assessing practice using the professional ......assessing practice using pcf guidance v-5 final 8...

Assessing practice using PCF guidance v-5 FINAL 8 October 2012 ©The College of Social Work 2012, 2-4 Cockspur Street London SW1Y 5BH

1

ASSESSING PRACTICE USING THE

PROFESSIONAL CAPABILITIES FRAMEWORK

GUIDANCE

OCTOBER 2012


2

This best practice guidance for the assessment of practice learning for social work at qualifying level using the PCF was produced with support from the

Higher Education Academy and The College of Social Work

It was written by Helen Keville

with contributions from Claire Barcham (TCSW), Hilary Burgess (HEA) and Professor Mark Doel

The guidance was developed from initial work undertaken for assessing the PCF, specifically for the Assessed and Supervised Year in Employment (ASYE) led by

Mary Keating with input from TCSW, Skills for Care, the Higher Education Academy and the DfE

We would also like to acknowledge the contributions from many people from both HE and social work practice who attended an initial seminar in London on 8 June 2012 or

who contributed their ideas electronically

Peter Castleton, University of Sheffield + Yorks/Humberside Jeannine Hughes, Northumbria University Clare Stone, University of Central Lancashire + Greater Lancs and Cumbria James Evans, Liverpool John Moores University + Merseyside and Cheshire Ros Hunt, University of Manchester Deborah Amas, Anglia Ruskin University Alison Paris, University of Birmingham Deborah Bardouille, Nottingham Trent University + E.Midlands Mel Hughes, Bournemouth University Adrian Vatcher, University of the West of England + Top SW region Andrew Linton, Greenwich University Martyn Higgins, London South Bank University Jane Lindsay, Kingston University + Pan London Group Mike Shapton, Coventry University Sarah Robinson, University of Kent PAP Chair Darlene Lamont, Westminster CC; SW London LR Network Julie Phillips, Bristol Council Frances Allerton, Somerset County Council Naomi Knott, Plymouth Council Joanne Solanki, Hampshire/IoW Council Liz Bord, Wiltshire County Council + Dorset, Poole, Bournemouth Chris Sherrington, Cumbria Council Denise Wright, Gloucestershire County Council Carol Dicken, Independent Practice Educator Karen Baird, Independent Practice Educator/E.Sussex Donna O’Neill, Learn to Care Allison Coleman, NOPT Caz Lawson, BASW Maggie Challis, TCSW Graeme Simpson, University of Wolverhampton Rachel Hek, University of Birmingham Clare Colton, Plymouth University David Nilsson, Middlesex University Sue Smith, Consultant


3

Assessing practice learning using the PCF

Guidance

Contents 1. Purpose of guidance 2. Standards from 2013: the PCF and the HCPC standards of proficiency 3. Holistic assessment – what is it? 4. Holistic assessment – how does it work in practice? 5. Recommended template for practice educator assessment 6. Presenting a sample of supporting evidence 7. Identifying and responding to special issues 8. Role of students 9. Role of practice educators 10. Role of tutors 11. Role of employers 12. Managing problems and the role of practice assessment panels 13. Relationship between academic and professional assessment of students 14. Grading practice learning 15. Role of partnerships 16. The Resource Bank

Types of evidence and key points

Managing problems and disputes 1. Purpose of guidance The purpose of this document is to provide detailed guidance on the assessment of social work students using the Professional Capabilities Framework (PCF) for all those involved in placements taking place from autumn 2013. In particular, it outlines the implications of holistic assessment for the decision making of practice educators. It builds on guidance previously issued by The College of Social Work (TCSW), which constitutes part of the expectations of programmes required for endorsement.1 TCSW expects programmes to use the PCF to assess practice and academic learning, and also expects that this will be undertaken holistically. The use of

1 Overview of new arrangements for practice learning; Use of the PCF and assessment criteria for practice learning; Placement criteria; Developing skills for practice and assessment of readiness for direct practice; Practice Educator Professional Standards (PEPS) and guidance. All available at http://www.collegeofsocialwork.org/resources/reform-resources/

http://www.collegeofsocialwork.org/resources/reform-resources/

http://www.collegeofsocialwork.org/uploadedFiles/TheCollege/_CollegeLibrary/Reform_resources/Practice-Learning(edref7).pdf

http://www.collegeofsocialwork.org/uploadedFiles/TheCollege/_CollegeLibrary/Reform_resources/Practice-Learning-Guidance(edref8).pdf

http://www.collegeofsocialwork.org/uploadedFiles/TheCollege/_CollegeLibrary/Reform_resources/PlacementCriteria(edref9).pdf

http://www.collegeofsocialwork.org/uploadedFiles/TheCollege/_CollegeLibrary/Reform_resources/DevelopingSkillsReadiness(edref10).pdf

http://www.collegeofsocialwork.org/uploadedFiles/TheCollege/_CollegeLibrary/Reform_resources/Practice-EducatorProfessional(edref11).pdf

http://www.collegeofsocialwork.org/resources/reform-resources/


4

the templates and suggested supporting evidence is not a requirement, but is presented as a model of good practice, that can be adapted and developed over the coming years. It should also enable better harmonisation of practice learning arrangements within and between regions in England, and provide congruence with new arrangements for the assessment of newly qualified social workers on the Assessed and Supported Year in Employment (ASYE). The introduction of the PCF provides the profession with an opportunity to build on existing good practice and to continue raising standards in the assessment of students. It also offers an opportunity to respond to some of the problems that have been identified in the current assessment framework, using the National Occupational Standards (NOS). Approaches to assessment vary considerably across the country, but some concerns include:

There should be a better balance between the evidence presented by students and the professional judgment of practice educators. Some practice educators have suggested that the present arrangements limit their scope to reach overarching decisions about students’ suitability for social work.

The conceptual framework of the NOS is based on elements or competencies, each one of which must be evidenced. This can create ‘gaps’ through which the assessment can fall, since judgments about overall capability may get lost where there is a micro focus on competence.

The amount of evidence produced for assessment can be unnecessarily burdensome, producing large and often unmanageable portfolios. The search for this evidence can sometimes drive the learning, rather than the evidence arising out of, and supporting, the learning.

2. Standards from 2013: the PCF and the HCPC standards of proficiency The qualifying level of the PCF incorporates and extends the standards of proficiency (SOPs) of the regulator, the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC). When the HCPC approves a programme, it will expect that the SOPs are achieved by all students completing the programme and receiving the final award. These are threshold standards, and their delivery and assessment should take place across the programme, in both education and placement settings. The HCPC also expects programmes to deliver the higher professional standards of the PCF, but considers the monitoring of these to be the responsibility of TCSW, as the professional body. This will be achieved via The College’s endorsement process. The PCF has been mapped to the SOPs2; similarly the SOPs have been mapped against the qualifying level of the PCF.3

2 http://www.hpc-uk.org/publications/standards/index.asp?id=569

3 Mapping of the PCF against HCPC standards of proficiency

http://www.hpc-uk.org/publications/standards/index.asp?id=569

http://www.collegeofsocialwork.org/uploadedFiles/TheCollege/_CollegeLibrary/Reform_resources/20thJune%20Final%20Mapping%20of%20the%20PCF%20against%20the%20SoPs(1).doc


5

3. Holistic assessment – what is it? Social work practice is a complex activity, requiring the interplay of knowledge, skills and values, as exemplified by the PCF. It comprises nine domains that are interdependent, not separate; they interact in professional practice, so there are links between the capabilities, and many circumstances will be relevant to more than one capability. Understanding what a social worker does will only be realised by taking into account all nine capabilities. Similarly, it is important that assessment of progression should be made holistically: neither the nine domains nor the capability statements set for each level should be evaluated in isolation from each other. Where learning or performance objectives are complex, Biggs suggests that:

‘…the judgment of the assessor is considered central in making a holistic decision about the quality of performance4.’

He explains that ‘we arrive at [such judgments] by understanding the whole in the light of the parts’, and that ‘the assessment is of the integrated action, not of the performance of each part.’ He argues that analytic marking (i.e. individuated marking of the parts) destroys the essential meaning of the task, although this does not mean that the detail of the parts is ignored. According to Doel et al5, achieving this hinges on the assessor understanding and integrating the differences between two approaches:

Partial: this means a detailed understanding of the various behavioural competences which constitute practice Contextual: at a local level, this means an awareness of how practice is influenced by time and place; and at a social level this is an understanding of structural influences on practice

Doel et al argue that there is a risk of swinging from one approach to another, thus creating a false dichotomy between the partial and the contextual.

‘To understand and undertake a holistic approach to assessment, the partial and the contextual must be considered together. In this way, we arrive at a synthesis of specific and general, discrete and dynamic. This is a truly holistic approach to assessment.' (Doel et al, 1992, p39).

Thus the skill of the practice educator lies in bringing together different levels of assessment to make a judgment.

4 Biggs, J (2007) Teaching for Quality Learning at University, Buckingham, SHRE and OU,

quoted in TCSW/Skills for Care/Higher Education Academy statement on holistic assessment. 5 Doel, M, Sawdon, C and Morrison, D (2002), Learning, Practice and Assessment, London: Jessica Kingsley.


6

'The ability to move…..from the partial to the contextual, and understand the relationship between the local and the structural, is what we understand as a holistic approach.' (Doel et al, op cit, p 34).

(A longer extract on holistic approaches to learning by Doel et al can be viewed HERE. The full text of the statement on holistic assessment can be viewed HERE.) This definition has implications for the way a holistic assessment is constructed, evidenced and recorded, and this is the focus of this guidance. It aims to build on existing good practice in a number of key ways:

The progress of students on any specific placement should be considered as part of their overall learning journey as professionals. Placements should build on students’ previous stage of learning, assess the progress that has occurred during the placement and then identify the students’ learning and development needs for the next stage6.

Assessment should be progressive and ongoing, to lead to a final assessment decision. This will result from the overall interaction between students and practice educators, and it should not be confined to particular points in the process. Students are effectively being assessed in relationship to the PCF all the time, and practice educators’ decisions can be based on any relevant evidence from the students’ time on placement, whilst taking into account their development and progress over the period of the placement.

The assessment should be supported by the sample of evidence presented, but not be driven by it. A range of different types of evidence, linked to the PCF, should be used. There is an important role for students as a source and provider of evidence, since it is essential that students understand what is required of them, and they are able to critically reflect on their practice in relation to the PCF; however, evidence will also come from other sources. The role of practice educators is to achieve a defendable judgment, drawing on all the evidence available. Holistic assessment should make it neither easier nor harder to fail a student. Practice educators will continue to back up their concerns with evidence – but there are now more overarching criteria for the concerns.

Ongoing assessment and, specifically, the use of a formal interim review should mean that practice educators can address and act on concerns prior to the final assessment point. They should have access to support from the tutor/HEI/partnership/practice assessment panel as soon as they

6 This might be achieved using a personal development plan/profile based on the PCF (see

Section 13),

http://www.collegeofsocialwork.org/uploadedFiles/TheCollege/_CollegeLibrary/Reform_resources/holistic-assessmentASYE1.pdf


7

have concerns. It also means that students can be given clear expectations with SMART7 objectives about how they can improve at an interim review (or earlier if needed).

4. Holistic assessment – how does it work in practice? The flow chart on the next page illustrates how the ongoing assessment of students by practice educators creates:

a continuous cycle of learning from practice throughout the placement where there are no concerns about students’ progress (left side of the chart)

a framework of support to practice educators and students alongside the cycle of learning from practice where there are concerns about students’ progress or the placement (right side of the chart)

7 Specific Measurable Attainable Relevant Timely.


8

PRACTICE ON PLACEMENT

Evidence linked to PCF

Support to PracticeEducator from

partnership- e.g. Early intervention, second opinion, tutor report

Practice Educator Concerns re; progress

Final Recommendation to :

Practice Assessment Panel or Exam Board for final decision

Practice Evidence

SUPERVISION SESSIONS

Capabilities Progress

Student or Tutor concerns about placement

Placement Agreement

(including learning needs of student) – completed prior to or at the start of the placement

Induction

Planning for placement

Information, Student access needs, CRB checks

Practice Educator ongoing assessment with evidence

to support

Final Assessment

Recommend: Pass/Fail/Defer

Learning needs for next stage identified

Student response to assessment

Student generated evidence

Practice Educatorgenerated or directed

evidence

No Concerns re; progress

Early Termination of placement with subsequent options e.g. New placement,

termination of studies

Interim review, normally with tutor visit

Continue cycle of positive learning

Practice Placement Cycle


9

5. Recommended template for practice educator assessment The use of the PCF to assess students’ practice in a holistic way provides an opportunity to build on existing approaches to the recording of assessments. A recommended template for assessment has been developed by stakeholders, working with TCSW and HEA, based on the following principles:

The record of assessment should be focused and concise, so suggested word limits have been provided for all sections.

A sample of evidence (and other supporting documents) should be provided.

The recommended template has three sections: Section 1: A summary of the outcome of the assessment and supporting evidence/other documents. Section 2: The assessment report, where practice educators record their overarching judgment of students, and students have an opportunity to respond. Section 3: Assessment of each domain, where practice educators provide additional information against the nine domains to support their overall assessment. Section 1 is a high level summary but may have been written last. Section 3 refers to capability in each domain separately, but may have been considered first, in order to clarify the practice educator’s thinking about the assessment presented in Section 2. The heart of the assessment is Section 2, where the practice educator’s overarching judgment is recorded, making reference to the student’s capability across all nine domains. In Section 3, the practice educator’s summary of the strengths and/or difficulties of the student in relation to each domain is recorded. This may be succinct if there are no concerns or more detailed if the student has not demonstrated the required level of proficiency/capability or similar. Each section provides information at a different level of detail, in order to bring together a coherent holistic assessment, but the section numbers do not necessarily represent the chronological stages of the assessment. The template can be found here. 6. Presenting a sample of supporting evidence In order to ensure that the sample of evidence used to support the assessment is appropriate in terms of quantity and quality, it is recommended that the following points are taken into account:

http://www.collegeofsocialwork.org/resources/reform-resources/?cm=rr


10

a) Focused: The focus will be on providing robust evidence to back up the practice educator’s assessment. b) Volume: A sample of evidence should be selected, that is effective and useful, creating a small portfolio. During a placement, a student will probably produce a lot of evidence, but it is not necessary to use all of this to support the assessment. Part of the discussion in supervision between the practice educator and student is likely to be about identifying the pieces of evidence to be submitted. Where there are concerns about a student’s progress, it may be important to increase the sample size. c) Linked to PCF: All evidence should be linked to the PCF. d) Types: A range of different types of evidence should be used. These are likely to fall into the following main categories:

Direct observation

Service user and carer feedback

Critical reflection of practice

Evidence from supervision

Evidence from work produced by students for agency

Other e.g. presentations, learning logs, feedback from other professionals, webcam, video recording, live supervision/teaching

It will be important that practice educators ensure that a broad range of evidence is included, and they may be responsible for directing students to provide specific types of evidence, as appropriate. Recommended minimum amounts: As well as ensuring a broad range of different types of evidence, practice educators are likely to need more than one example of some types to ensure their assessment is fully supported. For example, it may be important to demonstrate students’ progress through sampling the same kind of evidence (e.g. direct observation) at different points in a placement. As a minimum, there is likely to be:

Direct observation – at least two for the first and three for the last placement.

Service user and carer feedback – at least two per placement.

Critical reflection of practice –at least three per placement.

Evidence from supervision – an overview record of the supervision sessions that have taken place.

Evidence from work produced by students for agency – an anonymised summary8 of the work undertaken during the placement.

8 Feedback from stakeholders suggests that submitting actual agency records is generally not

effective as evidence, even if fully anonymised.


11

However, partnerships may require more examples of key types of evidence (e.g. direct observation), if this can be resourced. The Resource Bank (see below) provides additional information about the value and role of each type of evidence. It includes links to examples of documents that stakeholders have offered to make available to others, although these have not yet been adapted to reflect the PCF. It is hoped that as stakeholders develop new documents, they will continue to contribute them to the Resource Bank. 7. Identifying and responding to special issues The practice educator’s assessment should clearly identify any special factors that have affected the student’s progress. These are likely to fall into two categories:

Placement issues e.g. workload, factors relating to the practice educator or organisational factors.

Student issues e.g. health, personal circumstances, disability or dyslexia. These factors should be briefly outlined in Section 1 of the assessment report. If further information is appropriate, a report can be attached. For example, this might be an investigation into a complaint made by the student, or a formal assessment of a student’s disability needs. The implications of these factors for the final assessment of the student should be discussed by the practice educator in Section 2. Programmes/partnerships are likely to have policies/procedures in place for both of these areas but these may need to be reviewed. See the Resource Bank below for examples of existing policies that have been shared by stakeholders as a starting point. 8. Role of students Using and understanding the PCF is part of the students’ learning. It is important that they are able to work actively with the PCF themselves, both as students and, in the future, as professional social workers. This means that students should be responsible for identifying, discussing and presenting evidence of their achievements linked to the PCF to their practice educators and they should be able say why they believe it is sufficient and appropriate. However, assessment should not be limited to the evidence students produce. The role of practice educators is to give feedback on whether or not the students’ evidence is sufficient and to suggest other ways capability can be demonstrated, as necessary. Students need to be aware that they are being assessed on their performance for the whole time they are on the placement, and that the practice educators


12

are responsible for generating/receiving feedback and/or evidence from a range of sources for this purpose. 9. Role of practice educators Whilst practice educators will already have varying degrees of experience in the holistic assessment of students, the introduction of the PCF and the development of new methods of recording assessments may present fresh challenges. Practice educators may need to be offered further training and support, underpinned by the Practice Educator Professional Standards (PEPS), to clarify/highlight the links between the PEPS and the skills needed for holistic assessment. Assessing the capabilities of social work students is of great importance to the future of the profession and employers may need to give attention to how the practice educators’ own supervision might be used to support their role as teacher and assessor. For example, it may be appropriate for supervision to extend to critical reflection on the exercise of professional judgment. Practice educators will be able to use their work as practice educators to meet the Health and Care Professions Council’s (HCPC) re-registration requirements for CPD, using practice education as their ‘scope of practice’ (see PEPS Guidance9). This will provide an important means for practice educators to demonstrate the continuous improvement of their own skills. 10. Role of tutors Whilst the primary responsibility for assessing students is with the practice educators, tutors have an important role in providing support to both the practice educators and students during the placement. This might mean offering to provide a fresh perspective on any issues that have arisen, either by working with the practice educators to develop a robust assessment of the students’ abilities or by helping students deal with specific difficulties they feel are affecting their progress. Tutors should sign the completed assessment template, and there is space for them to record their comments if this is appropriate. Tutors should be informed of any decision to draw on additional support from the partnership/practice assessment panel or the use of dispute/complaints procedures (see flow chart p.8), but they could also be helpfully involved in the decision-making process leading up to this. 11. Role of employers All levels of the organisation hosting the placement need to be aware of the new arrangements for assessing practice using the PCF, with its emphasis on holistic assessment. This in turn should link to reviewing the role of the PCF in

9 Practice Educator Professional Standards (PEPS) and guidance

http://www.collegeofsocialwork.org/uploadedFiles/TheCollege/_CollegeLibrary/Reform_resources/Practice-EducatorProfessional(edref11).pdf


13

the professional development of all staff. This would include the team in which students are placed and the middle/senior management of the agency. It is particularly important that information is shared and the implications understood of:

the role of practice educators in making a holistic assessment

the CPD and supervision needs that may need to be addressed, in order to enable practice educators to perform this role at a high professional level

the potential contribution of others in the agency in giving feedback that may be part of the students’ assessment

the place of the PCF as a shared reference point about the abilities students should be able to demonstrate whilst on a first or last placement

The training and development staff of the agency should have a key role in understanding and disseminating these implications. 12. Managing problems and the role of practice assessment panels Giving greater emphasis to practice educators’ judgment will require a real shift in culture for some. Practice educators should not feel isolated in their decision making, nor should they feel they are in conflict with the practice assessment panel which may appear to have different views about the significance of mitigating facts for the suitability or otherwise of a student to practice. At the same time, it is important to acknowledge that practice educators (as with all HEI assessors) make recommendations to the Examinations Board and do not have the final say. Differences of opinion between practice educators and practice assessment panels can be minimised by making sure all those involved share an understanding of the standards against which students are being assessed and how the programme as a whole is constructed. The HCPC expects programmes to ensure practice educators understand the support available to them and the collaborative decision-making points open to them, so that they can feed in concerns about potentially failing students at an early stage. Exercising the judgment that a student has failed a placement will never be easy and practice educators should not undertake this in isolation. Programmes should prepare practice educators for this possibility and support them throughout the process. (SET 5.11) In the rare event of differences of opinion remaining, programmes should have in place a procedure for providing feedback to practice educators, if the practice assessment panel or Examinations Board makes a final decision that does not align with the recommendation of the practice educators. Where possible, local processes should be used to resolve any ongoing dispute, but if this fails, practice educators would have the option of making a complaint to the HCPC that the programme was not meeting the required standards.


14

Students invest a great deal of time and commitment into becoming a social worker and, with the increase in fees from 2012, failing a placement will have significant financial implications for them as well. Students may appeal against a decision on the grounds that the practice educator has made a wrong or poor judgment, so the evidence used by the practice educator must be both transparent and defendable. A strong framework of support should be developed around the placement to respond to the issues that can arise from holistic assessment of students – building, of course, on processes that are already in place under the current arrangements. This is illustrated in the flow chart (see p.8). Key in this should be:

Clarity about the evidence the practice educator is using, linked to the PCF, which is integrated into supervision and the ongoing assessment of the student.

The option of early intervention and additional support from the practice assessment panel or partnership, to address the concerns of a practice educator about a student’s progress during the placement, rather than waiting for a formal assessment point at the end.

A clear and transparent process for decision making and appeals, which places the practice educator’s judgment in the context of a consistent and moderated approach to decision making across the programme and/or partnership.

The opportunity for early termination of placements and/or exit routes from the programme as necessary.

The Resource Bank (see below) includes examples of existing schemes shared by stakeholders as a starting point, but all existing processes may need to be reviewed to ensure they provide a robust framework of support to the professional judgment exercised in holistic assessment linked to the PCF. . 13. Relationship between academic and professional assessment of students The expectations in relation to completion of the final placement have not been specified separately from those expected at the end of the qualifying programme as a whole. Assessment of students’ performance and learning on placement is likely to form a substantial part of the final assessment using the PCF, since in most programmes the end of the placement will be very close to the end of the programme. However passing the last placement will not in itself provide sufficient evidence of having met the PCF capabilities at qualifying level as a whole. Similarly, the HCPC expects SOPs to have been achieved and assessed through work across the programme, in both education and placement settings. The communication between practice educator, tutor and student is central to the integration of practice with academic or university-based learning. Holistic assessment focuses on professional assessment of capability, carried out by


15

the practice educator, while the academic tutor can provide an external sounding board for the practice educator and/or the student, enabling links to be made to other modules and learning on the programme and through moderation of standards. Students’ development can be supported by mechanisms such as personal learning profiles. The PCF provides a means by which information about students’ previous learning can be collated and then communicated to the practice educator. Some programmes already use a personal development or learning profile to record and plan students’ work and development throughout a programme; consideration could be given to adapting this to reflect progression against the PCF, and sharing information between university and placement based learning. Co-marked written assignments (see next section and the Resource Bank) are another means of integrating the practice and academic elements, in order to arrive at a shared assessment of students’ overall competence. 14. Grading practice learning Grading practice is a controversial area. At present the grading of actual practice by practice educators is not a route that is recommended, given the need to develop the skills of many practice educators and their confidence in making judgments (this should take place gradually as the PEPS are implemented). However many programmes currently link a written assignment to the practice module, and this provides a means of grading the module, as well as ensuring that students work in depth at linking theory, research and knowledge with reflective practice. Commonly this is an extended case study of 3,000–6,000 words (depending on whether it is the first or last placement and whether it is for an undergraduate or postgraduate programme). In some programmes this is marked by academic tutors, in others jointly by a tutor and the practice educator. HEIs who do not currently use this approach may wish to consider it. 15. Role of partnerships Partnerships have a key role to play in developing the holistic assessment of practice learning, alongside other roles in the implementation of reforms to social work and raising standards of professional practice in social work. TCSW has produced a ‘health check’ for partnerships, which outlines the tasks they may have to consider, review or undertake in response to the SWRB reforms. With regard to holistic assessment, the ‘health check’ suggests partnerships should consider whether they have:

developed a template for recording holistic assessment for use in the programme, partnership and possibly sub-region or region

planned and implemented CPD training for practice educators, to ensure they have skills and confidence in the holistic assessment of practice, use of evidence and effective recording in the new assessment template


16

reviewed, and if necessary, improved processes dealing with difficulties in placements, including:

early interventions/support for the practice educator/student clear criteria for failing students and placements transparent decision making

communicated information about holistic assessment to senior managers and teams in agencies providing placements to their partnership

The full ‘health check’ for partnerships can be viewed here.

http://www.collegeofsocialwork.org/uploadedFiles/TheCollege/Resources/par8%20Health%20Check%20for%20organisations%20working%20in%20partnership%20Sept%202012_proofed.pdf


17

16. The Resource Bank The Resource Bank, hosted by SWAPbox (http://www.swapbox.ac.uk/view/groups/31.html) provides examples of documents that stakeholders have offered to make available to others, although these have not yet been adapted to reflect the PCF. It is hoped that as stakeholders develop new documents, they will continue to contribute them to the Resource Bank. It also provides examples of existing schemes of managing problems and disputes. These have been shared by stakeholders as a starting point, but all existing processes may need to be reviewed to ensure they provide a robust framework of support to the professional judgment exercised in holistic assessment linked to the PCF. Additional key points about the different types of evidence are summarised below, with links to the shared documents on SWAPbox. It is NOT necessary to be registered with SWAPbox to access the Resource Bank – the links will take you directly to the documents. Alternatively, you can access them via the SWAPbox website (http://swapbox.ac.uk/). The documents are in a group called ‘assessing practice learning’, which can be found by browsing ‘groups’. Again, it is not necessary to register with the site to view the documents using this method.

Types of evidence and key points Documents available at SWAPbox

Direct observation

A minimum of two for the first and three for the last placement is recommended. However, as this is a valuable source of evidence, programmes may require more than this, especially in the last placement.

All observations should be recorded with clear objectives.

Formal, planned direct observations should take place at least once in every placement. They should be recorded across three stages:

o A record by students of how they prepared for the session o The observation of the session itself, with the skills and knowledge demonstrated,

linked back to the PCF o A self evaluation by students after the session

This record should form the basis of the feedback/assessment session between practice

Birmingham – Guidance and form to record direct observation http://www.swapbox.ac.uk/1219/ Plymouth – Guidance and form to record direct observation http://www.swapbox.ac.uk/1222/ Bournemouth – Guidance and form to record direct observation http://www.swapbox.ac.uk/1220/ Live Teaching - Extract from Doel, M et al (2010)

http://www.swapbox.ac.uk/view/groups/31.html

http://swapbox.ac.uk/

http://www.swapbox.ac.uk/1219/




18

educators and students which follows.

All feedback must be linked to relevant domain and level of the PCF.

Where possible, feedback from the service user should also be obtained after the session.

Alternative options/models could be considered such as: o whole/half day direct observation where practice educators shadow students. This

would give practice educators chance to assess key, overarching skills e.g. communication, interpersonal skills. It might also give off-site practice educators chance to understand the dynamics and work of a team, thus reducing their isolation from their students’ experience. Service user consent would need to be sought carefully in these circumstances

o Live teaching where practice educators co-work with the students and teach them live in the company of service users. This gives students the chance to learn from the modelling of practice educators, receive immediate feedback and support, and later be observed by the practice educators taking an increasing role in leading the intervention

Some observations could exclude service users e.g. team meetings, presentations, professional meetings.

Other professionals such as the on-site supervisor, team manager, or health professionals could be asked to undertake observations, thus increasing the perspectives on students. But this option should be used sparingly, as the practice educators must still have the opportunity to assess progress during a placement.

Social Work Placements: A traveller’s guide, Abingdon: Routledge, pp 64–70 http://www.swapbox.ac.uk/1223/

Service user and carer feedback

Service user and carer feedback should be integrated into the whole assessment process but at least two pieces of evidence should be included for each placement.

The format used should be appropriate to the needs and styles of the service users and carers involved.

A range of strategies should be used.

Students could devise their own tools to gain service user and carer feedback and this could be part of the assessment.

Birmingham – Service user and carer feedback http://www.swapbox.ac.uk/1228/ Plymouth – Service user and carer feedback good practice guidelines http://www.swapbox.ac.uk/1227/





19

Critical reflection of practice

A minimum of three exercises requiring students to use critically reflective analysis of practice are recommended for each placement, as these can be essentials tools for students’ learning and development.

Students can be asked to refer explicitly to the nine domains in a column on the right hand side of the page to ensure integration with the PCF.

Such analysis will be part of supervision, but students should also provide written evidence. Suggested mechanisms were:

o Student’s Analysis of Practice o Significant Learning Event o Critical Incident Analysis o Reflective Analysis of Practice

Other options include academic assignments linked to the placement module, ensuring application of a theory to a case, alongside critical analysis of practice. They may be marked by tutors and/or practice educators. Such assignments may be used towards grading the practice learning module.

Birmingham – Critical reflection of learning on placement http://www.swapbox.ac.uk/1224/ Bournemouth – Practice analyses http://www.swapbox.ac.uk/1226/ Bournemouth – Co-marked written assignment http://www.swapbox.ac.uk/1225/

Evidence from supervision

Supervision is an important source of evidence. However, supervision notes belong to the agency and cannot normally be shared due to professional confidentiality.

It may be appropriate to submit relevant extracts from supervision notes, if they are specifically referred to by the practice educators in their assessment, but they must be fully anonymised in relation to service users and carers. Alternatively, reflective supervision notes could be maintained separately to agency records and included in the evidence.

Information about the supervision that has taken place can be included as evidence. This includes:

o Number of supervision sessions o Record of attendance o Learning/supervision agreement

Birmingham – Record of supervision http://www.swapbox.ac.uk/1230/






20

Practice educators should ensure that information relevant to students’ progress is recorded in supervision notes e.g. quality and effectiveness of students’ reflection, information about case discussions and actions planned.

Practice educators can then refer to the content of the notes in their assessment as appropriate – either as evidence of good progress or concerns.

Students may also want to refer to the content of the notes if they experience any problems in the placement.

Evidence from work produced by students for agency

The work produced by students while on placement is another source of important evidence. This might be assessments, agency records, or written communication to service users. However, these documents belong to the agency, and cannot be used as evidence without permission, and have to be completely anonymised before they can be submitted as supporting evidence.

Anonymous summaries describing the cases students have undertaken while on placement can be included as evidence.

Practice educators can refer to specific pieces of work produced by students for the agency as part of their assessment.

This could be supported by separate pieces of work where students critically reflect on the cases they have undertaken on the placement. (See critical reflection on practice above.)

Birmingham – Record of work undertaken http://www.swapbox.ac.uk/1231/ Birmingham – Work summary http://www.swapbox.ac.uk/1232/ Plymouth – Record of work undertaken http://www.swapbox.ac.uk/1235/ Bournemouth – Summary of work undertaken during the placement http://www.swapbox.ac.uk/1233/

Other

Other types of evidence may be considered. This opens up the possibility of introducing innovative approaches such as presentations, video recording or the use of web cams.

Learning logs or formats for sharing learning needs/progress between placements or in a consistent way in a region may also be helpful.

Plymouth – Required portfolio content, including blogging http://www.swapbox.ac.uk/1244/ Pan London – student learning profile http://www.swapbox.ac.uk/1242/ Bournemouth – presentation http://www.swapbox.ac.uk/1256/









21

Managing problems and disputes, Links and documents

See Sections 4, 12 and 14 of this guidance. Partnerships may need to review their procedures for supporting practice educators to make judgments about students. These examples have been provided as a starting point.

Birmingham – Disputes http://www.swapbox.ac.uk/1253/ Birmingham – Action plan concerns http://www.swapbox.ac.uk/1254/ Plymouth – Where there are difficulties http://www.swapbox.ac.uk/1255/ Bristol – Suitability procedures http://www.swapbox.ac.uk/1276/






22

Extract from Doel, M., Sawdon, C. and Morrison, D. (2002), Learning, Practice and Assessment, London: Jessica Kingsley, pp. 28–39.

PARTIAL APPROACHES TO LEARNING There are many ways in which we can construct the discussion about how practice can be learned, but this often hinges around the differences between two approaches. One is based on a detailed understanding of the various behavioural competences which constitute practice, and the other takes a broad view of the relationship between the various processes and systems which have an impact on practice. We will refer to the former approach as partial and the latter as holistic. How do you take your tea? Perhaps we can gain more understanding of these two approaches by exploring their application in a different context altogether. From time to time during Part 1, we will ask you to step outside the world of social and health services and consider developments in The Training Organisation for Tea-Making (TOTEM). Formerly the Central Council for Education and Training in Tea-Making, TOTEM has been established to develop good practice in tea-making, and has decided that the best way to help student tea-makers develop sound practice is to consider the question ‘what makes for a good cup of tea?’ The answer to this simple question should also provide guidance about how to assess the learner as a tea-maker. If we know what a good cup of tea is, we can then know whether tea-making students are able to make a professional cup of tea sufficient for the award of the DipTM. TOTEM sent the question ‘what makes for a good cup of tea?’ out for consultation and began to categorise the responses along various criteria. For example:

Some people liked their tea milky, others with just a drop, yet others with none.

Some took sugar, honey or other sweeteners, yet others took no sweeteners.

Some liked it strong, others weak, and so on.

These various preferences help to develop indicators to map a good cup of tea. So, a criterion of ‘sweetness’ covers those who would include sugar and those who would not. ‘Strength’, ‘milkiness’, ‘brewing time’, and other criteria could be similarly developed, like pieces in a jigsaw which together make up a picture of the factors which contribute to TOTEM’s understanding of a good cup of tea. Identifying the various elements which constitute a good cup of tea enables TOTEM to partialise something which is complex. This, in turn, enables fledgling tea-makers to take a step by step approach to develop their tea-


23

making abilities. The consultation exercise has also alerted TOTEM to the necessary subjectivity of ‘a good cup of tea’, and the fact that one person’s nectar is another’s dishwater. Each element could be presented as a continuum, and an individual’s preference mapped along each one. Fig 1 Learning to make a good cup of

tea To summarise, partial approaches are those which break down a complex activity into smaller parts to help us understand these separate elements and learn them more easily. It has its philosophical roots in Cartesian dualism, with its notion of separateness, otherness and discrete identities. In more recent years, behavioural psychology has developed methods of learning, unlearning and re-learning using partial approaches. We have considered the partial approach to learning and illustrated it with reference to the way a student might learn professional tea-making. What, then, do we understand by holistic approaches to learning? HOLISTIC APPROACHES TO LEARNING Law of excluded middle The dominant model of western philosophy and thought tends to dichotomy, that is to see the world in terms of opposites: as this or that; black or white;

milkin

ess

strength

sweetness ?

brewing time

water

quality

temperature

crockery

Leaf type


24

good or evil. Indeed, when knowledge is digitalised it is reduced to either ‘0’ or ‘1’. Language reinforces this sense of either/or: something is either here or there; either night or day; all was dark and then there was light. In philosophic logic this has been codified as the law of excluded middle, ‘which states that a proposition must be either true or false, or, in other words, that it is impossible that a proposition and its contradictory should neither of them be true’ or, indeed, both be true (Ayer, 1946: 76). Either P or not P (stage 1 of Figure 2). This polarised thinking is widespread. When considering what makes us who we are, there is a polarity between nature or nurture - explaining our makeup in terms of genetic, biological determinants on the one hand, or the products of social and environmental influences on the other. In fields of intellectual enquiry, there is a similar opposition, such as quantitative vs. qualitative in research activity; lateral or linear in ways of thinking. The bipolar approach is evident in writings about professional practice; social work as ‘a rational-technical activity or a practical-moral one’ (Parton, 2000: 452), practitioners as positivist or anti-reductionist (Sibeon, 1999). Partial approaches and holistic approaches are similarly presented as separate camps. Like two football clubs, United or City, there are strong pressures to decide which group of supporters to join, rallying round the red or the blue. A ‘continuum’ approach In the Tea-Making analogy, we begin to see how the act of piecing together the jigsaw moves us towards a more complete picture of the skills needed to learn how to make tea. Each piece on its own is a partial understanding of the process, yet taken together we get a better understanding of the whole. This leads us to a softening of the polar opposites we described earlier as P or -P. Instead, we begin to conceptualise approaches to learning as perhaps tending to partial or tending to holistic. They do not have to be either partial or holistic, but lie somewhere along a continuum (stage 2 of Figure 2). Using the notion of a continuum, we can identify shades of grey between black and white, dawn and dusk between night and day. There are approaches to learning practice which are more partial, and others which are more holistic. Perhaps we can bring together the elements of a good cup tea (the jigsaw pieces) to move towards a view of the whole picture. Contextualising The notion of a continuum is more satisfying because it is dynamic and allows for a more subtle shading of the two approaches. Nevertheless, the continuum continues to reinforce the view of two approaches which are, essentially, opposites. The continuum is more subtle, yet still fails to do justice to the complexity of professional practice and the ways in which it can be learned.


25


26

Figure 2 Reframing our understanding of holistic

Stage 1 – the either/or dichotomy: Partial or –Partial P or –P Stage 2 – two ends of continuum partial holistic Stage 3 – an integrated approach

Let us return to the tea-making analogy to expand on this. We began to understand tea-making by looking at the elements which make ‘a good cup of tea’ and we moved on from a series of mechanistic skills to an understanding of how they associate with each other. We could encourage the student of tea-making to see these separate elements as criteria, i.e. factors which they must consider when understanding the idea of a good cup of tea, thus providing a rudimentary framework for the student’s learning. The student tea-maker has been focusing on issues intrinsic to the cup of tea; in other words, the focus has been the cup of tea itself, its temperature, milkiness, sweetness, etc. However, there are also factors extrinsic to the cup of tea, which have a bearing on the understanding. These factors might be

Partial

Contextual

I L

C

O

S T

H

I


27

very significant, perhaps more so than the ones we previously identified. For example, the company, the time of day it is drunk, who makes it, and the occasion on which it is taken, may all be significant. All of these factors, and more, can influence the tea-drinker’s view of quality when describing the cup of tea, though none of them are related to what goes into the cup. Some of these environmental factors will be within the tea-maker’s influence, others not. The tea-drinkers have much to contribute to the tea-maker’s understanding of all of these intrinsic and extrinsic elements. These tea-users can help to add further pieces to the jigsaw. There may also be factors which few really understand or identify but which, nevertheless, are very significant in the quality of the cup of tea (the quality of the water might be rarely identified, yet could be crucial to the taste of a delicate drink like tea). Although the widening of our enquiry to the local context helps to satisfy a need for the broader picture, we cannot yet say that we have arrived at a complete picture of ‘what makes a good cup of tea’. For example, what assumptions lie behind the very act of learning how to make tea? ‘A good cup of tea’ is a commonplace phrase in England, and it carries many assumptions. At a simple level it assumes ‘a cup’, when indeed a mug, pot or samovar may be a more favoured description. At a more fundamental level, you may have no view at all about a good cup of tea because you do not drink tea. For cultural, aesthetic or other reasons, the drinking of tea is not an experience you can relate to. You are not a tea-drinker and do not wish to be one. The dominant group may be tea-drinkers, but it would be oppressive to assume that there is a universal tea-drinking experience. Moreover, we have focused on the tea-drinker and the tea-maker without a consideration of the wider tea economy. Would it be possible to speak of a ‘good’ cup of tea without considering the relationships between tea-growers, tea-buyers and tea-sellers? How ethical are the policies which have made the cup of tea possible? If a cup of tea is made competently but it has been brewed on the back of exploitative trade practices, to what extent can this be considered a ‘good’ cup of tea? We can see how the relatively simple question of how we might educate a person in the art and science of tea-making has revealed the complexity of levels to take into account when we consider education for professional practice. One level of understanding is gained by partialising a complex activity into its different and separate parts. This helps to acquire skills which improve performance. However, our understanding is broadened by considering the context of practice. At a local level, the factors are influenced by time and place, such as the mood of the tea-drinker and the company in which it is taken. At a social level, a structural analysis allows us to go deeper as well as broader. This ensures that the education of professionals includes the psychological and socio-political contexts. Reframing our understanding of holistic


28

It is said that because Louis Pasteur spent so much of his time peering down a microscope at the particles which make up our world, he became somewhat obsessed with the smallness of life and so troubled by the multitudes of microbes he found that he used to break up his food and crumble the bread on his plate as a part of his obsessive search. We might consider the moral of the story to be that Pasteur lost the plot; focusing on the microworld led him to forget the meaning of food, its appearance, its taste, and the social significance of taking a meal. However, what the story tells us is that we should know what our purpose is. If we want to isolate the virulent microbe which is causing lethal food poisoning we surely need to ‘crumble the food’ and analyse it in fine detail. However, we will find neither the taste of the food nor the social effects of a meal taken with good company, by breaking it into crumbs. We need to know how to do both. The ability to move between these various levels, from the partial to the context, and understand the relationship between the local and the structural, is what we understand as a holistic approach. It is misguided, therefore, to consider a holistic approach as ‘the opposite’ of a partial one. It is better, but still inadequate, to see a holistic approach as in a continuum with a partial approach. A holistic approach is, therefore, not one which is in opposition to a partial approach, but one which encompasses it. Partial approaches and contextual approaches are different facets of the same sphere. In this analysis, a holistic approach is holistic precisely because it envelops both the partial and the contextual elements. The holistic approach is not a choice but an absolute essential for professional learning and practice; partial approaches are, paradoxically, an essential ingredient of holism. ASSESSING PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE There are many reasons why practice must be assessed and the most important is protection for service users. As a minimum, assessment is important in order to select out those people who are unsuitable and who might engage in the kind of dangerous practices identified by Thompson (2000: 129-34): routinised; defensive; defeatist; chaotic; and oppressive. However, this is only a minimum. People have a right to expect fine services, and assessment is necessary to test for the presence of good practices, not simply the absence of poor ones. Earlier, we came to an understanding that deciding what is knowledge for professional practice is not a neutral activity. Assessment, too, is a highly political area. As well as the laudable aim of protecting service users, ‘an important aspect of professional power and occupational control is the way in which access to and standards of an occupation are controlled’ (Payne, 1996: 153). Professions have a vested interest in maintaining their power and credibility, and the doors to some professions swing more readily open for certain social groups than others. Rigorous assessment is also part and


29

parcel of the competition for territory amongst and between different occupational groupings. In addition to gatekeeping entry to the profession, assessment is necessary to maintaining the standards beyond the point of qualification. In social work and social care, the advent of a General Social Care Council and the slow but steady advance of post-qualifying and advanced awards in social work all herald a new and more systematic approach to continuing professional development, and with it continuing professional assessment. Those who manage frontline workers have a stake in the assessment of practice beyond the point of qualification, and those who define the criteria for assessment and inspection are in a powerful position of trust. We should expect safeguards, too, that managerial assessments focus properly on dangerous practices such as routinised and defeatist work, and not on practitioners who are rightly critical of poor agency policies or inept managerial practices. Partial approaches to assessment Good practice is increasingly being described in terms of competence. Considerable licence is taken with this word (O’Hagen, 1996), and the general notion of competent practice is usually dissected into smaller parts, referred to as competencies or characteristics (ENB, 1994). Competency-based training may have its origins in performance-based teacher education in America in the 1960s (Velde, 1999), but it is during the 1990s that it has become pre-eminent, in part a reaction to the almost cussed refusal of the professions over many years to demystify the processes of becoming a professional practitioner. There are obvious attractions to partialising assessment by developing competencies, not least the scope for incremental assessment, in which learners can acquire credit by taking one ‘module’ of learning at a time. As each competency is learned, so can it be assessed, step by step. The specific and discrete behavioural indicators, or learning outcomes, which have come to characterise the competency approach, enable independent others to observe whether these behaviours have been achieved or not. Competencies give assessor and assessed a sense (or is it an illusion?) of objectivity. Where training is designed to produce conformity, perhaps to ensure safety in an industrial setting, a competency approach is likely to have a central place. Mulcahy (2000: 261) refers to this as an instructional model of competency, where training ‘involves bringing someone or something to a desired standard or state’. Competency approaches have much in common, therefore, with earlier industrial models such as apprenticeship (‘sitting by Nellie’), with Nellie now replaced by a list of outcome indicators. The partial approach to assessment has its difficulties. Is competence a behaviour, an outcome, or a personal attribute? (Velde, 1999). How far do we


30

reduce the skills, knowledge and values of practice; to the smallest behavioural tic? The reductivist approach can lead to pasteurised practice, in which events are crumbled to the extent that their meaning and essence are lost. Efforts to re-capture this sense of the whole can lead to comprehensive but burdensome bullet points of dotted ‘i’s and crossed ‘t’s. ‘In competency-based training, assessment tends to highlight the readily measurable, over-emphasising details, rather than promoting the essential aspects of competence’ (Velde, 1999: 442). The competency approach is of less value when we move towards what Mulcahy (2000) terms the educational model, where the focus is more on contexts than content, more on fluid, dynamic situations than fixed certainties. Moreover, the supposed objectivity of competency models has also been called into question, with a view that ‘competence can only be inferred rather than observed’ (Jones and Joss, 1995: 20). Clearly, there are different perspectives about what should or should not be considered a competency and how it should be assessed, and the power to decide what is competent practice and how it will be assessed is increasingly under centralised control and linked to notions of employability (Gibbs, 2000), which we explore in Part 3. By keeping its eye so fixedly on the ball, the competency model is in danger of forgetting the players, the spectators and the game itself. HOLISTIC APPROACHES TO ASSESSMENT We have seen that partial approaches to assessment reduce good practice to its constituent elements, with each aspect examined on its own merits. In place of general judgments about ‘pass’ or ‘fail’, a partial assessment enables a consideration of which parts of the person’s practice are competent and why, and which are not yet competent, and what specific improvements are needed. The partial approach to assessment struggles to encompass the whole. Put crudely, it might count and measure every fragment of a cup and find each adequate, yet fail to notice that these broken pieces are not ‘a cup’. As with learning, so assessment of practice must consider context. Professional practice relies on ‘dynamic competence’, the ability to integrate skills, theory and values (Manor, 2000: 209). This integration has been referred to as artistry, the art of inventing on the spot (Schon, 1992). A rounded assessment of professional talents requires us to find ways of assessing these kinds of creative qualities, too. To understand and undertake a holistic approach to assessment, the partial and the contextual must be considered together, in parallel with the process we described earlier in relation to holistic approaches to learning (Figure 1.4). In this way, we arrive at a synthesis of specific and general, discrete and dynamic. This is a truly holistic approach to assessment, and we will explore how this might be achieved later, with a complete exemplar of this approach presented in Part 2 [of the book from which this extract is taken].


31