Journal ef Cammunirv P a y c h o h . 1977. 5. 313-318.

TEACHING COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY TO UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS*

CHRISTINE MCLEAN, JUDY JOHNSON, AND CHRISTOPHER EBLEN

Mariat College

Limited resources have been available to those community psychologists now in the teaching profession to assist in the development of courses for under- graduates. The authors suggest a distinction between teaching and training, offer three examples of course curricula with both academic and fieldwork components, and reflect on the advantages and disadvantages of experiential learning.

Teaching a course in community psychology as part of an undergraduate cur- riculum in psychology presents unique problems for the instructor-professional which have not been addressed by any of the recent texts, task forces, or conferences on training. New textbooks recently available (Rappaport, 1977; Heller & Monahan, 1977) most certainly are a welcome addition to the very small library of resources appropriate for teaching community psychology (Zax & Specter, 1974; Murrell, 1973) to undergraduates. They sufficiently cover the development and history of the community psychology movement, provide conceptual bases for such a discipline, and supplement theory with application by the presentation of numerous projects generally grouped into types of target populations or types of methods. While the issue of training is always addressed in these texts, teaching is not. Nor is it in- cluded in the efforts of the Swampscott Conference, the Vail Conference, the Austin Conference, and the Division 27 Task Force on B.A. and M.A. training.

What is the distinction? Generally, the writings on training refer to parapro- fessionals, not to undergraduate students studying for B.A. degrees, or to thera- peutic agents in direct service, not to liberal arts candidates with psychology spec- ialties. While we continue to proclaim that for our graduate training we must incul- cate community awarenesses and orientations (the understanding of psychosocial environments and person-environment interactions, models of intervention, et cet- era) and ultimately create generalists, for anyone lesser than the doctoral candidate, we wish to identify specific skills which they can adequately employ as the profes- sional’s arm and answer to continually growing mental health needs. What seems needed is a concern about whether these workers can think, can conceptualize com- munity problems, have any knowledge beyond skills, and are cognizant of their values in living.

Can community psychology actually be taught to undergraduates as an aca- demic offering? Only Ilossi (1975) has shared his solutions in response to the need for such courses. We must, however, become aware of the reality now emerging as a response to the acceptance of community psychology as a field. An example, in a recent survey of 340 colleges in the eastern and northeastern sections of the country, 66 colleges of 239 responding offered undergraduate courses in community psychol- ogy (Eidle, Note 1). While Rappaport (1977) and Heller and Monahan (1977) will

*The authors thank Carol Sabia and Mike Mastrianni for their earlier work on this paper. R e print requests should be directed to first author, Marist College, Poughkeepsie, NY 12601.

313

31 4 CHRISTINE MCLEAN, .JUDY JOHNSON, AND CHRISTOPHER ERLES

be ravenously read by all of us in the teaching profession, are we going t o be any closer to developing strong and effective methods of teaching community psychol- ogy? Of course, teachers have always been challanged with creating their own courses by such steps as a judicious choice of textbooks, techniques, and approp- riate learning objectives. What is unique about the current dilemma this teacher is having? It is this. Community psychology, like the fields of clinical, counseling, or school psychology is synonymous with application and action : “experiential learn- ing” is the sine qua non of such a field. Designing the “experience” is what has not been addressed.

The purpose of this presentation is to initiate a dialogue with those college professors who are teaching community psychology and who are using an experience- based approach. The rationale for offering such a course in our department is that 1) the resources are available because we have a graduate program (M.A.) in com- munity psychology, 2) offering the elective of community psychology gives under- graduates an opportunity to become exposed to a field which might be a choice for graduate work, 3) this course is a good counterbalance (as are social psychology and some others) to the intrapsychic or individual approach in psychology teaching, and 4) the course prepares sophomores and juniors for the work study experience, a se- mester of full-time work in an agency in their senior year.

COURSE DESCRIPTIONS First Course Oflered

The first course offering in 1975 had an enrollment of twenty. The course was designed in two parts with the first half semester devoted to class lectures and dis- cussions on readings. These were assigned from: Community Psychology and Social Systems (Murrell, 1973) ; The Future of Inequality (Miller & Roby, 1970) ;and Blaming the Victim (Ryan, 1971). The second half semester was spent in fieldwork. Class mem- bers chose participation on one of three teams, supervised by the instructor and two graduate students. The overall issue which was addressed was “de-institutionali- sation” which was a pertinent community topic in New York State at the time. The three populations of team focus were a) retarded children and adults, b) neglected, abused, or delinquent children, or c) psychiatric hospital patients or ex-patients. The team task was to explore the following concerns and to produce a written paper and group presentation in response to them :

1. What is the traditional treatment for this population group and what are some of the innovations of recent years (library research)? 2. What are the services currently being offered to these populations in our county; what institutional care is available and what new services are being instituted? 3. What have been the responses of the recipients of these services, especially “aftercare” services? What potential recipients are not receiving services? 4. What has been the community or neighborhood response to new services or aftercare facilities? 5 . On the basis of the above investigations, what are the successes and failures of the services system?

TEACHING COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY 31 5

6. What are the interventions necessary, and at what levels, which would in- crease the effectiveness of new programs?

Team members first identified then visited as many county agencies and pro- grams as possible dealing with these population groups. In addition to writing the final papers, videotape recordings were made of the group presentations for future reference.

Second Course Ofered While the first community psychology course was offered in a spring semester,

departmental curriculum requirements necessitated a shift to a fall semester offering. To avoid overburdening the previously visited agencies so soon with another set of field visits, the next course offering (not a sequel) was designed around a different theme, “campus mental health.” Twenty-five students were enrolled. Murrell’s (1973) text again was used for the first half semester to provide students with a basic introduction and a conceptual framework for community psychology. Supplemen- tary readings anticipated the field work experience; these articles concerned campus life (Brown, 1968; Snyder & Kahne, 1969), psychological environments (Insel & MOOS, 1974), and issues in community mental health (Rappaport, 1975), and were integrated into the course through lectures and group discussions. The second half semester began with the development of a design for assessing the campus commun- ity as a psychological environment. This experience and the presentation of results to a college audience is described next.

The dormitory assesment. The fieldwork had a dual purpose of attempting to determine what impact dormitories had on resident students and of exposing class members to the process which underlies designing and implementing nonlaboratory research. A random stratified (by dormitory, year on campus, and sex) sample of 30% (n=220) of all undergraduate students living in three residence halls was administered the University Residence Environment Scale (Gerst & Moos, 1974) and a student-developed questionnaire on the Use of Campus Resources and on the identi- fication of Campus Problem Areas. Nineteen members of the class collected the data in 10 days, and other class members worked on literature reviews and on producing the final report and planning the presentation of preliminary results in an open forum to administrators, faculty and students (Eblen, Johnson, Mastrianni & McLean, Note 2).

A student comment reflects both the knowledge of community psychology gained and the recognition that there was nowhere to go next a t the semester’s end :

Having to conduct the study and present it to the campus community not only stimulated the students to think critically about the residence halls, but also to propose interventions to upgrade student life. One area of concern was the college resources to which students could turn if they had a problem. The results of our study demonstrated that students were not utilizing the college- administered resources, such as the counseling center. The class strongly sensed the potential for improving the quality of life on the campus, but also exper- ienced a sense of helplessness and lack of direction in deciding how to imple- ment intervention procedures once the initial research was completed. The study itself was accomplished because students were organized into a class, but perhaps it was unrealistic to expect the students to be motivated to action once

31 6 CHRISTINE MCLEAN, JUDY JOHNSON, AND CHRISTOPHER EBLEN

the semester ended. Even though the class did not follow up on any of its sug- gestions, it was still obvious that their awareness of the problems of the campus system had been heightened. However, we were not as successful in stimulating thought and action on the part of other members of the campus community.

Third Course Ogered The third course offering, Fall, 1976, was designed again to require, as part of

the fieldwork experience, that students explore some aspect of the off-campus com- munity. Student enrollment was twenty-seven. The topic chosen was, “The quality of life in group residences for the elderly.” The readings assigned in the first half semester consisted entirely of articles placed on reserve in the library or photocopied for the students. Several topics covered included definitions and history of commu- nity psychology (Murrell, 1973; Levine & Levine, 1967; Iscoe, 1974; Rappaport, 1975) ; psychological environments and behavior (Brown, 1968; Insel & MOOS, 1974 ; Rosenhan, 1973) ; and community change (Graziano, 1969; Klein, 1969; Kunnes, 1971). In addition, readings were assigned from several textbooks concerning the elderly and aging (Clark & Anderson, 1967; Vedder & Lefkowitz, 1965; Busse & Pfeiffer, 1969). There were negative reactions to the reading assignments in that students objected to having to go to the library to read materials. Since half of the students were commuters, library work often meant extra trips for them and there may have been other objections to library work as well. Also, to many students the absence of a textbook seemed to imply that there was little to be known or learned, or that the information was less valuable or acceptable. In addition, of course, the task of integration of the material by the student (and by the professor) was made much more difficult.

Fieldwork began in October, when a letter from the local county chapter of the American Red Cross was sent to each of 25 residences in the county thought to house elderly persons. This collaboration had been previously planned by the instructor. The letter briefly described the assigned task of the college students: to gather infor- mation in each residence regarding the number of persons who might desire a “friendly visitors” program,’ and the type of activity or assistance needed by these individuals. In addition to carrying out the assigned mission for the Red Cross, class members developed their own agenda which was an “ecological” analysis of the physical and social living conditions they encountered. This latter material is being kept confidential. While the students, who worked in teams, were each exposed to only a few types of residences for the elderly, joint class reports, and a final sum- mary report by the professor for the Red Cross (McLean, Note 3) described the following types of residences : skilled nursing homes, health-related facilities, infir- maries, adult care homes, private boarding homes, private rooming houses, and indi- vidual private dwellings in senior citizen apartment buildings and public housing projects.

The reactions of students, based on their diverse experience ranged from, ‘(1 got a negative view of the agencies; it seemed that it was more important to stick to rules and regulations than to meet the human needs of individuals” to “Before starting my visits, I had a totally negative attitude towards nursing home agencies. Now that

‘The Friendly Visitors program used trained Red Cross volunteers to visit elderly persons companions.

TEACHING COMMUNITY PSYCHOLO(fY 317

I have talked to staff members and seen how they work, I was very impressed with their attitude.”

CONCLUSIONS Several thoughts occur in reflecting over the quite varied three semesters’ exper-

ience. They relate t o fieldwork and to social commitment. Teaching this course has been very time consuming, particularly in relation to the supervision of fieldwork: that is, since students engage in class-centered projects, (all of which so far have required team or small group work, appropriate timing in task completion over the two month period, final summary reports, and other direct supervision), we can now readily understand the desirability of designing the fieldwork component of com- munity psychology classes as an agency placement under direct agency supervision (Rossi, 1975). Such an arrangement, while requiring possibly lengthy initial efforts to locate placements, later involves only replacing one student with another in follow- ing years. This arrangement is not used here for two reasons: the instructor’s choice, and the fact that the B.A. psychology majors must undertake one semester’s work, full-time, in an appropriate placement (senior work study) as a graduation require- ment. Thus, most agencies prefer the full-time worker to the brief field-placement worker. Overall, the first author’s evaluation of fieldwork experiences is that for about one-half of the students it is an exceptionally enjoyable, eye-opening, and rewarding experience; for a quarter, it is a difficult task in that it requires individual initiative and ‘(exposure” to somewhat threatening noncollege situations for which they are quite unprepared; and for another quarter, who are just getting by, super- vision is very difficult (e.g., they don’t appear for classes). Another option (Rossi, 1975) is a separate limited enrollment field work course for which students are screened. Among the students there are also those who sign up for the course because of the fieldwork component, and who find the academic component not to their desire. Students who are struggling academically to remain in school may be, on the other hand, the most effective in their relations to community persons.

We also have found that the students have a lower level of social commitment to deprived populations or to redistributive justice than those educated in the sixties. Is this unique to this particular college population? If it is not, will community psy- chology have a future?

Community psychology is best taught by doing, but suffers from the same advantages and disadvantages of any experiential learning situation. Talented responsible persons do well if given the opportunity; uncommitted persons are difficult to teach and supervise. The balance between a focus on academic and on fieldwork components is difficult to maintain within one class. We hope that expos- ing these experiences to readers, who will undoubtedly see strengths and weaknesses that we cannot, will create the opportunity for much-needed dialogue on the real- ities of teaching community psychology.

REFERENCE NOTES 1. EIDLE, W. A survey conducted for college recruitment purposes. Unpublished manuscript, Marist

College, Fall, 1976. 2. EBLEN, C., JOHNSON, J., MASTRIANNI, M., & MCLEAN, C. Colbge Dormitory Survey. Unpub-

lished manuscript, Marist College, Fall, 1975. Available from fourth author. 3. MCLEAN, C. The need for afrien.dly tk i tors program f o r elderly ctlizens. A report t,o the Amer-

ican Red Cross in Dutch- County, Fall, 1976. Available from author.

318 CHRISTINE MCLEAN, JUDY JOHNSON, AND CHRISTOPHER EBLEN

REFERENCES BROWN, R. D. Manipulation of the environmental press in a college residence hall. Personnel and

BUSSE, E. W., & PFEIFFER, E. Behavior and adaptation in late life. Boston: Little Brown, 1969. CLARK, M. G., & ANDERSON, B. G. Culture and aging: A n anthropological study of O&T Americans.

GERST, M. S., & Moos, R. H. University Residence Environment Scale. Fomn R. Consulting Psychol-

GRAZIANO, A. M. Clinical innovation and the mental health power structure: A social case history.

HELLER, K., & MONAHAN, J. Psychology and community change. Homewood, IL: Uorsey, 1977. INSEL, P. M., & Moos, R. H. Psychological environments: Expanding the scope of human ecology.

American Psychologist, 1974, 29, 179-188. ISCOE, I. Community psychology and the competent community. American Psychologist, 1974, 29,

607-6 13. KLEIN, D. Some notes on the dynamics of resistance to change: The defender role. In W.G. Bennis,

K. D. Benne, & R. Chin (Eds.), T h planning of change. 2nd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1969.

KUNNES, R. Stealing mental health: Theory and practice. In J. Age1 (Ed.), The radical therapist colbctive. New York: Ballantine Books, 1971.

LEVINE, M., & LEVINE, A. A social history of helping services. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967.

MILLER, S. M., I% ROBY, P. The future of inequulity. New York: Basic Books, 1970. MURRELL, S. A. Community psychology and social systems. New York: Behavioral Publications, 1973. RAPPAPORT, J. Community psychology: Values, action, and research. New York: Holt, Rinehart &

Winaton, 1977. RAPPAPORT, J., DAVIDSON, W., MITCHELL, A., & WILSON, M. N. Alternatives to blaming the victim

or the environment: Our places to stand have not moved the earth. American Psychologist,

ROSENHAN, D. L. On being sane in insane places. Science, 1973, 179, 250-258. ROSSI, A. M. Community psychology at the undergraduate level. Journal of Community Psychology,

RYAN, W. Blaming the victim. New York: Random House, 1971. SNYDER, R. B., & KAHNE, M. M. Stress in higher education and student use of university psychia-

trists. American J O U T ~ of Otthopsychiatry, 1969, 39, 23-35. VEDDER, C. B., & LEFKOWITZ, A. S. Problems of the aged. Springfield, IL: Thomas, 1965. ZAX, M., & SPECTER, G. A. A n introduction to community psychology. New York: Wiley, 1974.

Guidance JOUTTW~, 1968, 46, 555-560.

Springfield, IL: Thomas, 1967.

ogists Press, Palo Alto, CA, 1974.

American Psychologist, 1969, 84, 10-18.

1975, SO, 525-528.

1975, 3, 305-308.