Improving the quality of social work field education: The efficacy of an analysis using Cultural-Historical Activity Theory
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11157/anzswj-vol23iss4id153Keywords:
social work education, field education, cultural-historical activity theory,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.
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.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
By completing the online submission process, you confirm you accept this agreement. The following is the entire agreement between you and the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers (ANZASW) and it may be modified only in writing.
You and any co-authors
If you are completing this agreement on behalf of co-authors, you confirm that you are acting on their behalf with their knowledge.
First publication
By submitting the work you are:
- granting the ANZASW the right of first publication of this work;
- confirming that the work is original; and
- confirming that the work has not been published in any other form.
Once published, you are free to use the final, accepted version in any way, as outlined below under Copyright.
Copyright
You assign copyright in the final, accepted version of your article to the ANZASW. You and any co-authors of the article retain the right to be identified as authors of the work.
The ANZASW will publish the final, accepted manuscript under a Creative Commons Attribution licence (CC BY 4.0). This licence allows anyone – including you – to share, copy, distribute, transmit, adapt and make commercial use of the work without needing additional permission, provided appropriate attribution is made to the original author or source.
A human-readable summary of the licence is available from http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0, which includes a link to the full licence text.
Under this licence you can use the final, published version of the article freely – such as depositing a copy in your institutional research repository, uploading a copy to your profile on an academic networking site or including it in a different publication, such as a collection of articles on a topic or in conference proceedings – provided that original publication in Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work is acknowledged.
This agreement has no effect on any pre-publication versions or elements, which remain entirely yours, and to which we claim no right.
Reviewers hold copyright in their own comments and should not be further copied in any way without their permission.
The copyright of others
If your article includes the copyright material of others (e.g. graphs, diagrams etc.), you confirm that your use either:
- falls within the limits of fair dealing for the purposes of criticism and review or fair use; OR
- that you have gained permission from the rights holder for publication in an open access journal.
