experience-based learning and its relevance to social work practice

Keywordsexperience-based learning; pedagogy, social

work education

IntroductionThe Newcastle model might best bedescribed as experience-based learningwithin a constructivist, strengths-based,social justice value framework.Constructivism is compatible with theperson-in-environment and ecosystemsperspective which have long been definingfeatures of social work (Witkin 1990). Withinthe experience-based model, criticalthinking and dialogical, collaborative and

independent learning are emphasised. A social justice approach to education not only fits with social work values, but is also seen as a re-engagement with the experiential learning theories of thebeginning of the twentieth centurydeveloped by early pragmatists like Dewey,du Bois and James. These pioneers, andlater Freire, saw education as much morethan instilling knowledge but also as thebasis of a free and democratic society.‘Education must help learners develop theknowledge, principles and capacities towork generatively with the unresolvedissues of equity and justice that continuallyconfront us in our lives and in our work’(Knefelkamp & Schneider 1997, p. 338).

A constructivist perspective sees theperson as cognitively and affectivelyconstructing meaning and knowledge at thesame time emphasising the socialenvironment of knowledge as inclusive of‘the historical context, prevailing andcontradictory social values and norms,dimensions of culture and gender, and the

Australian Social Work/December 2002, Vol. 55, No. 4 279

Experience-based learning and itsrelevance to social work practiceMel Gray and Jill Gibbons

The paper begins with a brief description of the experience-based learning modeldeveloped by a group of social work educators at the University of Newcastle, inNew South Wales. The Bachelor of Social Work (BSW) degree was introduced in 1991and its first graduates entered the workforce in 1995. As well as outlining thetheoretical underpinnings and core features of the model, the paper reports on asurvey of graduates which examined their perceptions of the effectiveness ofexperience-based learning in preparing them for social work practice. It ends with abrief discussion of the difficulties of staff and students in adapting to this model.

Mel Gray is Professor of Social Work and Head of theSchool of Social Sciences at the University of Newcastle,New South Wales, Australia.Email: [email protected] Gibbons is a lecturer in social work in the Schoolof Social Sciences at the University of Newcastle,New South Wales, Australia.Email: [email protected]

influence of political realities and power’(Neuman & Blundo 2000, p. 24–25).Constructivists are interested in the way in which the development of humanunderstanding is shaped by social,environmental, historical, local and culturalfactors. They hold that understanding cannever be independent of the individualsinvolved in this process and the context in which it takes place.

The constructivist view differssignificantly from the perspective ofknowledge as external, objective or true.Knowledge is not acquired through aprocess of copying or replicating. It holdsthat one comes to know reality only byacting on it. What we learn in activeinteraction with the environment isdependent upon our own structuring ofthese experiences (von Glaserfeld & Smock 1974). An educational approachbased on this view therefore focuses onstudents’ experiences both in and outsidethe classroom and on the processes bywhich they construct meaning from theseexperiences. Constructivist learning isbased on students’ active participation inproblem-solving and critical thinkingregarding a learning activity which they find relevant and engaging. They are‘constructing’ their own knowledge bytesting ideas and approaches based on their prior knowledge, theories andexperience, applying these to a newsituation and integrating the new knowledgegained with pre-existing intellectualconstructs.

Payne (1990) described social work as asocially constructed activity which could beunderstood only in relation to the society ofwhich it was a part. Although he saw socialwork as context-specific, he believed that it

had a generally understood meaning andthere were shared areas of understanding.The shared characteristics or definingfeatures of social work which he identifiedwere: social work treated people asindividuals not categories; it operatedthrough relationships; it used theorganisational context of its relationships tocarry out its activities; it defined need; itwas concerned with the maintenance ofimportant social structures; and itadvocated for clients. We take a muchbroader view of social work which includesnot only clinical and organisational socialwork but also community work and policychange. For us, social work’s definingfeature is its diversity and its flexibility toadapt to the ever-changing needs of itscontext. Hence, there are many types ofsocial work operating in widely divergentcontexts across the world sharing acommitment to human rights and socialjustice. Our application of constructivistthinking operates within the framework ofour value commitments and the needs ofthe context in which we are working (Gray1995). Deciding on the kind of social workthat is needed derives from our interactionswithin specific contexts. By focusing onprocess rather than on importingpredetermined theories and formulaicpractices we can apply our experience-based model to the development of socialwork programs in diverse contexts.

Strengths-basedapproachesCritical or radical theory in social workpositions individuals as shaped,constrained and sometimes destroyed by

280 Australian Social Work/December 2002, Vol. 55, No. 4

social and historical conditions over whichthey have little, if any control. With this view,radical social workers argue that the way tochange individuals and to alleviate personalsuffering is to transform the unequal andoppressive social conditions that disfiguresocial relations. This should be a collectiveendeavour wherein the exploited group orclass will work to change power relations. In applying radical theory to social workpractice, social workers are called upon to play an instrumental role in raising theclient’s (whether individual, group orcommunity) consciousness and inharnessing the client’s own experience as the main source of undermining classdomination, patriarchy, racial stereotyping,and the like, towards the goal of socialtransformation.

Strengths-based approaches recognisethat power has both constraining andenabling effects. Strengths-basedapproaches focus on client strengths, onthe strengths in the helping relationship orin the context in which helping takes place,and on strengths in the environment.Saleebey (1997) and Weick et al. (1989)point out that even though we can usuallyfind resources and strengths in mostsituations, using a strengths-basedapproach does not mean that we ignoreinjustice, oppression and marginalisation.They do not exclude structural analyses but tend to focus more on the meaningclients attach to their experience, the way in which people construct meaning forthemselves. There would not be the samepressure to conscientise clients by raisingtheir awareness of the way in which societyoppresses or marginalises them eventhough this might be part of the worker’sunderstanding.

Strengths-based approaches challengethe notion of the social worker as expertand set out to situate power in therelationship in the hands of clients (at alllevels). In this way they move away fromconceptions of clients as oppressed orpowerless focusing rather on what clientsknow, how they have survived traumaticexperiences, what they can do, how theyconnect with significant others and withcommunity networks and services, and with the way in which we, as social workers,can support them. There is an emphasis on working collaboratively with clients, onadvocacy and activism with clients, whichconnects with social justice issues such asthe distribution of resources, how peoplework with larger systems and their accessto resources. The narrative approach is anexample of a strengths based interventionwhich has integrated structuralunderstanding in working with clients on an individual level to help them constructtheir situation while at the same timedeveloping an understanding of the wider structural processes and dynamicsimpinging on their personal experience.

In keeping with the strengths-basedempowerment approach to social work,Newcastle students learn that people’sinteractions with their environments requirepolitical and economic advocacy as well as mental and social adjustments to theirsituations (Porter Hurd 1998), hence thetheme of social justice and policy practicethat runs through the undergraduatecurriculum.

Constructive social workParton and O’Byrne 2000) used the term‘constructive social work’ (p. 2) to


emphasise process, the plurality ofknowledge and voice, strength andpossibility, and the relational quality ofknowledge. We regard it as important thatstudents understand the way in whichstructures and processes in societymarginalise, exclude, oppress anddiscriminate against people, especially for a profession which works with peoplewho are disadvantaged in this way.However, we see ‘constructive social work’ as reflecting a strengths perspectivewhere understanding of people and theirsituations is guided by inherent assets,talents, strengths, resources, possibilitiesand solutions. This thinking is consistentwith the way in which we construct thelearning situation where students, workingin small groups, constitute a collective poolof resources whereby they will, throughdiscussion and dialogue, develop a sharedunderstanding of the learning task.

An educational approach based onconstructivist thinking focuses on students’experiences both in and outside theclassroom and the processes by which theymake meaning from these experiences.Brooks and Brooks (1993) comparedtraditional classroom teaching with aconstructivist approach (see Table 1).

The constructivist perspective informsthe Newcastle model on a number of levels. First it accepts that a characteristicof social work practice is ‘the uncertainty of “not knowing” and expecting theunexpected in trying to understand theever-evolving dynamics in a client system’(Neuman & Blundo 2000; p. 26). In the face of students’ expectations to haveformulaic solutions to the sorts of issuessocial workers encounter, they areencouraged to develop a range of skillswith which to work through decisions about their response. They begin to


Table 1. Traditional and constructivist classroom models

Traditional Classroom Constructivist classroom

Curriculum is presented part to whole, with Curriculum is presented whole to part with emphasis on basic skills emphasis on inclusive conceptsStrict adherence to fixed curriculum as Curriculum is responsive to students and the established is highly valued pursuit of student questions is highly valuedStudents are viewed as blank slates onto which Students are viewed as participatory thinkers information is etched by the teacher with emerging theories about the worldTeachers generally behave in a didactic Teachers generally behave in an interactive manner disseminating information to students manner, mediating the environment for

studentsTeachers seek the correct answer to validate Teachers seek the students’ point of view in student learning order to understand the students’ present

conceptions for use in subsequent lessonsAssessment of student learning is viewed as Assessment of student learning is interwoven separate from teaching and occurs almost with teaching and occurs through teacher entirely through testing observations of students at work and through

personalised assignments such as student exhibitions and portfolios

Source: Brooks and Brooks (1993), p. 17.

understand uncertainty, ambiguity and theunpredictability of human behaviour.

Although it is impossible to teachstudents how to deal with every situationthey might encounter, it is possible to teachthem the processes they will need toengage in for effective social work practice.These might include positioning the client as expert, challenging values andassumptions, listening, thinking on theirfeet, being creative and resourceful inproblem solving, accessing relevantknowledge, conducting research,networking, thinking critically, formingworking relationships and engagingindividuals and groups. Developing acritical approach, not only to their ownunderstanding but also to existingknowledge about the world, is afundamental skill in this model of learning.

Second, students are taught to seeknowledge as a social construction,situated within a social, cultural, historicaland local context. They are encouraged togain a sense of its ever-changing qualityand the need for a lifelong approach tolearning to keep abreast of new knowledgeand research. The small group context, inexposing students to a range of differentviews, is essential in this process.

Third, a constructivist perspectiveinvolves learners in actively constructingtheir knowledge in terms of their own priorexperience and the meaning they attach to the people and situations they confront in keeping with the underlying philosophy of experiential learning (Goldstein 2001).Meaningful learning is seen to be thatwhich is useful to real life situations. Theteacher, as the coach or facilitator, worksstrategically with students to help them gain this insight and awareness, through

critical thinking and constantly applyinglearning to past or present experiences.

Core features ofNewcastle’s modelAs outlined previously, the Newcastle model(Fig. 1) integrates constructivist, strengthsand ecosystems perspectives within anexplicit social justice value framework. Italso integrates theory and practice, levelsof intervention, and campus and fieldlearning. It emphasises experience-basedlearning, the development of criticalthinking skills and critical reflection (Plath1994; Plath et al. 1999; Gibbons & Gray2002). Small groups provide both thecontext and medium through which learningtakes place. Through skilled facilitation,students come to see the group as anamalgam of strengths, abilities, talents, andresources in which they can work togetherto accomplish their learning tasks. Theteacher’s role as facilitator within this modelserves to shift the balance of power ‘as theinstructor is removed from the position of“expert” who presents codified knowledgeto a passive learner . . . the constructivistsees the instructor as the provider ofperturbations to the students’ current stateof understanding’ (Neuman & Blundo 2000;p. 27). Within the small group, differentvalues, perspectives and beliefs are sharedand challenged. This is a collaborative and dialogical model where students areheard and where ample space is providedfor individual and group participation. The giving and receiving of constructivefeedback is crucial to the process ofbuilding and capitalising on strengths within the classroom, to acceptance and


tolerance of different interpretations andviewpoints, and to the development ofcritical thinking skills (Gibbons & Gray2002). In working independently on learningtasks, students employ a self-directedapproach to learning which essentiallyprepares them for lifelong learning.

Past graduate survey

In 2001, a survey was conducted ofgraduates of the course 1995–1999, to see where they were working and whetherthey thought the experience-based coursehad prepared them for practice. A total of


Fig. 1. The Newcastle Model

167 questionnaires were mailed and in thefirst round responses, 30 completed returnswere received with 16 returned addressunknown. Subsequently, more work wasdone on updating our database andanother 46 questionnaires were sent to thecorrect address yielding a further16 responses. In all 46 questionnaires were returned yielding a response rate of 36.3% overall. The survey revealed some interesting and useful responses.

Profile of respondents

The respondents were mainly young andfemale: 19 (41.3%) were between 20 and30; 10 (21.7%) between 31 and 40; 9(19.6%) between 41 and 50; another fivebetween 51 and 60; and one (2.2%)respondent was over 60 years old. Tworespondents did not respond to this item.There were 43 (93.5%) female and two(4.3%) male respondents. Two respondentsdid not respond to this item. Seven (15.2%)respondents had been in practice for oneyear, six (13%) for up to two years, andanother eight (17.4%) for three years. Five(10.9%) had been in practice for up to fouryears, seven (15,2%) for up to five years,and five (10.8%) for up to six years. Six had been in practice for between eight and 28 years. Two respondents did notrespond to this item. Forty (87%) hadcompleted Bachelors degrees and six(13%) had completed a Masters degree.

Employment patterns

Forty-two (91.3%) respondents werecurrently employed and four (8.7%) wereunemployed. Thirty-six (78.3%) were in full-time employment, eight (17.4%) in

part-time employment and one wasemployed both full and part time. Twenty-nine (63%) were in permanentpositions, 10 (21.7%) were in contractpositions, and one (2.2%) was in a casualposition. The remaining six (13%) were in flexible positions due to circumstances,for example, one had two jobs, one casualand one contract, one had two jobs onecontract and one permanent, one was on maternity leave, and another onsecondment from a permanent position as a caseworker. One respondent waslooking for a permanent position.

Seventeen (37%) respondents earned between $31 000 – $40 000; 12 (26.1%) earned between $41 000 –$50 000 and nine (19.6%) above $50 000.One (2.2%) earned less than $20 000 andsix (13%) between $20 000 – $30 000. Theremaining respondent did not respond tothis item.

Seventeen (37%) were employed locally in Newcastle and Lake Macquarie,10 (21.7%) elsewhere in the Hunter, six(13%) in Sydney, and five (10.9%) on theCentral Coast. Four (8.7%) were employedout of state, in Adelaide, Brisbane,Fremantle and Hobart. Two respondentswere currently seeking employment, one in WA and one locally. Thirty-one (67.4%)were employed in an urban centre and nine (19.6%) in rural areas; two workedacross both contexts and four did notprovide a response. It was interesting tonote the diverse contexts of practice shown in Table 2.

None of the respondents were working in adoption, criminal justice,housing, indigenous services,management/administration, ormigration/settlement. Most were employed


in state or government agencies (five in the Department of Community Services in New South Wales). Information onlocation of employment was available for 16 respondents.

Table 3 shows that over half (25 or54.3%) of the respondents referred tothemselves as Social Workers. Equallyinteresting was the range of job titles.Twenty (43.5%) had other job titles rangingfrom Acting District Officer, to Director of Service, Mental Health Worker, Senior Policy Advisor, Health Educator/Coordinator,Local Support Coordinator, Area EnactTrainer and Telstra Planner. This clearlyshows the diversity of contexts in whichsocial workers practice and the adaptabilityof the generic skills with which they areequipped. Five appeared to be involved

in direct practice as a Crisis Interventionand Support Worker, Alcohol and OtherDrug Counsellor (2), Mental Health Workerand Family Worker. Five respondents werein educational settings and/or working asCommunity Workers.

Additional items explored interest inpostgraduate study, membership of theprofessional social work association and interest in an Alumnus Association.Twenty-three (50%) reported interest inpostgraduate study (five were alreadyengaged in postgraduate study elsewhere),35 (76.1%) were members of the AASW, 28 (60.9%) expressed interest in joining an Alumnus Association if one wereestablished and 29 (63%) expressedinterest in further involvement in theevaluation of the Newcastle program


Table 2. Practice context

Context Number Percentage

Addictions 1 02.2Adolescence/youth 4 08.7AIDS/HIV 1 02.2Aged care 1 03.3Child protection 6 13.0Community development 4 08.7Disability 5 10.9Domestic violence 1 02.2Education 5 10.9Employment recruitment 1 02.2Family counselling 6 13.0Health 7 15.2Income support 1 02.2Juvenile justice 1 02.2Mental health 6 13.0Out of home care 1 02.2Private practice 1 02.2School counselling 1 02.2Sexual assault 1 02.2Substitute care 1 02.2Total 46 100.0

through participation in more in-depth focus group discussion.

Preparedness for practice

Thirty-seven (80.4%) reported that theprogram had prepared them for practicewhile three (6.5%) said that it had not andanother 2 (4.3%) answered both yes andno. This response was not applicable forthe three (6.5%) Masters students. Similarresponses were recorded for the relevanceof the training to practice. Thirty-eight(82.6%) felt prepared for casework, 29 (63%) for group work, 25 (54.3%) forcommunity work, 23 (50%) for policydevelopment and implementation, 19 (41.3%) for supervision, 17 (37%) for research and 16 (34.8%) foradministration and management.

The core elements of the learning modelfeatured prominently in the respondents’positive feedback as to their preparednessfor practice and the lasting effects ofexperience-based learning. These includedself directed, independent learning, setting learning goals, learning how tolearn, experiential and lifelong learning,learning in groups, group facilitation skills, understanding of group dynamics,teamwork, development of practical skills through use of case scenarios, roleplays and field trips, critical and lateralthinking, critical analysis and creativity.

The following are a sample of theresponses received.

The constant group work skills modelled bylecturers provided an excellent skill base.

This approach demanded a great deal ofpersonal effort and gave students a lot ofresponsibility. This has been a positivecontribution to my approach to work (which is hard-working and responsible).

Even though it was difficult, I think thegroup work, role-plays with videos andclass interaction with the other students has helped me enormously. I find I can bevery creative in a work environment and am able to think laterally thanks to thisgrounding.

Besides confidence in their group work ability and critical thinking skills,graduates also reported that they werestrongly aware of the connection betweentheory and practice, having a soundtheoretical grounding as well as goodpractical skills. They particularly valuedtheir field placement experiences, whichthey considered to be a major source oftheir learning.

The course was relevant to practice indeveloping my knowledge and skillsthrough application. This meant thatwhenever I learnt something the practicalapplication of this knowledge has alwaysjumped to mind. This is continuing.

The course enabled me to quite naturallyapply theory to my practice. I have learnthow to learn. I am aware of my ownlearning style and can use it well.

A strength of the course was the diverserange of assignments that encouraged


Table 3. Job titles

Job title Number Percentage

Social Worker 25 54.3Community Worker 1 02.2Other 20 43.5Total 30 100.0

and strengthened creativity and lateralthinking.

The respondents commented on thebroadness of the course, its wideapplicability, the wide range of fieldscovered and the coherence of the units with the topics studied. They appreciatedthe strong interpersonal skills componentand their personal development:developing confidence, assertiveness,tenaciousness, courage and a belief in self;and the development of self-awarenessthrough critical self-reflection andchallenging values and beliefs.

A lasting effect of EBL has been myincreased confidence and ability which hasenabled me to work at a high standard as anew graduate social worker.

Although casework and group workfeatured more prominently, working withcommunities, research, conducting needs assessments and evaluatingservices were also mentioned. Finally, theyappreciated the practice experience ofstaff, the modelling of practice skills bystaff, especially group work skills and theworkshops which enabled them to developtheir group work and presentation skills.

The most valuable aspect that continues is the keenness of my analysis andassessment skills. I now have a model fromwhich to keep on learning and developingmy skills through goal setting and researchskills, putting theory into practice andkeeping practice linked to theory.

There were relatively few negativecomments. They related to course structure,ideology, staff, personal experiences andcourse content. Regarding course structure,most referred to a lack of guidance in

assessment tasks, a lack of structure, theneed for more useful feedback and morelectures.

The lack of direction or feedback meantmany of us students never knew if we werequite aiming up or if we were on the righttrack. This weakness could be seen as agood preparation for the workplace!

As to course ideology there were severalreferences to an over-emphasis on radicalfeminism and the need for tolerance ofother theories and perspectives, such asenvironmental and ecological approaches.

No one in the Department in my 3 years ofattendance so much as whispered acriticism of feminism. The staff on this issuewere all either feminists or scared to uttercriticism of feminist theory and practice.

Comments about staff included somelecturers’ perceived lack of interpersonalskills and insensitivity to vulnerablestudents, judgementalism, favouritism forsome students and sexism towards malestudents. On the subject of their personalexperience of the course some recalledanxiety, a constant fear of failure, too muchpressure, being emotionally exhausted,some destructive group work experiences,damaged self confidence, the use of theirown experiences in skills training causingunwanted self exposure and intrusion andmore attention to feelings, emotions andreactions in groups being warranted attimes.

I felt that at the beginning of each topicarea, a stronger introduction was required. I felt that at times too much responsibilitywas placed on students. Despite the manybenefits of experience-based learning, I felt at times it provided the lecturers


with an excuse not to provide relevantinformation, i.e. I don’t think it should onlybe students’ responsibility to seek themajority of information needed. I often feltthat you had no idea why you did very well or very badly in assessments. Morefeedback was required! Otherwise how can you improve if you don’t know whereyou are doing well or what you need towork on? A stronger foundation in theorywas required in the earlier years. I felt attimes, lecturers presumed you knew allabout theory when at times students wereleft guessing.

Finally, in relation to course content,several mentioned the need for moretraining in clinical work and counselling,especially narrative therapy, griefcounselling and working with children and families; social work theory; childprotection practice, including riskassessment and reporting; research; mental health, especially DSM (Diagnosticand Statistical Manual of the AmericanPsychiatric Association, 2000) diagnoses;and strategies for working in governmentdepartments with values and practices notcompatible with social workers and theirpolitics.

The course felt very gruelling but inretrospect was probably a strength(although didn’t feel that way at the time)felt that if you survive 4 years social work atNewcastle could survive any work place.

Difficulties of staff andstudents in adapting to thismodelIt is believed that experience is the bestmeans through which to teach students to

integrate theory and practice, both through reflection on how their own past experience influences their presentlearning and on how their current fieldpractice and classroom experience informs and consolidates new learning(course content). Such a challenging and innovative model of teaching is not without its problems. As in social work generally, certain tensions remainunresolved, not least the balancing of content and process, of individualperformance, competency and masterywith teamwork and group activities and of independent with guided learning.Most difficult of all is teaching students tothink critically and to overcome their anxietyabout ‘getting it right’. Students have spentyears learning to reproduce what they havebeen taught, and though they are able toproduce exciting, innovative and creativework in the classroom, this is not alwayscarried through in their written work. What isthe best test of learning? For us it is thestudents’ ability to present the fruit of theirlearning in the tasks balanced by the abilityto demonstrate it in practice. Social workersneed to be critical thinkers, to be able tobase practice decisions on soundreasoning having taken all aspects of thesituation into account. This rational sideneeds to be balanced by the art of tuninginto people’s pain and suffering,communicating understanding andgenuinely caring about people and society,ultimately to make it a better place for all(Dean 1993; Weick 1993; Goldstein 1997).As Dean (1993) put it, we want to createpractitioners ‘whose practice combines theuse of artistic, intuitive processes withdisciplined evaluation and thoughtfulness’(p. 72).


A significant issue has been assistingstudents and new academic staff to makethe transition into this model of learning.Students constantly entreat staff to take amore active role in providing them withinformation and solutions. During theprogram students tend to complain a lotabout not having clear enough directions in how to complete their tasks. They makecynical remarks about self-directedlearning. It was interesting therefore to notethat graduates saw that the self-directednature of the learning and group work, while they found it hard and disliked it at the time, had prepared them well forpractice. Staff members who join theprogram from social work practice and who have strong group facilitation skillsseem to adapt to the program more easilythan those from academic or teachingbackgrounds. Some staff members havefelt very uncomfortable with the loss ofauthority and power that is consistent with a constructivist approach to education.The department as a whole struggles toensure that the resources for teaching aremaintained within the university environmentwhere research tends to be valued aboveteaching.

ConclusionThis paper described the theoreticalunderpinnings of the social work education model developed by theDepartment of Social Work at the University of Newcastle in New SouthWales. Although the model is not without its problems, it is seen as an approach toeducation that is consistent with the valuesand processes of social work practice.

This is borne out by a survey of pastgraduates who provide positive feedbackon the way in which the experience-basedlearning model has prepared them forsocial work practice and by feedback that our graduates, as well as students on placement, are valued in the workplacefor their capacity to deal with the myriad challenges in daily practice and particularly for their ability to presentworkshops and information to bothpractitioners and clients using anexperience-based approach. This comment from one of the respondents aptly describes the rewards of experience-based learning.

Gaining the confidence to realise that ‘I cando it!’ I can make a difference. Although Idetested the role-plays and other creativebits that we did, it helped me enormously. I now have the skills to tackle ‘the best ofthem’ (diplomatically of course), no matterwho they are or what position they hold. I believe in myself, my skills and abilities. I never dreamed I would get this far. Like I said previously, some of the learning unitswere a huge slap in the face for me. I hadno choice but to deal with various personalissues because of this. Resolving mypersonal baggage has enabled me tobecome more objective, stable, empathicand ‘whole’.

References

AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION (2000),Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV-TR. AmericanPsychiatric Association, Washington, DC.

BROOKS J & BROOKS M (1993), Search ofUnderstanding: the Case for ConstructivistClassrooms. Association for Supervision andCurriculum Development, Alexandria, VA.

DEAN R (1993), Teaching a constructivist approach toclinical practice. In: LAIRD J (ed.) Revisioning Social


Work Education: a Social Constructivism Approach.The Haworth Press, New York.

GIBBONS J & GRAY M (2002), An integrated andexperience-based approach to social work education:The Newcastle model. Journal of Social WorkEducation, 21, 529–549.

GOLDSTEIN H (1997), Victors or victims? In: SaleebeyD (ed.) The Strengths Perspective in Social WorkPractice. Longman, New York.

GOLDSTEIN H (2001), Experiential Learning: aFoundation for Social Work Education and Practice.Council of Social Work Education, Washington, DC.

GRAY M (1995), The ethical implications of currenttheoretical developments in social work. British Journalof Social Work, 25 (1), 55–70.

KNEFELKAMP L & SCHNEIDER C (1997), Educationfor a World Lived in Common with Others. In: Orrill R(ed.) Education and democracy: Reimagining liberallearning in America. College Entrance ExaminationBoard, New York, pp. 327–343.

NEUMAN K & BLUNDO R (2000), Curricularphilosophy and social work education: A constructivistperspective. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 20,19–38.

PARTON N & O’BYRNE P (2000), Constructive SocialWork. MacMillan, London.

PAYNE M (1990), Modern Social Work Theory: aCritical Introduction. MacMillan, London.

PLATH D (1994), Fostering Creativity Through SocialWork Education. Advances in Social WelfareEducation, 1994, 113–119.

PLATH D, ENGLISH B, CONNORS L & BEVERIDGE A(1999), Evaluating the outcomes of intensive criticalthinking instruction for social work students. SocialWork Education, 18 (2), 207–217.

PORTER HURD E (1998), Strengths-based teaching insocial work. The Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work,3 (2), 51–65.

SALEEBEY D (ed.) (1997), The Strengths Perspective in Social Work Practice. Longman, New York.

VON GLASERFELD E & SMOCK C (1974),Introduction. In: Smock CD & von Glaserfeld E (eds.)Epistemology and education: The implications ofradical constructivism for knowledge acquisition.Mathegenic Activities Program-Follow Through.Research Report no. 14, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.

WEICK A (1993), Reconstructing social workeducation. In: LAIRD J (ed.) Revisioning Social WorkEducation: a Social Constructivism Approach. TheHaworth Press, New York.

WEICK A, RAPP C, SULLIVAN WP & KISTHARDT W(1989), A strengths perspective for social workpractice. Social Work, 34 (6), 350–354.

WITKIN SL (1990), The implications of socialconstructionism for social work education. Journal ofTeaching in Social Work, 4 (2), 37–48.

Article accepted for publication June 2002.


experience-based learning and its relevance to social work practice

Documents