Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]On: 14 November 2014, At: 16:35Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Social Work Education: TheInternational JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cswe20
Teaching the Child Perspective in SocialWork Education: Ethical Principles andClassroom StrategiesWalter J. Mullin & James J. CanningPublished online: 19 Aug 2006.
To cite this article: Walter J. Mullin & James J. Canning (2006) Teaching the Child Perspective inSocial Work Education: Ethical Principles and Classroom Strategies, Social Work Education: TheInternational Journal, 25:5, 435-445, DOI: 10.1080/02615470600738783
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02615470600738783
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Teaching the Child Perspective inSocial Work Education: EthicalPrinciples and Classroom StrategiesWalter J. Mullin & James J. Canning
Aimed at graduate and undergraduate social work instructors, this article identifies the
problem of inadequate attention to children in social work education in the US. The
authors argue that social work ethics require social work educators to address children as
a vulnerable population. They argue that children will be more central in social work
education if instructors adopt a child perspective defined by three knowledge categories,
development, well-being and hope, that serve as reference points in teaching. A
triangular strategy of position, attitude and action is provided to guide the day-to-day
use of a child perspective in the classroom. The authors examine sources of the problem,
describe its effects on students’ education and future practice and provide classroom
examples and teaching techniques.
Keywords: Child Perspective; Child Well-being; Social Work with Children; Teaching
Social Work; Social Work Practice Education
Introduction
This paper addresses a serious problem in graduate social work education: inadequate
attention to children. In the United States there is a gap between the problems that
children face in society and the presence of children in professional social work
(MSW) courses. The gap is puzzling since most MSW social workers practice directly
or indirectly with children, and since its beginnings the social work profession has
been dedicated to assuring the well-being of children. Although content relating to
children is taught in every MSW program, there is little consistency in quantity
and quality of content within and across programs. The educational policies of
the Council on Social Work Education, the accrediting body for MSW programs in
the United States, address human needs in general, but do not address specifically the
Correspondence to: Walter Mullin, School of Social Work, Springfield College, 263 Alden Street, Springfield, MA
101109-3797, USA. Email: [email protected]
Social Work EducationVol. 25, No. 5, August 2006, pp. 435–445
ISSN 0261-5479 print/1470-1227 online # 2006 The Board of Social Work EducationDOI: 10.1080/02615470600738783
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
16:
35 1
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
needs of children as a vulnerable population (CSWE, 2001). Although this paper
concerns only social work education in the US, we are aware that similar problems
exist in other parts of the world. For example, Milligan (2003) and Horwath &
Thurlow (2004) have found that the generic curricula of social work education in the
UK do not dependably prepare students to practice in the changing field of childcare.
When courses on children are offered to students as electives, they are usually
limited to a single area of childhood such as psychotherapy with children or child
welfare. Too often, foundational practice and human behavior courses include
children as an afterthought. For example, in many textbooks and videotapes created
for graduate social work courses in practice, children are mentioned in the contexts
of child welfare, child abuse and neglect but are not addressed as a population, per se.
Similarly, in human behavior classes, social work students learn about children by
studying developmental theories, which offer a picture of expectable behaviors across
the years of childhood. While these theories are important, they create a notion of the
child as a fixed object that proceeds from one task to the other. In applying these
theories, the social work student might miss the importance of understanding each
child’s unique needs and capabilities.
An obligation to children is embodied in the National Association of Social Work
Code of Ethics (1996) that states:
The primary mission of the social work profession is to enhance human well-beingand to help meet the basic human needs of all people, with particular attention tothe needs and empowerment of those who are vulnerable, oppressed and living inpoverty.
By virtue of their dependence on adults, children are vulnerable. Because children are
vulnerable, and are among those in poverty and those oppressed, practicing with
their interests in view is an ethical imperative. Teaching from a child perspective is no
less an obligation of social work educators than the obligation to teach from the
perspectives of other vulnerable groups whose needs are similarly hidden. Once one
accepts an ethical obligation to include children in teaching, there are obstacles to
fulfilling this obligation. Below we shall examine some of these obstacles and suggest
ways in which teachers can overcome them. In addition, when children are absent
from the main current of social work education, students learn to set children apart,
later, in professional practice. Children who are at risk can become invisible to
practitioners who could actually help them. Selma Fraiberg (1987) found that adult
clinicians were frequently unaware that their clients were parents. Nancy Boyd Webb
(1996), a contemporary writer of social work practice with children, has expressed
dismay with ‘the lack of attention in social work education to the needs of young
children as individuals, and to the training of students to employ methods of helping
children that are appropriate to children’s developmental age and understanding’
(p. ix). In keeping with Webb, we will examine how instructors can place children
more centrally in graduate courses and subsequently in the minds of students
preparing to practice. We will use the term child perspective to emphasize the need of
instructors to keep children in view.
436 W. J. Mullin & J. J. Canning
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
16:
35 1
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
Factors that Contribute to Exclusion
Teacher as Expert
What works against a thoroughgoing inclusion of children in social work education?
When knowledge about children is framed as a specialty, social work teachers and
students may conclude that it does not concern them. While theories of children and
child development are necessary to understanding children, theories can limit
understanding if they obscure views of individual children. Westbrook (1991)
identified a long-standing conflict in American education between teachers who are
‘curriculum-centered’ and teachers who are ‘student-centered’. The former tend to
believe that learning occurs when ‘experts’ impart knowledge to students who are
assumed to receive and apply it. The latter tend to believe that students are naturally
curious and inquisitive, and that learning occurs when the teacher guides and
supports students’ abilities to construct knowledge. The invisibility of children in
social work education may be greater when the curriculum-centered approach
dominates. Extreme curriculum-centeredness could lead to a categorical approach
where children are thought of abstractly, for example in terms of developmental stage
or lines, as opposed to being seen fully as developing persons with unique thoughts,
feelings and needs.
Cultural Bias
The curriculum-centered approach may also place a teacher at risk of cultural bias,
since theory and research on childhood is written predominantly from a Western
developmental perspective. Theories that are grounded in Western culture may not
illuminate childhood for students of other cultures. For example, the Western
concepts of separation-individuation and self-esteem may have little meaning to a
student from an Eastern culture. When the instructor maintains the Western frame of
reference, students are taught to limit their perspective and may easily misread
children from diverse cultures.
We see a child perspective as culture-sensitive, as opposed to cross-cultural, since it
brings out culture in sharp relief as it exists in the lives of children. Our child
perspective is neither polemical nor anti-theoretical. We recognize and fully support
the use of theories to teach and learn about children. However, we propose that the
child perspective precedes the use of theory, bringing children into view and not
imposing meanings that hide children. Introducing theories or frames before
introducing children, as persons, distracts students from considering individual
experiences of children. We are aware that although the study of theory and culture
should illuminate, it often ‘conceals, distorts and obfuscates’ (Rosenau, 1992, p. 81).
Knowledge that Closes the Gap
How can teachers impart a foundational child perspective to students? Some might
suggest that adjusting curricula and course syllabi would assure that children are
Social Work Education 437
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
16:
35 1
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
adequately represented in all courses. While this would broaden course content
relating to children, it would not provide the change in perspective that we are
proposing. We believe that a child perspective begins with the individual instructor
and how he or she promotes awareness of children in the classroom, even when
adults and adult matters predominate. By consciously introducing children and their
needs into the classroom, instructors expand the social world. An exclusively adult-
centered educational stance presents students with a naive view of the world in which
they will practice.
Experience-near Knowledge
What knowledge must one have to teach a child perspective? Accepted theory may
provide the teacher with a sense of expertise and enhance his or her academic
credibility. However, since theories are adult-centered, abstract and culturally biased,
a theory-based perspective increases the distance between social work teachers and, in
parallel fashion, between students and children. We have found that students are
frequently unable to grasp and apply such knowledge, in and outside the classroom,
and quickly lose interest. This seems to be supported by John Dewey’s (1938/1964)
principle that students require a ‘progressive organization of subject-matter’, from
experience-close to abstract. At first students can only rely on personal experiences.
Once experience-close material has been mastered, students will naturally desire to
understand matters at more abstract levels. To interest new graduate students in the
subject of children, a teacher should first use subject matter that is close to what
students have already experienced. We have brought children into view in our classes
by: (1) interviewing children and their parents in the classroom; (2) assigning
students to observing children in their natural environments and recording
observations for class discussions; (3) leading class excursions to school yards and
public playgrounds; and (4) assigning reflective journals that evoke students’
memories of childhood.
Local vs. General Knowledge
While theories of child development are concerned with knowledge of the child, a
child perspective is concerned with knowledge of this child. When this child is the
subject, local knowledge precedes general knowledge. Local knowledge is from the
bottom-up, while general, highly organized, theoretical or technical knowledge is
from the top-down (Foucault, 2003; Geertz, 1983). Local knowledge of children
includes the child’s ‘home range’ (Bowlby, 1973) or ‘vital field’ (Provence, 1977).
Using local knowledge, instructors think inductively rather than deductively. They
encourage students to observe children in the contexts of their day-to-day
environments and to avoid thinking of children as developing egos, individual
brains or in abstract contexts. Horwath & Thurlow (2004) have referred to this
approach as encouraging students ‘to walk the walk from a service user’s perspective’
(p. 15) and to be aware of the factors that influence the use of services within the
438 W. J. Mullin & J. J. Canning
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
16:
35 1
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
community. Whereas developmental theories direct students to examine language
acquisition in children in general, local knowledge might direct them to examine
learning experiences of Latino pre-school children living in the local, Spanish-
speaking households. Where psychological knowledge may focus on third-graders’
scores on standardized IQ tests, local knowledge might focus on the experiences of
third-graders and their teacher, in a nearby school where 37 children occupy one
classroom.
Local knowledge includes local culture. Patterns of friendship, kinship and church-
going, language usage, informal social supports, parenting customs, rites of passage,
and moral and political attitudes stand out in sharp relief. General knowledge of
children usually is too distant to capture the rich details that constitute the lives of
children.
Reference Points for Taking a Child Perspective
When an instructor steps away from traditional theories of childhood and turns
toward smaller ‘knowledges’ of childhood, grounded in particular cultures, families
or places, it is fair to ask: what are dependable reference points for a child
perspective? We propose using three knowledge categories as reference points.
Together these form, not an epistemology or knowledge base, but a field or space
within which to reflect on children’s lives. These three categories cut across time and
across cultures. We call these, child development, child well-being and hope. By child
development we do not refer to theories or concepts but to the natural, ongoing,
dynamic cooperation between a child and the environment that leads to maturity. As
Dewey (2002) stated, ‘Walking implicates the ground as well as the legs; speech
demands physical air and human companionship and audience as well as vocal
organs’ (p. 15). If children’s environments cooperate with them by providing
continuous care, protection from harm, emotional security, education and
opportunities to play and to socialize, the result is well-being. Children in a state
of well-being engage their environments. They play, learn and establish relationships
with others. If a state of well-being is provided consistently, the child develops with
hope.
Where there is well-being there are always risks to well-being. Awareness of the
child’s well-being includes awareness of risks. We differentiate local risks, such as the
overcrowded third-grade classroom, from risk factors that are statistically related to
later problems and disorders. Risks should not be accepted as signs of weakness or
predictive of future problems but as obstacles to be understood and overcome. Risks
should not diminish hope, the child’s hope or the hope of those around the child.
While local knowledge is an excellent teacher, it cannot be accumulated or captured
in concepts and theories. It is concerned more with the present and future than with
the past. It is the ever-changing process of seeing and acting in the interests of
children, in the present, and with a hopeful view of the future. Such a view is not
predictive. It keeps open the many paths that a child might take to comfort,
competence and intimacy with others over his or her lifetime.
Social Work Education 439
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
16:
35 1
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
Modeling a Child Perspective
Bringing children into view engages students and stimulates thinking, whereas
explaining about children may distance students. In others words, in assuming a
child perspective, modeling surpasses lecturing. The instructor models the
perspective by posing questions that bring children into view such as: how does
the course content affect children? Or, where are the children in this picture?
Students who may have difficulty attending to an instructor’s explications will have
no difficulty attending when a child is brought forth in a case example, in a narrative
or is reported in a student observation. Attending closely to students’ experiences is
another way for the instructor to focus on what is happening in the room and on the
development, well-being and hope of students, which parallels the development, well-
being and hope of a child perspective. For example, as the student submits a journal
entry describing his or her first experience away from home, the student imagines his
or her instructor understanding something in the student’s development. If the
instructor were to comment upon or interpret the student’s entry, using a theoretical
frame, the student, especially a student of a different culture, may feel diminished. By
affirming the student’s remembered experience, without interpretation, the
instructor reaches the child perspective that is deeper and more universal than a
theoretical perspective. We assume a child perspective to be both cross-cultural and
illuminating of culture, causing students of different cultures to feel acknowledged as
learners and as persons.
The instructor places him or herself in relation to students, as he or she would like
students to place themselves in relation to children. He or she understands that
students, like children, are capable of thinking, feeling and creating, and that they
learn by exercising these capabilities. For example, students in a human behavior class
were studying children diagnosed with ADHD. They were shown a videotape of a
three-year-old boy who could not sit still either at home or at school. The boy’s
parents and his teacher were interviewed. While the parents expressed love towards
their son and good-natured tolerance of his behavior, his teacher expressed less
tolerance and serious concern that his hyperactivity interfered with his learning and
with the learning of others. She suggested that medication would reduce the problem.
A classroom discussion followed the videotape. Students quickly expressed empathy
for the boy, his parents and his teacher and shared their wishes to relieve the boy’s
problem. They dismissed the teacher’s suggestion regarding medication. They fell
silent, waiting for the instructor to provide a solution. One clearly frustrated student
stated that the boy’s teacher needed to be more patient. Tension in the classroom
increased. The instructor decided not to relieve the tension, believing that this would
lead students to think more deeply about the problem. After a few moments, a
student proposed that the perspectives of all be considered, that of the boy, his
parents, the teacher and other children in the class. This comment widened the field
of the problem for the class and provided space to reflect. As tension dissolved,
students asked questions about the boy’s peer relations, about the size of the class and
what the boy did after school. A student wondered what was planned for him for the
440 W. J. Mullin & J. J. Canning
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
16:
35 1
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
summer. We associate the instructor’s waiting and the subsequent widening of the
field, with the ‘openness’ of a child perspective. Once class members were allowed
time to reflect, they thought beyond the diagnosis of ADHD and considered well-
being, risks to well-being and future development. They saw the problem in high
relief, in the richness of the child’s life. The instructor had avoided explaining and
instead had modeled reflection. After a few moments of frustration, students had
been able to join him. The discussion ended with class members feeling hopeful
about the boy and about their own ability to understand him.
A Triangular Frame for Teaching a Child Perspective
We envision the instructor’s child perspective in the classroom by imagining his or
her position, attitude and action. These three elements ground the instructor in
relation to students and to the subject of children. The letters, PAA, serve us as a
guide or anchor.
Position is the instructor’s stance in relation to children and to students. A
metaphor related to children at play explains the instructor’s position: a first baseman
centers himself, inwardly and outwardly. His body is balanced, ready to move in any
direction. He is able to view the whole field. His position is, at once, reflective and
active. He attends to the present and imagines the unfolding play. He or she is a
player and is not a coach or umpire. Nor is he or she sitting in the stands.
Attitude addresses emotion, concentration and thinking and requires self-
examination. The teacher asks: what am I feeling at this moment? Where is my
attention? Am I feeling hopeful or hopeless? How am I communicating this to
students? What am I expressing through my body language and tone of voice? What
are others feeling and what is the affective climate in the room? Questions relating to
cognition might be: what are my beliefs about this issue? Have I considered students
who may hold non-Western views of children and of childhood? Is this theory or
clinical study culturally biased?
In the case of the active boy on the videotape, the instructor discovered that at first
he was wrongly expecting a three-year old to exercise adult-level self-control. Until he
played with this notion for a moment, it impeded his understanding of the situation.
By waiting and not instructing the students, he invited them to play with the
dilemma. Webb (1996) stresses that play and playfulness facilitates understanding in
social work with children and also with their parents. We would add that playfulness,
or a playful attitude, can facilitate teaching and learning from a child perspective.
‘Actions speak louder than words’ is a useful cliche for teaching a child perspective.
When addressing what are usually considered adult-centered topics (research design,
social justice, agency supervision and administration) the instructor may pause, step
out of the adult perspective, and ask about the implications for children. This step
expands the social field around a topic that might not be readily associated with
children. The shift towards children can be a refreshing change for students and
instructor, since it yields insights that would otherwise be missed. As mentioned
above, bringing children into view, through recorded student observations,
Social Work Education 441
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
16:
35 1
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
stimulates positive emotions in students. Such experiences are new for many students
who have not observed children closely and have never shared an observation with
others. For example, one student observed and reported on a five- or six-year-old girl
and her father in a park where many school-age children were playing on swings. The
child looked at the ground and was reluctant to take a seat on the swing that was
being steadied by her father. Other parents were watching their children at a distance
from the swings. The reported observation generated a lively class discussion of the
father–daughter interactions, the influences of the larger group of children on the girl
and father, and cultural and gender differences among the children. Observing and
reporting are pleasurable for students. Cohen et al. (1983) state that when one
assumes the perspective of observer, ‘patterns of behavior emerge, and we begin to
see what it is a child is really doing. Be patient and let the thing grow’ (p. 8). Two
more brief examples will further illuminate the application of a child perspective and
position, attitude and action.
First Example
In a social work practice class, a student reported on clients she was seeing in a
community-based counseling program. The family consisted of a 35-year-old
mother, her 36-year-old husband and the mother’s two children: a 15-year-old
daughter and five-year-old son. Recently, after an angry argument with her husband
and fearing his violent temper, the mother called the police. When the police arrived,
they handcuffed the man and took him to the police station where he was charged.
Class members asked the student what the fight was about and wanted to know about
the adults’ past histories. They asked if the adults were drunk or sober and about their
possible substance abuse. A class member commented on a recent study of male
violence against women. Another commented about police violence, another about
human rights and another about the race of the family members and the policemen.
The discussion appeared to be ending after students had assigned blame to the adults
involved. The instructor, who had until then listened passively, felt empty,
disorganized and incompetent. She felt eager for the class to end or at least to
move on to another subject. Her feelings troubled her. She saw despair in students’
postures and facial expressions. She realized that the discussion had by-passed the
children in the family, and that she had inadvertently contributed to the problem by
not seeing the whole picture. She concluded that they were also feeling inadequate
and hopeless. She initiated a new discussion, from a child perspective. She began by
stating that she was feeling hopeless. She said that she wondered if others did not feel
the same way. Most nodded in agreement. She then asked how the children in the
story might have experienced the adults’ fighting and the man’s arrest. After a
moment of silence, the classroom was charged with new interest. Students raised their
hands and spoke of the fear and confusion of the children and considered what the
parents and police could have done to reduce the children’s fear and what might be
done afterwards to help them. The discussion ended with students creating a list of
useful recommendations for the presenting student.
442 W. J. Mullin & J. J. Canning
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
16:
35 1
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
Second Example
Agnes, an MSW student, works full-time as an investigator for a state child protective
service. In presenting a report on her case study to her practice class, she described
her client, Sam, a Latino four-year old in state custody. A protective services
investigation of Sam’s family revealed a multitude of problems including his
grandfather’s physical abuse of Sam, Sam’s mother’s mental illness, his father’s
unemployment and drug abuse, their eviction from public housing and multiple legal
problems. Sam was recently removed from his grandfather’s home and placed in
temporary foster care. Agnes described details of the case to the class using a
genogram. A small square at the bottom containing the numeral, 4, represented Sam
and his age. Agnes ended by stating that it was unclear whether or not Sam would be
reunited with his family. Class members responded with appropriate concern for
Sam’s safety and well-being. Some expressed anger at Sam’s grandfather and Sam’s
parents and with the state foster care system that seemed to work too slowly. One
student asked Agnes if she saw any hope for Sam. Agnes responded that she never saw
children like Sam improve. She said, ‘Cases like this are pretty hopeless’. The mood of
the class plummeted.
The students’ question to Agnes expressed their need to have hope for Sam and his
family. The question also challenged Agnes to be hopeful, in the face of the many
risks to the boy. She could not meet this challenge. She did not allow time for herself
and the class to reflect hopefully. Had she done so, a way to hope might have opened.
Greater local knowledge of the boy, his culture and community may have revealed
specific strengths. Had she shifted from an adult perspective to Sam’s perspective
Agnes might have wondered with the class if hopelessness were justified. Did the boy
himself feel hopeless? Were there adults in Sam’s life who may have felt hope for him?
On what things did they base their hope? Similarly, the instructor could have actively
modeled a child perspective, by pausing to reflect on Sam’s individual feelings,
strengths and capabilities and on local resources that may have been overlooked.
As demonstrated in the example of the observation in the park, a child perspective
moves away from abstract and categorical thinking about children (hopeful/hopeless)
towards empathic reflection about individual development, well-being and reason for
hope. A child perspective assumes complexity and utilizes reflective thinking as
opposed to cause-and-effect or linear thinking. In the example of the father and
daughter in the park, instead of leading students to discuss a child in terms of the
school-age stage of development, the instructor allowed the observation to speak for
itself. The teacher modeled the value of direct observation and inductive thinking.
She did not impose theories and concepts that may or may not have informed the
observation but would have detracted from the local, cultural knowledge to be gained
by direct observation.
Discussion and Conclusion
Social work instructors can take a child perspective without having to be an expert on
children or child development. A child perspective assumes that: (1) children develop
Social Work Education 443
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
16:
35 1
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
in dynamic cooperation with their environments; (2) that well-being involves a home
base or vital field of continuous protection and nurture from sources inside and
outside the family; and (3) that children, their caregivers and other adults who
contribute to well-being need to hope, even when risks are present. The instructor
assures that there is space and time in the classroom to address cultural differences,
social justice, social change and human rights in the adult world and in the world of
children. By introducing a child perspective into the classroom, the instructor enables
students’ future practice. The instructor models hope through his or her awareness of
the rich textures of children’s lives, including the risks and opportunities they face.
He or she values local knowledge and recognizes that, despite its usefulness, general
knowledge can hide the unique, complex and ever-changing lives of individual
children.
Shifting from an adult perspective to a child perspective takes time. One could say
that students and teachers, like parents of young children, must accommodate a
child’s sense of time and space. The teacher allows time to imagine children and how
they experience their world. As in the above case examples, the teacher waits,
sometimes tolerating pressure from students who seek answers but who have not
posed questions from the perspective of the child. Such questioning in class requires
slowing the teaching and learning tempo, despite curricular pressures. For instance,
slowing the tempo of discussion of case presentations creates space in which to
imagine and to capture the rich details of the setting and interaction. Students then
learn to slow down to observe children more dependably in all social work settings
and contexts.
Students’ field practice experiences are a vital source of local knowledge that
enlivens a child perspective and facilitates the shift from adult-centered thinking to
child-centered thinking. We have found that assigning students to observe children in
their field practice and to record observations directly expedites this transition and
piques students’ curiosity and interest. When recording an observation, the student
should be encouraged to richly describe the field in which the observation took place
and the child’s reactions and behaviors. More importantly he or she should do so
with objectivity humanized by ‘warm interest’ and respect for the limitations of
scientific ‘objectivity’ (Cohen et al., 1983).
Finally, the child perspective generates anxiety in students at the same time that it
generates interest and excitement. This anxiety has multiple sources. For example, as
children are brought into view, they are accompanied by the disturbing, usually
hidden, problems that affect them. These include the traumas of homelessness, abuse
and separations and losses subsequent to foster placements and changes of schools.
Another source of anxiety is the complexities of children’s problems, once the student
sees beyond the overly simple pictures offered by descriptive diagnoses such as
ADHD and Conduct Disorder and sees the factors, large and small, that bear on
children’s difficulties. Discovering that there are usually no clear and simple means of
resolving children’s problems creates anxiety in students. In the classroom one should
avoid seeking right answers and, instead, ‘keep the student in an attitude of inquiry
and of search for new light’ (Dewey, 1939, p. 689). Anxiety should signal reflection
444 W. J. Mullin & J. J. Canning
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
16:
35 1
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
and informed action, not avoidance. The instructor urges students to examine
problems in greater detail, to identify specific, local strengths and risks and to model
hopefulness for the future. A third source of anxiety is our adult need for neatness
and order. This need is especially strong among adults who are academics. The
natural ‘disorder’ of children, including messiness, opposition, clinging dependence
and impulsive aggression can be unsettling to instructors and class members alike.
Instructors should be ready to experience and to tolerate the strong feelings that
children engender and to model an emotionally balanced position, a hopeful attitude
and to act to keep children in view.
References
Bowlby, J. (1973) Attachment and Loss, Vol. II: Separation, Anxiety and Anger, Basic Books, Inc.,New York, NY.
Cohen, D. H., Stern, V. & Balaban, N. (1983) Observing and Recording the Behavior of YoungChildren, Teacher’s College Press, New York, NY.
CSWE (2001) Educational and Policy Standards, Council on Social Work Education, Alexandria,VA.
Dewey, J. (1939) ‘The schools and the social welfare’, in Intelligence in the Modern World: JohnDewey’s Philosophy, ed. J. Ratner, Random House, Inc., New York, NY, pp. 683–728.
Dewey, J. (1964) ‘Progressive organization of subject-matter’, in John Dewey on Education: SelectedWritings, ed. R. Archambault, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, pp. 373–386.
Dewey, J. (2002) Human Nature and Conduct, Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY.Foucault, M. (2003) ‘Society Must be Defended’: Lectures at the College de France: 1975–76, Picador,
New York, NY.Fraiberg, S. (1987) ‘Legacies and prophesies’, in Selected Writings of Selma Fraiberg, ed. L. Fraiberg,
Ohio State University Press, Columbus, OH, pp. 439–445.Geertz, C. (1983) Local Knowledge, Basic Books, Inc., New York, NY.Horwath, J. & Thurlow, C. (2004) ‘Preparing students for evidence-based and family field social
work: an experiential learning approach’, Social Work Education, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 7–24.Milligan, I. (2003) ‘A new route to professionalism? The development of a residential child care
DipSW in Scotland’, Social Work Education, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 283–295.NASW (1996) Code of Ethics, National Association of Social Workers, Washington, DC.Provence, S. (1977) ‘Remarks on receiving the C. Anderson Aldrich Award’, Pediatrics, vol. 59,
pp. 388–389.Rosenau, P. M. (1992) Post-modernism and the Social Sciences: Insights, Inroads, and Intrusions,
Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Webb, N. (1996) Social Work Practice with Children, The Guilford Press, New York, NY.Westbrook, R. (1991) John Dewey and American Democracy, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
Accepted May 2004
Social Work Education 445
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
16:
35 1
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
