Defining Signature Pedagogy in Social Work Education: Learning Theory and the Learning Contract

Abstract

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.

Applying a ‘signature pedagogy’ in the teaching of critical social work theory and practice

“…and 'What is characteristic of and central to how we educate developing practitioners for competent practice?' Some authors, such as Wayne et al (2010) and Boitel and Fromm (2014), argue that the unique attribute of social work education comes in the shape of field placements. While acknowledging the inconsistencies of the standards of these placements, students often refer to their greatest learning having taken place in the field.…”

Signature pedagogies: An integrative review of an emerging concept in nursing education

“…However, the authors were not opposed to the introduction of signature pedagogy within professional standards, writing 'The introduction of signature pedagogy into the social work education lexicon can serve as a stimulus and guide for change that would help the profession meet the challenges it faces' (Wayne et al, 2010, 334). Others however, have since supported the notion of field work as the signature pedagogy in social work (Boitel and Fromm, 2014;Lyter, 2012;Poole et al, 2013), with some going so far as to outline potential implementation strategies for operationalizing this signature pedagogy into the curriculum (Holosko and Skinner, 2015). Others remain unconvinced and question the evidence that field work is the signature pedagogy of social work (Holden et al, 2011) and question the validity of defining the signature pedagogy in such exclusive terms (Earls Larrison and Korr, 2013 (Earls Larrison and Korr, 2013).…”

Bridging Class and Field: Field Instructors’ and Liaisons’ Reactions to Information About Students’ Baseline Performance Derived From Simulated Interviews

“…In social work, Boitel, Farkas, Fromm, and Hockenstad (2009) and Boitel and Fromm, (2014) were also aware of the challenge in the transfer of knowledge and proposed a model to develop a field learning contract to assist students to integrate learning across the entire curriculum into their field experiences. Drawing on learning theory, Boitel et al (2009; noted that prior knowledge needs to be subjected to critical thinking and examined to determine 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 F o r P e e r R e v i e w O n l y faulty assumptions.…”