Improving the quality of social work field education: The efficacy of an analysis using Cultural-Historical Activity Theory

Dominic Chilvers

Abstract


Field education is recognised as a critical element in the preparation of social workers for competent practice. It is also acknowledged as a major pressure point in the provision of social work education in Aotearoa New Zealand. The pressures appear to be related to concerns about quality, consistent standards and the preparation of field educators who often lack the confidence or specialised knowledge and pedagogical skills required to facilitate student learning in the field. Attempts to address these concerns have generally focused on either local or national training programmes based on traditional learning theories. This article proposes that Cultural-Historical Activity Theory offers an alternative approach to the challenge of quality in field education and provides a basic description of the model. In particular, the analytical tools developed by Yrjö Engeström, which focus on the exploitation of tensions and contradictions in activity systems, are discussed as a useful strategy to bring about transformation. The article suggests that Cultural-Historical Activity Theory has been underutilised in social work research, but has the potential to open up rich veins of enquiry related to a range of concerns. 


Keywords


social work education; field education; cultural-historical activity theory;

Full Text:

PDF

References


Avis, J. (2009). Transformation or transformism: Engeström’s version of activity theory? Educational Review, 61(2), 151-165.

Bellinger, A. (2010). Studying the landscape: Practice learning for social work reconsidered. Social Work Education, 29(6), 599-615.

Billett, S. (2007). Including the missing subject - Placing the personal within the community. In J. Hughes, N. Jewson, & L. Unwin (Eds.) Communities of practice - Critical perspectives, pp. 55-67. Abingdon: Routledge.

Blackler, F., & Regan, S. (2009). Intentionality, agency, change: Practice theory and management. Management Learning, 40(2), 161-176.

Daniels, H. (2001). Vygotsky and pedogogy. London: Routledge Falmer.

Daniels, H. (2004). Cultural-Historical Activity Theory and professional learning. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 51(2), 185-200.

Edwards, A. (2007). Working collaboratively to build resilience: A CHAT approach. Social Policy and Society, 6(2), 255-264.

Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.

Engeström, Y. (2000). Activity Theory as a framework for analyzing and redesigning work. Ergonomics, 43(7), 960-974.

Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133-156.

Engeström, Y., & Miettinen, R. (1999). Introduction. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R-L. Punamaki (Eds.). Perspec- tives on Activity Theory (pp. 1-16). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Fernandez, E. (1998). Student perceptions of satisfaction with practicum learning. Social Work Education, 17(2), 173-201.

Fernandez, E. (2003). Promoting teaching competence in field education. Women in Welfare Education, 6, 103-129.

Feryok, A. (2009). Activity Theory, imitation and their role in teacher development. Language Teaching Research, 13(3), 279-299.

Fortune, A. & Abramson, J. (1993). Predictors of satisfaction with field practicum among social work students. The Clinical Supervisor, 11(1), 95-111.

Fortune, A., McCarthy, M. & Abramson, J. (2001). Student learning processes in field education: Relationship of learning activities to quality of field instruction, satisfaction, and performance among MSW students. Journal of Social Work Education, 37(1), 111-124.

Fuller, A. (2007). Critiquing theories of learning and communities of practice. In J. Hughes, N. Jewson, & L. Unwin. Communities of practice: Critical perspectives. Abingdon: Routledge.

Giest, H. (2008). The formation experiment in the age of hypermedia and distance learning. In B. van Oers, W. Wardekker, E. Elbers, & R. van der Veer (Eds.). The transformation of learning: Advances in cultural historical activity theory (pp. 100-126). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Guldberg, K. (2010). Using the lenses of socio-cultural activity theory and communities of practice to guide an empirical study. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfield, V. Hodgson, C. Jones, M. De Last, D. McConnell, & T. Ryberg (Eds.). Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Networked Learning (pp.168-175). Lancaster: University of Lancaster.

Knight, C. (1996). A study of MSW and BSW students’ perceptions of their field instructors. Journal of Social Work Education, 32(3), 399-414.

Kollias, V., Mamalougos, N., Vamvakoussi, X., Lakkala, M., & Vosniadou, S. (2005). Teachers’ attitudes to and beliefs about web-based collaborative learning environments in the context of an international implementation. Computers and Education, 45(3), 295-315.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning” Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Leadbetter, J. (2008). Learning in and for interagency working: Making links between practice development and structured reflection. Learning in Health and Social Care, 7(4), 198-208.

Letorski, V., A. (2004) The Activity Approach: Death or rebirth? Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 42(2), 12-29.

Maidment, J. (2000). Methods used to teach social work students in the field: A research report from New Zealand. Social Work Education, 19(2), 145-154.

Mørck, L. L. (2011). Studying empowerment in a socially and ethnically diverse social work community in Copenhagen, Denmark. ETHOS, 39(1), 115-137.

Murphy, E., & Rodriguez-Manzanares, M. (2008). Using activity theory and its principles of contradictions to guide research in educational technology. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(4), 442-457.

Nissen, M. (2004). Wild objectification: Social work as object. Outlines, 1, 73-89.

Nissen, M. (2009). Objectification and prototype. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 6, 67-87.

Ryle, A. (1999) Object relations theory and activity theory: A proposed link by way of the procedural sequence model. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R-L. Punamaki (Eds.). Perspectives on Activity Theory (pp. 407-418). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Shardlow, S. & Doel, M. (1996). Practice learning and teaching. Basingstoke: Macmillan Press.

Tertiary Education Commission (2009). Social work education in New Zealand. Wellington, New Zealand: Author.

van Oers, B. (2008). Learning and learning theory from a Cultural-Historical Point of view. In B. van Oers, W. Wardekker, E. Elbers, & R. van der Veer (Eds.). The transformation of learning: Advances in Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (pp. 3-12). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Vayda, E., & Bogo, M. (1991). A teaching model to unite classroom and field. Journal of Social Work Education, 27(3), 271-278.

Wilson, G., Walsh, T. & Kirby, M. (2008). Developing practice learning: Student perspectives. Social Work Education, 27(1), 35-50.

Young, M. (2001). Contextualising a new approach to learning: Some comments on Yrjo Engeström’s theory of expansive learning. Journal of Education and Social Work, 14(1), 157-161.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11157/anzswj-vol23iss4id153

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.