MY TEACHING JOURNEY – Page 2 – Critical Research Journal

Practice, reflective practice, and experience are often treated as if they mean the same thing, but they refer to different processes. Confusion between them leads to the assumption that time spent doing a job automatically leads to improvement or professional wisdom. This assumption is not supported by research in professional learning.

Practice refers to the repeated performance of a task or activity. Through practice, a person may become faster, more accurate, or more confident. Practice often involves small adjustments based on feedback. For example, a photographer may adjust exposure, a builder may refine technique, and a counsellor may improve listening skills. Practice therefore tends to improve technical skill and efficiency. However, practice alone does not necessarily lead to deeper understanding or better judgement. A person may repeat the same actions for many years and become highly efficient, but still make poor decisions or fail to consider wider consequences.

Experience is often used to mean time spent in a role or occupation. In everyday language, an experienced person is someone who has been doing something for a long time. This definition is based on duration rather than learning. Experience in this sense does not guarantee improvement, reflection, or professional growth. It simply indicates exposure to situations over time. Someone may have twenty years of experience, but it may in reality be one year of experience repeated twenty times. Experience therefore describes exposure and duration, not necessarily learning or improvement.

Reflective practice is different from both practice and experience. Reflective practice involves deliberately thinking about what happened, why it happened, what assumptions were made, and what could be done differently next time. It includes questioning one’s own decisions, values, habits, and professional context. Reflective practice therefore involves analysis, self-awareness, and change. It turns activity into learning. Without reflection, practice becomes repetition and experience becomes time served. With reflection, practice becomes learning and experience becomes professional development.

Donald Schön argued that professionals improve not simply by doing their work, but by reflecting on their work both during and after action (Schön, 1983). David Kolb also argued that learning occurs through a cycle of experience, reflection, conceptualisation, and experimentation rather than through experience alone (Kolb, 1984). More recent writing on reflective practice emphasises critical reflection, which includes questioning power, culture, values, and professional assumptions rather than simply improving technique (Brookfield, 2017).

We can therefore distinguish the three terms in a simple way. Practice improves skill. Experience represents time and exposure. Reflective practice produces learning and professional growth. A professional may have practice without reflection, and experience without improvement. Reflective practice is the process that turns activity and experience into learning.

This distinction is important in professions such as teaching, counselling, healthcare, and management, where time served is often treated as evidence of competence. Reflective practice challenges this assumption and argues that professional growth depends not on how long we have been doing something, but on how carefully we think about what we are doing and why.

References

Brookfield, S. D. (2017). Becoming a critically reflective teacher (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass. ISBN 9781119049707. Source confidence – Verified via ISBN.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall. ISBN 9780132952613. Source confidence – Verified via ISBN.

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books. ISBN 9780465068783. Source confidence – Verified via ISBN.

The nature of counselling training in the UK

Counselling training in the UK spans from FHEQ Level 1 (basic listening and conversational skills) to Level 8 (PhD, DPhil, and Professional Doctorate). Level 3 is the equivalent intellectual standard expected of an A-Level pass, and Level 4 is the equivalent intellectual standard expected of a first year university undergraduate.

To qualify to practice through the main accreditation bodies (the BACP, the NCPS, and UKCP) an individual should have a diploma in counselling which calls for a certain number of hours of study at Level 3 and a certain number at Level 4.

While there are many options for post-diploma study, particularly to taught Masters level, I believe that the vast majority of practitioners today will have obtained their Level 4 qualification and stopped formal counselling education at this stage.

Why is research so important to the counselling and psychotherapy profession?

Counselling and psychotherapy must sustain active research because without it the profession risks ‘drift’, dogma, and loss of public trust. These have all been evident in the past and continue to dog the profession.

Research today typically tests claims about effectiveness, clarifies which clients benefit from which forms of help, and identifies risk, dropout, and harm.

Outcome and process research, including the work synthesised by Lambert and Wampold, shows that the quality of the alliance, therapist factors, and context each impacts results so strongly as to challenge any narrow allegiance to a particular model.

Research activity therefore protects clients by grounding practice in transparent evidence rather than tradition or charisma. It also enables the profession to engage with regulators, commissioners, and the wider health system on equal terms, since policy and funding decisions increasingly depend on demonstrable impact.

Without a living research culture, counselling and psychotherapy would hand its authority to neighbouring disciplines and weaken its claim to offer safe, effective, and accountable care.

The different expectations of research literacy at each FHEQ level

The Framework for Higher Education Qualifications (FHEQ) sets level descriptors for knowledge, skills, and autonomy across UK higher education. Research literacy develops across these levels in scope, depth, and independence. What follows sketches typical expectations from Level 3 to Level 8, with reference to the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education level descriptors.

At Level 3, often Foundation Year, students begin to recognise research as structured inquiry. They can describe basic research terms such as method, sample, and data. They read short academic texts with guidance and identify the main aim of a study. They rely heavily on tutor support and follow clear templates. Critical judgement remains limited.

At Level 4, first year undergraduate, students develop basic research literacy. They can distinguish qualitative and quantitative approaches. They summarise a research article and identify strengths and limits in simple terms. They begin to use referencing systems accurately. They can design a small proposal with close supervision. Independence remains modest.

At Level 5, second year undergraduate, expectations deepen. Students compare methods and justify choices. They engage with reliability, validity, and reflexivity in more detail. They critique sampling and ethics with growing confidence. They handle basic data analysis, whether statistical or thematic, with structured guidance. They show clearer academic voice.

At Level 6, honours degree, students demonstrate sustained critical analysis. They design and complete an independent research project within ethical guidelines. They justify methodology with reference to theory. They interpret findings in relation to existing literature. They manage data, referencing, and academic writing with limited supervision. Originality appears within defined limits.

At Level 7, master’s level, research literacy becomes advanced and systematic. Students appraise complex research designs and theoretical debates. They synthesise literature across fields. Master’s degrees take two forms – taught or by research. The distinction is not absolute but more by proportion of effort. Most taught Master’s courses include a ‘final major project’ taking up a substantial proportion of the second half of the student’s formally accounted hours. Masters by Research students conduct more substantial independent research with methodological coherence. They will usually defend their epistemological stance and demonstrate reflexivity. Their work may approach publishable quality.

At Level 8, doctoral level, expectations shift fully from literacy to contribution. Candidates generate original knowledge through rigorous inquiry. They have a command of advanced methods and theory. They critique the field and shape debate. They manage large or complex data sets and respond to peer scrutiny. Research literacy here includes leadership in scholarly dialogue.

Across Levels 3 to 8, three themes evolve. First, criticality grows from description to sustained evaluation. Second, independence increases from scaffolded tasks to autonomous design. Third, contribution shifts from understanding existing knowledge to extending it.

For lecturers, the key lies in aligning their teaching and assessment with these developmental shifts. Research literacy does not emerge in a single leap. It develops through staged engagement with knowledge, method, critique, and professional judgement.

How do the research literacy expectations vary across the groups of modalities of counselling theory?

Research teaching needs to reflect the epistemology, change theory, and evidential traditions of each modality. If lecturers ignore these differences, students are more likely to experience research as alien or hostile to their clinical identity.

Psychodynamic and psychoanalytic approaches stem from the work of Sigmund Freud and later object relations and attachment theorists. Their research base often includes case studies, longitudinal observation, and process research. Teaching here should therefore emphasise depth over breadth. Students benefit from close reading of single-case designs, qualitative interviews, and process notes. Lecturers need to teach how to evaluate narrative data, countertransference accounts, and small-sample studies without dismissing them for lacking randomised trials. The concept of evidence needs to include theoretical coherence and clinical plausibility.

Humanistic and existential approaches, shaped in part by Carl Rogers, put lived experience and relational process in the foreground. Research teaching therefore centres on qualitative methods, phenomenology, and reflexivity. Students learn how to analyse interviews, understand thematic analysis, and critique claims about empathy and alliance. At the same time, lecturers have to show how outcome research evaluates relational variables, so that humanistic students do not reject quantitative evidence by default.

Cognitive and behavioural approaches, developed by figures such as Aaron T. Beck, possess a strong experimental tradition. Teaching in this cluster includes research design, control groups, measurement, and statistical reasoning. Students are expected to understand internal validity, effect size, and manualised treatment trials. However, lecturers also need to address critiques of over-reliance on symptom scales and short-term outcomes, so that students grasp the limits of their approaches as well as their strengths.

Systemic and family therapies rest on relational and contextual models. Research teaching will therefore explore circular causality, observational coding systems, and multi-person data. Students need to examine how family research handles complexity and how systemic ideas translate into measurable constructs. Mixed methods often suit this grouping.

Integrative and pluralistic approaches involve a different emphasis. Here lecturers need to teach comparative research literacy. Students must be able to read across traditions, evaluate meta-analyses, and understand common factors research. Teaching will stress synthesis and critical comparison rather than loyalty to a single method.

Across all groupings, three pedagogic differences emerge. First, the weighting of qualitative and quantitative evidence. Second, the philosophical framing of knowledge varies. Third, the emotional tone of research teaching differs, because students’ professional identity shapes their openness to method.

Effective research education does not dilute challenges to the rigour of a model simply to suit the allegiance of practitioners to their ‘model’. Instead, it puts evidence into a language that is congruent with each tradition, while still exposing students to the full range of methodological standards expected in contemporary practice.

My concerns at present

Many students who complete a Level 4 diploma and enter private practice show limited exposure to research and a weak grasp of its value. Training often treats research as a separate academic task rather than part of reflective practice. The way in which the BACP separates research from practice makes sense in terms of establishing professional credibility, however this risks leaving individual practitioner’s engagement with research to a matter of personal choice rather than professional necessity.

From the few conversations that I have been party to, the focus of the BACP Research Teaching network so far tends to sit at Level 5/6 and above, which leaves the more predominant earlier stages less examined.

As a result, new practitioners may struggle to engage with evidence, question claims, or place their work within wider professional knowledge. The concern is not that they must become researchers, but that they leave training without habits of inquiry that support safe, reflective, and evidence-informed practice.