“Faculty are challenged to reject what [Paulo] Freire terms the ‘banking’ view of education in which an all-knowing faculty member imparts knowledge to candidates”
WHEN I WAS in graduate school one of my professors gave a lecture on the treatment of patients with psychosis that made such an impression on me that it sent my career in a new direction. He and I have often mused in the years since how unaware he was that day that his lecture would have such a huge influence on one of his students. In a similar vein, in my own years of teaching it has been deeply gratifying to have students and candidates communicate to me how what was said in the classroom space shaped aspects of their clinical practice. These experiences illustrate how important the didactic component of candidate education is. The classroom can become a space of transformation and growth for both candidates and the faculty who facilitate the learning process.
The pandemic reconfigured this space—perhaps permanently.
At the annual winter meeting of the American Psychoanalytic Association (APsA) in February 2020, I was part of the Distance Education Study Group, which met to discuss our agenda for future work. We had no awareness that morning that
It is strange that we have these deep, meaningful relationships now with people online, but we might not be able to recognize them on the street. There is a sense of being disembodied. And if I do recognize them on the street would it be acceptable to talk to them and would they recognize me?
within a month our lives would be altered by the COVID-19 pandemic, or that our group would be called on to respond to the educational needs of institutes and centers across the county. By March, national and international lockdowns halted all in-person instruction at schools, universities, and psychoanalytic training institutes and centers.
Many training programs in the United States had been running online programs for some time before the COVID-19 pandemic. These programs most often used a hybrid model of instruction in which local candidates met in a classroom while geographically distant candidates joined the classroom online using platforms such as Zoom. However, many programs had limited experience in conducting online education, and some faculty and candidates initially struggled to make the adaptation. To assist faculty, the Distance Education Study Group collaborated with the APsA COVID-19 Advisory Task Force to issue a guide on best practices for online teaching. In addition, the study group decided to conduct an exploratory study to gain insight on how faculty and candidates experience online education. A qualitative study was designed with a series of semistructured listening group sessions conducted via Zoom, first with candidates and then with faculty. What follows is a description of the findings and recommendations that resulted.
The candidate listening groups met via Zoom over the summer of 2020, after the initial COVID-19 lockdowns. At the start of the pandemic onsite candidates (those who had been meeting in person) had more to adapt to than online candidates (those who had already been using virtual platforms). Whereas many online candidates had been attending classes and supervision online for years before the pandemic, many onsite candidates reported an acute sense of loss with respect to onsite classes. One onsite candidate commented that she missed being able to visit the institute library and talk informally with senior analysts who could often be found reading there.
Candidates expressed that some faculty found it challenging to make the transition to online teaching. In one case a faculty member who had previously been an engaging teacher reverted to an all-lecture teaching style that was not engaging to candidates. Online teaching also appears to shine a spotlight on ineffective teaching. As one candidate commented, “a boring in-person teacher is a very boring teacher online.”
Prior to the pandemic, institutes and centers that had online candidates most often ran hybrid classrooms where onsite candidates attended classes in person and geographically distant candidates joined the class via an online platform such as Zoom. Hybrid classrooms pose many challenges for both teachers and for students. Teachers are required to divide their attention between students in the physical classroom and candidates online. Thus, online candidates reported that they often felt neglected by both the onsite candidates and faculty. Onsite candidates, in turn, expressed often feeling disconnected from online candidates.
With the pandemic, all classes shifted to online platforms, and both the onsite candidates and the online candidates reported that the quality of the teaching and classroom engagement had
improved vastly. Onsite candidates stated that the transition to virtual supervision went more smoothly than the transition to the virtual classrooms, however. Some candidates commented that they did not feel as close to their supervisors as before the pandemic, and that some supervisors initially had difficulties operating the technology.
Therefore, an important finding is that candidates felt that the quality of the classroom experience was improved if all candidates were online for class. Having all candidates online created a sense of equality and group cohesion in the learning process.
Nevertheless, many training programs will likely continue to conduct hybrid classes, possibly because candidates might express a need for in-person instruction. One potential solution could be for all classes to be held online and for cohorts to meet in person at agreed upon dates on site. This educational model is employed by many universities running distance education doctoral programs. For this model to work, international candidates may require travel vouchers and the provision of local accommodation.
In this study, relationships both with fellow candidates and faculty were felt to be very important. Some candidates expressed that in-person peer relationships and collegiality were the biggest casualties of online education and that this loss was keenly felt. However, onsite candidates did express valuing the experience of training with international candidates, most of whom were training online. Recommendations emerged on how training centers can support the creation of relationships, both onsite and online. Faculty in particular can
meet individually with each candidate before the start of a seminar;
make time for candidates to talk before or after class;
encourage the forming of peer groups;
hold office hours; and
be available to respond to candidate questions and concerns.
For example, one faculty member met with a consultant to receive input on how to more effectively engage online candidates, reporting that online candidates in her class often appeared to be disengaged in the learning process. The faculty member felt frustrated and not effective in her online teaching and felt dread at the prospect of teaching her next online class. The consultant suggested that before the start of the new class the faculty member arrange a short one-on-one Zoom meeting with each candidate to build a relationship with each of them. The candidates responded enthusiastically to the one-on-one meetings, stating that they felt seen and that they felt their learning mattered to the faculty member. This in turn resulted in a more engaged and cohesive classroom experience for both the candidates and the faculty member.
An important theme that emerged was that candidates felt infantilized by the analytic training process. This subject has
frequently been written about in the analytic literature. For example, psychoanalyst Luke Hadge states that “there appear to be experiences, almost ‘universal,’ that most candidates undergo as part of the nature of training and the structures of institutes. Competition, envy, insecurity, exclusion, ambition, regression and infantilization.” These issues pose a significant risk to candidate retention. Faculty should therefore develop a collaborative pedagogical stance that is open to an experience of colearning with candidates.
The work of the Brazilian educator Paulo Freire provides a useful model. In Freire's view, the process of education is an act of liberation for the student both intellectually and psychologically. Faculty are challenged to reject what Freire terms the “banking” view of education in which an all-knowing faculty member imparts knowledge to candidates. Rather, Freire would suggest that faculty engage in problem-posing pedagogy in which faculty and candidate collaboratively engage in the process of learning and where faculty are open to the possibility of learning from candidates. For example, faculty members may discuss their own ongoing clinical work with advanced candidates and focus on problem cases, seeking the clinical input of candidates. This not only demonstrates willingness to learn from candidates but also models that learning to be an analyst is a lifetime task. This stance is especially appropriate in psychoanalytic education, as candidates most often enter training with extensive professional experience.
The majority of faculty in this sample had experience with online teaching before the pandemic, teaching hybrid classes with local candidates in the class and international candidates online. As faculty settled into the experience of fully online teaching, some expressed ambivalence. One stated, “Online teaching is a double-edged sword. I am glad we have it, but I am very sad, almost melancholy, about the prospect of not going back in person.”
Most of the faculty in this sample were trained onsite, which inevitably informed their view of optimal candidate education. Faculty commented how onsite instruction promotes a sense of personal connection, which in turn leads to spontaneous discourse in the classroom. There is also the simple pleasure of being with others in person. One faculty member talked about how he used to enjoy handing out candy in his seminar. Faculty also discussed the importance of the physical space of the institute or center as humans need to have a “home.” One faculty member described in an amused tone how, as a candidate, he had a favorite classroom chair. He conveyed that he no longer felt the same level of need for the physical space of the institute, but he recognized that at one time he did have that need. This comment draws our attention to the many ways in which psychoanalytic education is a developmental process for candidates.
Faculty in this sample supported online education, viewing the medium as a path to expand and include more people in the field. One faculty member who trained in a country with no local training programs commented, “without online classes I would have had no contact with the psychoanalytic world.” However, several faculty expressed concern about the potential total loss of onsite classes. For some this fear extends to a potential loss of their institutes. As one faculty member expressed, “I look at all this wave of online programming and think I would want to join in, but also this could be the death knell to my small institute.” Some faculty felt concern about the potential loss of in-person connection. One poignantly commented on how, as people, we “feel each other”:
It is strange that we have these deep, meaningful relationships now with people online, but we might not be able to recognize them on the street. There is a sense of being disembodied. And if I do recognize them on the street would it be acceptable to talk to them and would they recognize me?
Many of the faculty also liked the convenience of online teaching, which obviated the need to travel. One stated, “I am most likely never again going to drive two hours to teach a class.” Older faculty members often do not want to drive at night or in states with inclement winter weather. These faculty members could potentially be retained in an online teaching format. Faculty retention allows candidates to continue to benefit from the teaching of senior faculty, who get to remain involved in institute life.
Like candidates, faculty stated that they found the hybrid classroom to be the least effective. A hybrid classroom is especially challenging for faculty as they need to divide attention between candidates in the physical classroom and candidates online. Nevertheless, it appears that the hybrid
classroom, despite the challenges, will remain the norm for psychoanalytic education. It seems unlikely that institutes and centers will abandon their buildings and by implication their physical classrooms.
With that in mind, we should continue to explore how to conduct hybrid classes as effectively as possible. In general, it is helpful
for faculty and onsite students who are speaking to face the screen in hybrid classes; and
for faculty to create an open space for candidates to discuss problems and frustrations.
While faculty need to display a positive attitude toward online and hybrid classes, this does not exclude having a constructive and honest dialogue with candidates regarding classroom frustrations and problems. Not all problems and frustrations can be resolved, but students feel heard and validated if they can give voice to challenges experienced in the learning process.
Classroom engagement is of critical importance. Some faculty expressed concern about the level of discourse that was possible online. Some felt it was difficult to establish a true seminar-style class. Moreover, candidates who tend to dominate in an in-person classroom tend to do so more online, and quiet students are quieter when online.
One of the most important strategies is for faculty to model engagement for the class by encouraging the creation of an active learning environment online. Recommendations include
using clinical examples to help with learning of complex clinical theory;
using online break-out rooms;
assigning written exercises or discussion threads ahead of classes; and
creating and distributing PowerPoint slides prior to class (especially helpful to students learning in a second language).
Faculty also discussed the issue of classroom size and the impact. Often there is a misunderstanding that student capacity is not important in online classes. Based on the findings in this study, online classes should ideally be no larger than 12 candidates. Too many candidates brings about a significant negative impact on a candidate's ability to participate and learn.
Candidate training is based on a tripartite model consisting of a personal analysis, supervision of control cases, and a didactic curriculum. It is said that candidates consider the personal analysis to be most useful, followed by supervisionn and then didactic classroom instruction. It is concerning that didactic education has become the ugly duckling of analytic training, as it provides candidates with essential theoretical and technical skills, as well as an opportunity to form a learning community with other candidates and faculty. Additionally, a recent study found that candidates enter training with high expectations of the didactic part of their training. It is therefore imperative that faculty engage candidates in vitalizing classroom experiences.
There are those who maintain that only an onsite training experience is acceptable; and there are those who would have us abandon all onsite teaching in favor of online training. We need to be careful not to establish yet another binary in psychoanalysis. Rather, institutes and centers need to pedagogically flexible and establish training programs that meet the needs of candidates. For many programs, this translates into some mix of online and onsite classes. This exploratory study and the education literature suggest that candidates can and do learn in online classes and that many of the candidates view online education favorably. However, many candidates express a strong need for in-person contact.
How to meet this need is both a challenge and an opportunity for institutes and centers to think creatively. The postpandemic world provides us an opportunity to consider how best to reconstruct our classroom instruction and to evaluate our approaches to candidate education in general. The future of our profession is dependent on how successful we are at this challenging and exciting task.
Katherine Williams, PhD, is an analyst in private practice in Chicago. She is a faculty member at the Michigan Psychoanalytic Institute and adjunct faculty at Loyola.
First published online February 2025