Social Work Education -A Developmental Perspective

Atalia Mosek, DSW

Miriam Ben-Oz, MSW

Motivation and Concerns about Social Work Education What kind of social worker does our program

produce? How does the process of socialization

develop: What sort of transformations, processing or refining occurs? What is acquired and what may be lost during this process?

What do professors and field supervisors which are the socialization agents contribute and how does it impact the educational process?

Research Questions

How do social work students become professionals?

Empirically, what are the components of the socialization process, and how do these, change over time for first, second, and third-year students, in comparison to their field supervisors and professors?

Method

Case study of a 3-year BSW program in Tel-Hai Academic College in Northern Israel.

Participants: A cohort of 89 students admitted in 2002 and followed for three years, along with 116 field supervisors and 27 professors.

Instruments

A pencil and paper chart, where participants indicated the seven preferred qualities and assets which are currently used for fulfilling their role.

Separate focus groups for students, professors and field supervisors were used to discuss, evaluate and reflect on the developmental process of socialization.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

professorsfield supervisorsthirdsecondfirst

Table 1: components of Social Work Education by Year and Role

use of self

skills

motivation

values

knowledge

experience

Results

Motivation

Philanthropic stance vs. social justice. Socialization agents with low motivation may

affect the willingness of beginning social workers to adjust to a low status profession.

Average 20% of total components

Experience

Least mentioned quality Differential focus between personal and

profession experience.

Average 8% of total components

Knowledge

34%

23%7%

19%

17%

Professors

Field Supervisors 

1st year

2nd year

3rd year

Average 13% of total components

Formal Knowledge and Practice Knowledge.Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning: Stages of Critical Knowledge Skills:1st Year: comprehension, 2nd Year: Application 3rd Year: Analysis, Field supervisors: SynthesisProfessors: Integration‘Knowing’ to informed ‘not knowing’ position.

Professional Skills

15%

31%

15%

24%

15%

Professors

Field Supervisors 

1st year

2nd year

3rd year

Transformation from self characteristics to setting boundaries and demonstrating professional skills. Movement from communication to relationship building skills.Skills are the domain of field supervisors

Average 22% of total components

Use of Self

16%

15%

14%28%

27%Professors

Field Supervisors 

1st year

2nd year

3rd year

Average 23% of total components

Use of Self

Conceptualized as a relationship-centered range of activities1st Year: openness, self awareness, being genuine and

responsible.2nd Year: fears, emotional arousal, doubts, self awareness,

creativity, openness, sensitivity, self confidence and belief in oneself.

3rd Year: self awareness, confidence, optimism, curiosity, genuineness and confusion.

Field supervisors: sensitivity, creativity, openness, responsibility and awareness.

Professors: openness and creativity.

Values

31%

25%

23%

10%11%

Professors

Field Supervisors 

1st year

2nd year

3rd year

Average 14% of total components

Social justice and personal care are the key ideological domains.Field supervisors stressed personal care while professors focused on social justice. Possible connections to career in casework versus group and community work, and psychotherapy rather than radical social action.

Reflections

The finding related to the substitution of a social justice vs. a philanthropic social motivation was unexpected. We wonder, how we can broaden the value base, navigate and emphasize this trend in line with the social change mission of the profession?

Reflections

Being a semi-profession, what is the appropriate framework for social work education: Is it an academic setting or a professional institute?

Finding that during the three year program, our students do not reach an integration between formal and practice knowledge, is this a function of a gradual learning process still in action, or a conflict between academic and practice knowledge?

Reflections

Can we expect the social work graduate to achieve an integrated identity upon completing the program?

During this research, we found that creating a professional identity involves a process of deconstructing and re-construction of the helping relationship which is still active and unresolved at the time of graduation.

Are we as educators responsible or able to control or enhance this process?

Thank you