Integrative Study
Task
Whilst on placement, you will be doing a range of practice tasks and also your Practice Educator will expect you to do exercises and tasks that generate the evidence they will use to assess your capabilities against the PCF. There is a whole separate handbook on that Practice Learning strand of this module, which is Task One in terms of the assessed tasks for the module as a whole. However, you also need to complete and submit an academic task directly to the University at the end of placement.
Rationale for this task
The purpose of requiring students to complete and submit this task is to give you the opportunity to gain a grade against this module, rather than a simple pass/refer/fail result. It carries 40 credits at final year and thereforehas a great bearing upon the final classification of degree you achieve at the end of the course. It also means you will get valuable support and feedback about performing at the final year level of an undergraduate honours degree during the first semester, so that you are well prepared for the return to University in order totake the remaining modules of your final year in semester two.
Description of the Task
In the form of a single, 5000 word assignment, you need to select an aspect of your practice on placement two, and subject that practice to critical scrutiny. The objective of the IS is to demonstrate that you can integrate areas of knowledge that span law, policy, ethics, theories and research, and use these as a means of analysing a piece of your own practice and draw some conclusions about your own professional progress against relevant measures such as the PCF and the HCPC Standards of Proficiency. The work you select to write about may range from the entire process of work with an individual service user (child or adult), to specific work in a single case, for example direct work with a child, a piece of work undertaken in a group setting (including group living) or it may involve comparing approaches or issues in more than one case or setting. These are intended as examples and other possibilities will also be relevant. The IS is not, however, a piece of original research. In previous modules where this kind of assignment was used, some examples of the topics that students chose are:
• Managing sexualised behaviour in a man with psychiatric disorders in supported accommodation
• Working with reminiscences of older people
• Interventions with a schoolgirl victim of bullying
• Evaluating a new group work programme for parents
• Supporting a teenaged boy with autism as he makes the transition out of children's services
• Evaluating group work with users of a mental health support service
• Assessing parenting in a mother with mental health problems
• Identity work with a 15 year old girl with learning disabilities
• Evaluating the use of Narrative Therapy with a young sexual offender
• Work with a husband of a woman with Alzheimer's dementia
• Issues in work with a sexually exploited girl
• Using attachment theory in work with adolescents
• Working with an older man who is a compulsive hoarder
• Running an anger management group with young offenders
• Managing risk of suicide in a man with a diagnosis of psychosis
Service Users and the study
You will note on the planning form that you are asked to indicate if you have consulted the service user about the study.
We expect all students to give careful consideration to ways of involving service users at least to the extent of seeking their agreement to be the focus of the study. There may occasionally be circumstances where this is not appropriate. It is our experience that these circumstances are less frequent than might be expected. Sharing your intentions with a service user can - and often does - become a valuable aspect of the relationship with them. In some cases, service users have contributed their own thoughts to the study process. In other cases they have chosen the names by which they should be known in the study. Sometimes it will be appropriate for them to be given a copy of the study, though this should never be imposed or assumed. We have moved therefore to a position where we expect students to be open and frank with service users about the study.
In the event that you and your practice teacher consider it to be inappropriate to consult with the service user about basing your IS upon your work with them, then you should include the reasoning for NOT securing consent in your IS. There will be positive responses to a student who has indicated and articulated a clear argument, with reference to social work values to justify their choice.
You must include a clear statement that names have been changed in order to protect confidentiality. This should include place names and agency names too; these are details that could allow someone to identify the person you are writing about.
How to Structure the Work
Given that this is a larger piece of work, there is a real benefit in having a clear structure. However, we do not want to prescribe a set structure as different students will have different ways of writing, with some people writing about aspects of their practice within different sections about law, values, research etc whilst others may prefer to have a separate section for their analysis of practice. A suggested structure is:
• An introduction to the setting you are practising in, brief background in the case and the role/tasks you were given with the service user(s).
• Consideration of the involvement of the service user(s) in the study (including the process by which their consent was secured) with a justification for any decision to involve or not to involve.
• The law and policy relevant to this example of your practice, including your position within a wider network of professionals and agencies who are also involved in the situation. How did you put important legal principles into action? What were the impacts of using legal powers?
• Theories and research findings from social work and other associated disciplines, critically examined, that explain or deepen understanding of the situation in the case
• Values pertinent to the practice and anti oppressive practice considerations. Here you should be using relevant codes of practice, and the literature about values and AOP in order to analyse issues of power and oppression in the case. What have you learned about the use of authority in the SW role?
• The evidence base for interventions you were using and an outline of the intended plan of intervention.
• Selection, justification and use of a method of evaluating process and outcome in the work. Where you have failed to consider this you can remedy that by making some recommendations about what you could have used, and how you might practice differently in the future
• Reflections on your practice; did your chosen evaluation method indicate if there were any improvements? Did you learn new skills in trying out methods of intervention? What went well? What did not go well and why might that have been the case?
• The study must conclude with some reflections on what you have learned about yourself as a practitioner and how you are going to carry forward your areas for development once you have qualified.