Work integrated learning (WIL) “is a bridge for the student between the academic present and their professional future”, say Martin, Rees, and Edwards (2011: 7). It “is a structured educational strategy, which aims to merge theoretical knowledge gained in academic studies to workplace experiences”, seeking “to provide graduates with a comprehensive industry skill set desired by potential employers”.
Chilvers, Hay, Maidment, and Tudor (2021: 436) cite Martin et al. (2011) who derived through research, from retrospective feedback and documentation, a template of good WIL practice, comprising six key factors, namely (1) organization set up, (2) student preparation, (3) supervision, (4) competencies, (5) pedagogies, and (6) assessment. Chilvers et al. (2021) explore the alignment of social work field education and work-integrated learning (WIL) pedagogy, and made three improvement contributions with regard to the WIL best practice framework, namely (a) preplacement preparation of both students and the field; (b) professional supervision approaches; and (c) ‘inclusion of service user feedback within student assessment processes’. There is much to be gained from more active dialogue and closer relationship between field education and WIL practices they recommend.
Chilvers et al. (2021: 433) indicate that both “social work education and work-integrated learning share a long history of helping students connect with authentic work-related learning opportunities in the context of engagement and partnership with organizations outside of the educational institution, using onsite mentoring”. Chilvers et al. (2021: 436) use the metaphor of a family tree, with different branches, portraying the origins and lines of theory development, of field education in Social Work, and work-integrated learning (WIL) in several other disciplines. Field education and WIL have clearly developed along different lines of the same family tree, only recently beginning to integrate, they observe. However, there are further several other branches to the tree, such as clinical training in Medicine; internships in Psychology; articles in Law; etc. Knud Illeris (2002) sketch numerous contributors to the learning theoretical field in the form of a triangle, between the three dimensions of content, incentive, and interaction. The three sides respectively represent (a) developmental psychology—this side also depicts institutional learning, (b) activity theory, between cognition and society the learning organisation and practice learning, and (c) socialisation theory illustrated between society and emotion, also reflecting collective learning.
Chilvers et al. (2021: 433) examine the tensions associated with aligning social work and WIL. They explore the pedagogical similarities. They discuss key tools and processes for strengthening the quality of field education in social work pertaining student supervision and assessment. Chilvers et al. (2021: 437) offer the following contributions from field education with regard to WIL:
Preparation of students similar to the requirement set by the Social Workers Registration Board (SWRB)—"the regulatory body, which sets parameters around admission, governance, graduate attributes, staffing, stakeholder collaboration and field education”—that academic institutions must assess the professional suitability of applicants upon enrolment, which is generally repeated prior to each placement. The checks include criminal records, assessment of suitability to work with children and vulnerable adults, character references and health. A portfolio of evidence is accumulated to demonstrate the professional suitability of each graduate. Those students that do not meet the requirements are suitably counselled. In addition to checks, intentional preparation of students prior to placement is deemed an important component to clarify expectations of what might be encountered and to reduce anxiety. This includes clear articulation of the roles and responsibilities, and role playing. Attention is given to matching the fit between student and field educator.
Field educator preparation aims to provide clarity around four domains, namely placement administration; teaching and learning; assessment; and quality (p. 438). Relationships between institutions and field educators are dependent upon reciprocity and understanding of the roles and responsibilities. It is firmly believed that those who facilitate field education require specialist preparation and training
Professional supervision is deemed under-explored and inadequately-theorised in the body of literature pertaining WIL. In contrast, it is regarded a key contributor in social work education where students are supported during placement to engage in knowledge and skill development. Chilvers et al. (2021: 439) indicate that “development occurs through exposure to genuine practice opportunities with service users, by fostering critical reflection, providing feedback, and facilitating a broad range of experiential learning activities in a safe environment”. Students are socialised into a professional group by their field supervisors.
Student assessment with the view of demonstrating to the SWRB (the regulatory body) that core competencies were acquired during field placements. A broad range of forms evidence collection could be considered for WIL, such as direct observation of student practice, team meetings, consultations with agencies, written appraisals, case notes, client assessment reports, email communications, referral letters, and documentation associated with conducting research and policy or procedural development. Other ways of teaching, learning and assessment include “the use of process recordings to provide students with an opportunity for a detailed ‘think aloud’ about a particular interchange with a client or team member” (Chilvers et al. 2021: 441); the writing or presenting of a deconstruction of an event or interaction that happened; and compilation of a digital learning portfolio.
Chilvers, D., Hay, K., Maidment, J., & Tudor, R: Contribution of social work field education to WIL. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 2021, 22(4), 433-444. Electronically accessible from https://www.ijwil.org/files/IJWIL_22_4_433_444.pdf
Illeris, K. 2002. The three dimensions of learning. Malabar, Fla: Krieger
Martin, A., Rees, M., & Edwards, M. (2011a). Work integrated learning, a template for good practice: supervisors’ reflections. An Ako Aotearoa publication. Electronically accessible from: https://ako.ac.nz/assets/Knowledge-centre/RHPF-c43-Work-Integrated-Learning/RESEARCH-REPORT-Work-Integrated-Learning-A-Template-for-Good-Practice-Supervisors-Reflections.pdf
Comments