| |
|
Module, learning and teaching materials
the module
the audit
bibliography (Word 194KB)
codes of ethics (Word 171KB)
learning and teaching materials
audit of current practice
Commentary on the audit of current practice
Introduction
This paper is written from the perspective of a UK social work educator. Inevitably, others would raise different issues from their own points of view.
Note on terms used University - any academic organisation offering social work training
Practice learning - learning which is focused on the development of practice skills. This may take place in a placement or in a university setting such as a skills development laboratory
Agency - a service delivery organisation hosting a student for a placement
Work site - the specific organisational context in which a student is placed (e.g. team, office)
Placement - a period of time spent by a student in an agency undertaking direct work with service users (clients, groups, communities etc)
Supervisor - a person designated to give oversight to a student during a placement
Tutor - a person designated by the university to make a link between the university and the student on placement
England is used for the Sheffield context. Since Scottish devolution (and to a lesser extent Welsh devolution) there is an increasing degree of diversification in the UK
Who controls the curriculum?
Four broad issues are
- the extent to which the curriculum is regulated by external bodies and forces
- the nature of those external bodies/forces
- precisely what is regulated and controlled
- how regulation is exercised
Extent
Courses appear to vary considerably in the extent to which they are self-regulating. Dutch educators (and perhaps students) appear to have considerable freedom, whilst their English colleagues are regulated by multiple governmental and quasi-governmental bodies. Others fall somewhere in between.
External controlling bodies
Some of the regulation comes from professional sources such as professional bodies. Control is also exercised by government bodies, some of which may have a welfare perspective (e.g. health and welfare ministries), but others of which lie outside a broad social work community (eg central university authorities and education ministries). What is controlled?
Most countries report a degree of government control of the broad curriculum, either directly, or through the existence of some form of occupational standards, or both. Other dimensions exist which are outside the scope of this audit (e.g. student numbers, finance). External prescription appears to be particularly detailed in England, compounded by the number of government agencies involved.
Only two countries (Lithuania and England), report external control of practice learning. In Lithuania this is limited to a requirement regarding the number of academic units to be gained in placement. In England, government sets down the number of days to be spent in placement and also makes some requirements regarding the type of experience a student must have.
How regulation operates
This appears to take two main forms
- rules and regulations with which courses must comply
- systems of validation, inspection and audit
An issue which has not been investigated is the extent to which agencies providing placements are subject to external control in this aspect of their activities, either by regulation or by audit.
Length of courses
There seems to be a general move towards three year courses (but usually with flexibility for part time study etc). Nowhere is the training less than three years except for Masters courses. It is not clear from the responses exactly how Masters courses fit in.
Pratcice learning - definition and main aims
There seems to be a reasonable degree of consensus about the key elements of practice learning. Its aims are seen as helping students in the following areas of learning and development:
- clients, their needs and problems
- applying and testing out theory in the "real world"
- an ethical base for practice
- understanding how social policy is operationalised and how organisations work
- working effectively in multi-professional contexts
- understanding the roles of social work within these various contexts
- some degree of learning about self. (The extent to which this is an emphasis may vary)
Students learn by
- doing (i.e. working with clients)
- applying knowledge (theory, research findings etc) to their own practice
- reflecting on values and ethics and developing an ethical stance
- developing an analytical, reflective approach to practice
- looking at themselves and their own responses
Research, theory and practice learning
Almost all responses acknowledge the significance of students learning about research. There may be variation in the extent to which students are expected to undertake their own research whilst training as social workers.
Location of practice learning
All courses see practice learning as taking place in both the university and the work site, involving not only direct work with "real" clients but also methods such as role play and case discussion. On the surface, the responses appear to reflect a high degree of consensus, but there may be subtle and very important differences of philosophy and practice. The Dutch response, for example, that "academic and clinical skills are not separated" and that the final year of their course is "integrated" appears to be an important foundational position for the construction of their approach to practice learning. Others, whilst recognising an overlap (e.g. students learn skills in communication and in working co-operatively in groups in both settings), might make a greater distinction.
Time spent in placement in a work site All the countries represented include placements as an integral part of their social work education provision. Courses count the time and the proportion of the total training experience in very different ways, and one has to be cautious about making comparisons. In terms of total days spent in work sites, the figures given are as follows England: 200
Estonia: 48-192 (student choice)
Holland: 210 plus "integrated" final year
Lithuania: 120
Norway: 110 plus international project
Sweden: 135
Range of work sites and student activities
Obviously arrangements for students in any particular country will reflect to a large extent its particular social work "culture" . Thus for example, in Sweden some students are placed in social insurance, employment and personnel settings, which would not generally be the case in England and which are not mentioned by other respondents.
Contact by universities with work sites - tutors
All universities have some arrangements for tutors to support work site practice learning. The most extensive involvement seems to be in Holland with its integrated model referred to earlier.
Supervision
All countries see regular supervision by agency-based staff as an integral part of practice learning in a work site.
Time spent on supervision
For most, it is expected to take between one and two hours per week. The exception is Holland, where there is less input by agency-based staff, but this is compensated for by the greater involvement of university-based teachers.
Training of supervisors
In Estonia, a developing country, it is perhaps inevitable at this stage that some agency supervisors are themselves not professionally qualified. In England, the role of the agency-based practice teacher/assessor is well developed as a high level specialisation. Sweden and Norway have systems for accredited training in supervision. Holland involves more experienced students in the process of supervision and also designates a supervisor who focuses on "personal development".
Sweden, Norway and England in particular seem to have put resources into the training of supervisors. This appears t be less the case in Estonia, Lithuania and Holland.
Assessment of students' practice learning:
Providing/Gathering the evidence
In all cases, students themselves provide some of the evidence for the assessment in the form of a portfolio of written material. Most countries use words like "analytical" and "reflective" to describe the quality of work being looked for.
In Holland, this is the only form of evidence. In all other cases, the supervisor is also engaged in collecting evidence (eg by observation). In Sweden and Lithuania, the tutor is also involved at this stage.
Evaluating the Evidence and making decisions
In all cases, a university board of some sort makes final decisions, but these are based on recommendations. In Sweden and England, the supervisor makes the recommendation. In Lithuania, it is the responsibility of the tutor. In Norway and Holland, it is a shared responsibility of the supervisor and tutor. in Estonia "can" make a recommendation.
Grading scales
Estonia and Lithuania both employ grading scales. Elsewhere, students' practice is only graded as pass/fail. Whilst Sheffield only uses a pass/fail grade, some other English universities give numerical grades.
Organisational arrangements
In most countries, students seem to play an active role in finding their own work sites. The two exceptions are England and Lithuania, in both of which there are organisational arrangements to place students. In all cases, it appears that universities retain the right to decide whether a work site is suitable or not.
Alan Sanders, July 2006
Back to top |
|
