With the PCFs, what you are learning through shadowing will naturally link to the them. They can be as much about your thinking, reflecting and learning as they are about your physical practice with families, especially at the beginning of your placement/learning.

 

For example, on your placement so far have you attended a meeting that incorporates different professionals? – if so what has that begun to tell you about ‘the role of the social worker in different professional contexts’ (PCF1.1 professionalism) or have you witnessed some multi-agency working in this kind of meeting (PCF 8.6 organisations and contexts) and what was your experience of it i.e. did everyone agree on actions easily or were there some conflicting roles and responsibilities. Perhaps someone from the health department/police/mental health services had a different view from the social worker? How was this resolved.

 

Or what professional knowledge (PCF5) have you learned in your placement so far? I.e. the legislative framework that underpins the service or different set of principles/ideas/theories that seem to guide practice in that setting? 

 

Also you are bound to have some reflections (PCF 6) about your experience of your placement– was it similar or different to how you thought it would be and why – what does this tell you about yourself or about the service. Does your experience align with your professional or personal values (PCF 2) or did you find that you disagreed with some of what you saw happening and what was that about?

 

You don’t need to cover all nine PCFs in each reflection but you will naturally cover at least 3 or 4 I’d guess. The PCFs for this stage of your learning experience are broken down here: https://www.basw.co.uk/system/files/resources/pcf-first-placement.pdf  (frontline’s stage 1 is the equivalent of ‘the first placement’ in other courses).

 

Keep in mind that you have already demonstrated that you have ‘met’ all 9 pcfs at the readiness for practice level whilst at the SI and in your portfolio or you would not have been able to pass your RFP assignments.

Tash

 

 

-      I’m also not clear whether the argument should relate to child development theories in light of our observations (eg. ‘child development theories are of limited use for understanding development in the real world’) or the actual child we are observing (eg. ‘child development theories would generally suggest that [observed child] is developing typically for her age’)?

I think this is a bit of a both and. It would be useful to locate the relevance of child development theory (and child observation as a skill) in relation to social work perhaps commenting on the strength and limitations of the use of both in practice. I would say the predominant task is to use the theory to analyse your observations of the child, demonstrating how theory helps you to make sense of their development. I would be mindful of staying away from strong assertions about normative development instead exploring how you could understand actions/ sequences of action through the lens of theory.

-      Do they want us to comment on what we have observed purely through the lens of the ‘big’ global theories they introduced to us (eg. Piaget, Erikson, attachment) or can we use smaller, more specific ones (eg. a theory of language development, or a smaller theory which has formed the basis of a research study?). Some of them (eg. Freud) are not really considered relevant now so it seems strange to use them in our essays yet the way the workshop was structured on the recall day seemed to imply that it is those ‘big’ theories that they want us to discuss.

Again a both and, you will need to explore some of the dominant theories however definitely draw on ‘smaller’ theories based on more up to date thought and research. It would be helpful to give a rationale for this based on the (sometimes significant) limitations of the ‘big’ theory.  You don’t need to include every major theorist.

 

 

-      Depth vs breadth within each domain – Frontline seem to want a very detailed analysis but given the limited word count it seems that this will be at the expense of breadth. Would it be ok to acknowledge other areas but focus on one area within a domain? For example, for the cognitive domain could you nod to aspects like problem solving and reasoning and then focus almost exclusively on language development (as long as you provide a reflexive rationale)? Or would you recommend doing at least 2 in less depth (there’s a limited amount of analysis/critique/reflexivity you can do in >300 words)?

It is important that you cover all four domains with equal weighting however, yes, I think you could focus within a domain on a particular aspect of the domain (with rationale and reference to the other elements) to demonstrate depth. I wouldn’t solely write about one aspect but perhaps the difference could be made on whether you are discussing broader themes across your observation versus including a vignette or similar to explore a particular ‘episode’. It could also be helpful to compare and contrast how theories might explain a particular sequence as a form of critique.

 

-      We have to include an ‘appendix including evidence of observation notes from at least one session’ – the notes I wrote immediately after the observation are not in full sentences, they are merely prompts for myself. Should I upload them as they are or write them out more clearly so the examiner knows what I am on about?

I think they are fine in note form, your appendix is not marked and are really there to add context to the reader/marker.