatic experience and that transmit that experience from adult to child.

The ITTM is designed to help:

• Adults who were neglected or traumatized as children and are concerned about transferring their hurtful experiences to their children.
• Parents/caregivers who want help for children who have experienced traumatic events.
• Adults who want to change maladaptive behaviour patterns.

Treatment is delivered in three Phases:

• Phase A consists of six (90 minute) psycho-educational classes for parents/caregivers and adults without children.
• Phase B consists of individual sessions in which the general information from Phase A is applied to each patient’s specific situation. Adults without children complete their treatment here.
• In Phase C, the therapist supports the parent/caregiver to treat trauma-related symptoms and behaviours in their child.

The ITTM has several unique features:

• The model is effective regardless of the type or source of the trauma.
• Parents/caregivers are the key agents of change for their children.
• The model can be learned and applied by psychotherapists from any educational or professional background.
• The model identifies patients who are ready to work, assists willing patents to become ready to work and selects out those who are not willing to work.
• The use of simple diagrams to convey complex ideas enables this method to be effective with patients who have little formal education – the population that is most traumatized and most poorly served by existing mental health services.

Benefits of the ITTM include:

• Interrupting the transmission of trauma from one generation to the next.
• Ending the lifelong use of mental health services by successive generations of traumatized families.
• Even though children are not seen until the parents/caregivers have competed their treatment, children’s symptoms and behaviours begin to improve from the first session of Phase A.
• Being able to provide effective treatment protects against therapist burnout.
• Treatment time is greatly reduced, and wait lists shrink dramatically.
• Therapists can take extended vacations without generating patient crises.

The ITTM is being applied in thirteen mental health clinics across Ontario. I will continue to investigate its value to practitioners in private practice.

References

Copping, V., Warling, D.L., Benner, D.G. & Woodside, D.W. (2001). A Child Trauma Treatment Pilot Study. Journal of Child and Family Studies, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 467–475.

Scott, K. L. (2009). Literature Review. http://www.theittm.com/traumaeducation-trainingcertification.shtml (accessed on 26 July 2010).

Scott, K.L. & Copping, V. (2008). Promising Directions For The Treatment of Complex Childhood Trauma: The Intergenerational Trauma Treatment Model. The Journal of Behaviour Analysis-Offender and Victim; Treatment and Prevention, Vol.1, No.3, pp. 273-283. http://www.theittm.com/files/KLscott273-v1i3.pdf

Solomon, M.F. & Siegel, D.J. (2003). Healing Trauma: Attachment, Mind, Body, and Brain. New York: W.W. Norton.

Declaration of Interests: Subsequent to Dr. Rosenthal’s involvement with the model, Adler Graduate Professional School has begun to offer certification in the ITTM. Dr. Rosenthal is on the faculty of Adler Graduate Professional School.

---

[1] The Ontario government has been recruiting general and family physicians (GPs) into rostered practices that pay GPs per patient, not per visit, creating a disincentive to see chronically ill patients. Because  rostered physicians are not penalized when their patients see GPPs, GPs are referring more patients with chronic mental illness to GPPs.  [Section 8.1 of the 2004 Physician Services Agreement  states that GP Psychotherapists’ billings will not impact Access Bonuses for Group Health Centres or Family Health Organizations. The Ontario Primary and Community Care Committee agrees that specialized services provided by GP Psychotherapists to enrolled patients of primary care physicians do not affect the Access Bonus.]