Appraising the Qualities of Social Work Students’ Theoretical Knowledge: A Qualitative Exploration

Abstract

Higher professional education aims to prepare students for entering practice with an adequate theoretical body of knowledge. In constructivist programmes, authentic learning contexts and self-directed learning are assumed to support knowledge learning and the transition from education to practice. Through an in-depth exploration, this case study aimed at defining and assessing the qualities of social work students’ theoretical knowledge at initial qualification. Participants were final-year bachelor’s students (n = 18) in a constructivist professional programme of social work. Students’ knowledge concerning a real-life practical case was elicited through an interview and a form of concept mapping. A six-step procedure was used for a qualitative appraisal of students’ knowledge with the assistance of seven expert teachers. During this procedure an instrument for analysing knowledge qualities was developed, comprising 13 aspects representing four features of expert knowledge: extent, depth, structure, and critical control. Results showed that 13 students received high appraisals for their knowledge extent and depth. Only 4 students received high appraisals for knowledge structure and critical control. 5 Students who received overall lower appraisals seemed inhibited to show their knowledge qualities by preoccupations with self-concerns about their own professional role. Conclusion is that the majority of students needs more learning support for knowledge structure and critical control than offered by their constructivist programme. Further research is needed into the personal factors that influence students’ theoretical knowledge learning and which knowledge qualities can be reached by young adults in a 4 year educational programme.

Appendices

Appendix A Criteria for Scoring Knowledge Aspects at Initial Qualification at bachelor’s Level and the Knowledge Features They Represent

Aspects	Criteria for a low appraisal	Criteria for a high appraisal	Knowledge feature
Professional language	Informal language, using lay terms only. Language is verbose (a long-winded story), and concrete only.	Formal language, using professional terms, including concepts and methodical terms. Language is concise, to the point, abstract as well as concrete.	Critical Control
(Number of) Explicit concepts	Less than 15 conceptual terms counted in case description.	More than 45 conceptual terms counted in case description.	Critical Control + Extent
Unarticulated knowledge	Actions seem random (trial and error). Inadequate actions and deliberations, revealing no underlying theoretical knowledge and an inadequate approach for the case. Unarticulated theoretical knowledge is recognisable in none or very few actions and deliberations.	Descriptions of adequate actions and deliberations, and a methodical approach reveal underlying theoretical knowledge, adequate for the case. Unarticulated theoretical knowledge is recognisable in most actions and deliberations.	Extent
(Range of) Situational facts	A small number of situational facts is described, limited to a narrow context (mostly of clients and oneself).	A large number of situational facts is described, comprising a broad context (including that of clients, oneself, one’s organisation and society).	Extent
(Professional) Relevance (of content)	Superficial, incoherent mentioning of elements with no explanations. Random actions, trial and error, without deliberations. Either too limited (leaving essentials out), or too extended (too many details).	In-depth, coherent mentioning of elements, with elaborate explanations. Deliberated, methodical actions, focused on goals. Focused on essential elements.	Extent + Depth
Completeness of narrative	Elements which are essential for understanding the situation-at-hand are left out of the description. For example: some of the relevant actors, parts of their situations and/or the broader context and/or relevant (methodical) actions are missing.	Rich description of the situation-at-hand, including	Extent + Depth
		- all relevant actors, their immediate situation and broader context;
		- all relevant (methodical) actions.
(Number of) Work levels	Only one work level (personal; organisational; societal) is mentioned and even this level is treated in a narrow way.	All three work levels (personal; organisational; societal) are mentioned and elaborated upon, with connections between the work levels.	Depth
Accounting for actions	Limited accounting for actions; little explicit mentioning of deliberations and/or explanations.	Actions are accounted for by explicit and elaborate deliberations and explanations.	Depth
(Differentiation in) Viewpoints	Only one actor’s viewpoint is elaborated upon, possibly the student’s own viewpoint. Only one way of looking at matters, no other viewpoints are considered.	Viewpoint of actors at all work levels are mentioned, considered and dealt with.	Depth
		Matters are looked at from different angles and viewpoints
Role awareness	No mentioning of reciprocal influences of own and other actor’s roles. Own role and influence on events or behaviour is not recognised, things happen to the student. Passive attitude, own role is not adjusted.	Systemic view on own and other actors’ roles involved in the case. Own role and influence on events or behaviour is recognised and accounted for. Active attitude and role adjustment when things don’t go as initially expected.	Depth
	No awareness of limitations of own tasks and responsibilities.	Awareness of own professional tasks and responsibilities and limitations.
Analytical perspective	Visual map is descriptive only, merely depicting actors and actions, without methodical connections between analysis, goals, actions and outcomes.	Visual map is descriptive and analytic: elements in the map are connected in a methodical way: feedback loops between analyses, goals, actions and outcomes. Connections are explained.	Structure
Complexity	Simple linear, temporal structure (‘and then, and then – story’). No feedback loops. Only one level (micro or meso) is depicted.	Complex, circular, systemic structure, with feedback loops. Map depicts an explanation of processes. Arrows depict reciprocal influences. Three work levels (personal; organisational; societal) are depicted and connected. The map contains the essence of the narrative and is an abstraction of the narrative.	Structure
	Arrows depict one-way influences only.
Completeness of structure	Important methodical elements and/or connections are missing. Only one-way connections. Connections between work levels are missing.	Important methodical elements are represented. Connections are reciprocal. All work levels (personal; organisational; societal) are mentioned and interconnected.	Structure

Appendix B Examples of Qualitative Analysis of Case-Description with References to Student Interview-Protocol

Examples 1 – Knowledge aspect: (Professional) Relevance of knowledge elements in case description
Student	Score	Summary	Experts’ quotations	Student-protocol
F	5	This student mentions very relevant facts, actions & choice deliberations and a background view on matters. While describing a cooperation problem, she does not lose sight of the project aims. Factors influencing the problem are mentioned, as well as her actions to improve cooperation. Although relevant concepts are not mentioned spontaneously, they are added after marking the structured domain knowledge list.	“At the end of her story, you can see she is aware of positions, roles, capacities, qualities, personalities and their influences.” “She knows what she is doing and what her aim is.”	“For in fact it is a group- and team-development process. … I could have paid more attention to that process in my coordinating role. That might have prevented the cooperation problem. If we had developed the feeling of being a group more than we did, like that we could have said anything to each other. But that also has to do with the relationships between people.”
			“She expresses her view on developmental aid: bringing a fishing-rod instead of a fish. I found that an important statement.”
				“I put her in charge at the day of the event, and in this role she could show her capabilities.”
				“Sustainability means that things should go on [after you leave]. ….My view on developmental aid is that, well, you could tell them what to do, but if you want them to do it on their own, or if you want them to develop, you have to give them the chance to do it themselves.”
K	3	This student mentions relevant facts (observations of the client), actions and choice deliberations, He has some strong views of his own on which actions to take and how, which are not wholly in accordance with the professional standards.	“His remark on the parent’s influence was a relevant observation.” “He has a clear idea of the process and the competencies he needs to fulfil his role.” “He did not agree with his supervisor on what action to take.” “He wants to work independently; he doesn’t seem to realise the importance of checking with a colleague [a protocol, which is important in this legal context].”	“This report has standard headings, and you have to insert specific data, and then you have to summarise and state your own judgment and advice.”
				“Yes, during the conversation [with the clients] I would have asked other things [other than my supervisor did], and maybe I would have pursued things further. For instance about the father smoking pot.” “I should have asked my supervisor to sign the report, but I didn’t.” “Our advice was not adopted [by the judge]; there are all kinds of rules, and it turned out our advise didn’t fit these rules exactly.”