DEFINING SIGNATURE PEDAGOGY IN SOCIAL WORK 6 0 9 learning contract that would help structure the field experience as the signature pedagogy of social work education. The field instructor is recognized as an expert whose factual and procedural knowledge assists the student toward competency attainment. WHAT IS SIGNATURE PEDAGOGY?The term signature pedagogy, as used by Shulman (2005aShulman ( , 2005bShulman ( , 2005c and Gardner and Shulman (2005), refers to the characteristic approaches used in higher education to prepare students to practice a profession. Practitioners of the professions are internally and externally assessed and regulated to promote adherence to standards. Shulman observed that common to the professions of medicine, law, engineering, clergy, education, and nursing is a ritualized approach to acquiring and demonstrating knowledge. Unique to each of these professions is a distinctive educational component, its signature pedagogy. In medicine and law, for example, there are specific traditional educational methods for acquiring and applying knowledge. In medicine, the signature pedagogy is rounds; in law, it is the Socratic method. A signature pedagogy is under stood to be an essential educational preparation and to inculcate distinctive habits of thinking. A signature pedagogy is "pervasive, routine and habitual" (Shulman, 2005a, p. 22). In addition, signature pedagogy serves to prepare the aspiring professional to recognize, appreciate, and learn from inherently complex and ambiguous situations and to "think, perform and act with integrity" (Shulman, 2005b, p. 52). Social work shares these values. It is, therefore, appropriate that social work recognize the features of field education, its own signature pedagogy, that support obtaining this goal. Raskin, 2010) reflect the response of social work educators to the recent CSWE policy changes. With the exception of Holden et al. (2011), Petracchi and Zastrow (2010a, 2010b), and Wayne et al. (2010), there has been limited discussion of field education and the implications of its identification as signature pedagogy. Holden et al. (2011) suggested we need more evidence to support the designation of field as signature pedagogy. Wayne et al. ( 2010) suggested that field education is not presently implemented in a manner consistent with its designation as signature pedagogy. Modifying field education to be consistent with signature pedagogy requires under standing its principles, the nature of the field experience, the relationship of the competencies to the field experience, and the practical challenges to implementing field as the signature pedagogy of social work.

No abstract

Background:  Youth involved with juvenile courts often suffer from mental health difficulties and disorders, and these mental health disorders have often been a factor leading to the youth’s delinquent behaviours and activities. Method:  The present study of a sample population (N = 341), randomly drawn from one urban US county’s juvenile court delinquent population, investigated which specific mental health disorders predicted detention for committing a personal crime. Results:  Youth with attention‐deficit hyperactivity disorder and conduct disorder diagnoses were significantly less likely to commit personal crimes and experience subsequent detention, while youth with bipolar diagnoses were significantly more likely. Conclusion:  Co‐ordinated youth policy efforts leading to early identification and treatment of bipolar disorder symptoms may be necessary.

Hundreds of thousands of youth are held every year in U.S. juvenile justice detention centers and incarceration facilities. Increasingly it is known that these facility placements are at best ineffective and at worst lead to additional youth recidivism outcomes. What is most concerning, though, is that a majority of these incarcerated youth have one or more mental health/substance abuse disorders, special education disabilities, or maltreatment victimization histories-comorbid situations that negatively impact their involvement with the juvenile courts. In this article the authors summarize the epidemiology of these youth problems within the juvenile justice system. The authors then compare the outcome evidence for the youth placed in juvenile justice facilities with those placed in residential treatment centers, finding significant advantages to addressing the problems through rehabilitative efforts. Recognizing that there are a small number of serious youthful offenders who will need placement, their analysis finds that the juvenile courts must continue (or in many instances begin) reshaping their detention and incarceration facilities reliance on punishment toward a rehabilitative residential model.