The research team, led by Preston R. Osborn of the University of Minnesota Duluth along with colleagues at The Ohio State University, framed the work against a persistent problem. Racial inequality remains entrenched across American systems, including healthcare, criminal justice, housing, education, and child welfare, and helping professions have historically struggled to address disparities in service quality and mental health outcomes within racialized communities. Social workers occupy a unique position to respond, guided by professional ethics that emphasize social justice and competence. Yet the field’s educational standards, including the Council on Social Work Education’s requirement that programs prepare students to understand the mechanisms of oppression and demonstrate anti-racist practice at multiple levels, have outpaced the pedagogical tools available to meet them.

That gap is partly a measurement problem. Anti-oppressive practice, a framework that examines oppressive power structures and equips practitioners to collaborate effectively with clients from diverse backgrounds, rests on three core tenets: reflexive practice, intercultural communication skill, and demonstrated anti-racism. But assessments of these constructs in social work education typically depend on self-reporting and instructor subjectivity, both of which are vulnerable to social desirability bias. Prior research has shown that individuals consistently overestimate their own cultural competence; in one cited study, social work participants who significantly endorsed colorblind attitudes linked to racial prejudice nonetheless rated themselves as culturally competent. Programs also tend to infuse diversity content thinly across required coursework rather than concentrating it, an approach associated with weaker culturally responsive outcomes than dedicated diversity curricula.

The ISAOP Model was designed to translate anti-oppressive concepts into practical professional application. It integrates three domains drawn from cultural humility and cultural consciousness literature: critical reflexivity, meaning an understanding of one’s own intersectional positionality; cultural humility, meaning openness and adaptability to cultural differences; and anti-racism, meaning social justice advocacy at multiple levels. Uniquely, the model reorients ecological systems thinking by shifting focus to the individual’s capacity to influence the systems around them, moving from personal adaptation toward social-ecosystem-level change. It explicitly centers race, with the stated goal of dismantling forms of racism and white supremacy within social work practice settings, and uses a dialectical process to probe students’ understanding of their own thoughts, behaviors, and attitudes during intercultural engagement.

The theoretical engine behind the intervention is transformative learning theory, which describes how individuals shift their worldview when confronted with experiences that challenge existing beliefs. In this framework, a disorienting dilemma prompts critical examination of one’s assumptions, leading to self-examination, recognition of discontents, and the construction of a self-developed plan of action. The researchers argue that this individualization matters because students arrive at diversity education with profoundly different emotional needs. BIPOC students may need space to feel heard and affirmed while processing the challenges of dismantling oppressive systems, without being compelled to educate their White peers. White students, meanwhile, may grapple with tension between the desire to distance themselves from oppressive systems and their self-image as good people. A private coaching space, the team reasoned, could serve both without centering anyone’s experience at the expense of others in a group.

The coaching protocol itself followed seven steps. After completing pretest surveys, each participant met virtually with a coach, one of a team of doctorate-level social work students who consulted with an advisor experienced in solution-focused therapy. The session opened by introducing professional areas where the participant might apply anti-oppressive skills, reviewed the ISAOP model, and then examined the participant’s personalized assessment report, which assigned rudimentary high, moderate, or low ratings across reflexivity, intercultural effectiveness, and anti-racism. Using motivational interviewing techniques and a strengths-based approach, the coach and student explored the student’s interpretation of their scores, co-developed a plan of action, and closed with space for questions. Sessions lasted between 48 and 71 minutes, averaging 56 minutes, and were recorded, transcribed, and supplemented with field notes to support fidelity and validity.

Measurement relied on three validated instruments. The Self-Reflection and Insight Scale captured cognitive, affective, and behavioral processes of self-reflection, with subscales showing internal consistency coefficients of 0.91 and 0.87. The Intercultural Effectiveness Scale measured factors of effective intercultural communication across five subscales, including behavioral flexibility, interaction relaxation, and message skills. The Anti-Racist Behavioral Inventory assessed knowledge, awareness, and behaviors related to anti-racism, spanning individual advocacy, awareness of racism, and institutional advocacy. Data were collected between January and April 2021, with pretests in January, coaching sessions in February and March, and posttests and feedback surveys in April, all administered virtually through Qualtrics and Zoom.

The qualitative analysis yielded five themes that map the students’ inner journeys. Participants connected past experiences and identities to current practice, with one describing ongoing healing and curiosity about her own culture as a foundation for engaging others. They evaluated their cognitive and behavioral processes, with several candidly acknowledging biases they were working to unlearn and one noting that politeness without genuine relationship-building could read as cold or confusing to clients from different cultures. They named barriers to skill development, most prominently fear, including the fear of being perceived as racist, which made one participant hesitant to adapt her communication style, and logistical strain, with one student asking how to juggle work, school, and personal life while also being an advocate. They planned concrete behavior changes, from bringing their authentic selves to interactions to expanding their social circles beyond predominantly White networks to solicit honest feedback. Finally, they reported strong satisfaction with the private, one-on-one format, with one participant calling the experience thought-provoking and another praising the personalized feedback as insightful.

The quantitative picture was more muted. Pretest reflexivity scores were already high, averaging 81.7 percent of the standardized range, and rose 2.5 percent by posttest. Intercultural effectiveness scores stayed in the moderate range, gaining 1.1 percent. Anti-racism scores showed the largest movement, climbing 5.7 percent from the moderate range into the high range. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, chosen because the data violated normality assumptions, found none of these changes statistically significant, a result the authors attribute largely to the sample of nine students. They also raise a subtler interpretation: students may have overestimated their skills at baseline, so coaching may have produced more accurate self-assessment rather than inflated scores. A single session may also have been insufficient, since effective coaching interventions typically involve multiple sessions over longer periods, and students were contending with heavy academic demands during pandemic-era restrictions.

The study’s implications reach beyond social work. The authors argue that personalized learning within diversity education can help educators tailor activities to individual experiences, needs, and professional goals, and that separate or individualized spaces can protect racialized students from having the White experience centered in group discussions, which research suggests can subtly redirect attention and energy away from people of color. Using graduate students as coaches, rather than course instructors who hold evaluative power over participants, may also foster the rapport needed for honest self-reflection. The team plans to carry these lessons into a larger federally funded workforce development program, the Behavioral Health Workforce Education and Training Program, which prepares professionals to deliver culturally responsive services to BIPOC and LGBTQ+ youth and families. Planned refinements include increased session dosage, longer intervention duration, focus groups for feedback, and automated generation of individual coaching reports. Acknowledged limitations, including the small, non-representative sample, convenience sampling, absence of a control group, and the possible inhibiting effect of session recordings, temper the findings. Still, the pilot makes a case that teaching future social workers to confront racism may work best not in a lecture hall, but in a private conversation built around their own scores, stories, and fears.

Subject of Research: Individualized anti-oppressive practice coaching as an educational intervention for social work students

Article Title: Individualized anti-oppressive practice coaching (I-AOPC): a pilot study on anti-oppressive practice in social work education

Article References: Osborn, P. R., Hughley, A., Stepney, L., & Lee, M. Y. (2025). Individualized anti-oppressive practice coaching (I-AOPC): a pilot study on anti-oppressive practice in social work education. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 14(1), Article 17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44322-025-00036-x

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s44322-025-00036-x

Keywords: social work education, anti-oppressive practice, anti-racism, cultural competence, transformative learning theory, coaching intervention, reflexivity, intercultural communication, diversity curriculum, pilot study, personalized learning, graduate education