This article was downloaded by: [York University Libraries]On: 11 November 2014, At: 06:53Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales RegisteredNumber: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Clinical SupervisorPublication details, includinginstructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wcsu20

Toward a PracticeTheory of Learningthrough Experiencein Social WorkSupervisionZvi Eisikovits a & Edna Guttman aa University of Haifa, IsraelPublished online: 18 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: Zvi Eisikovits & Edna Guttman (1983) Towarda Practice Theory of Learning through Experience in Social WorkSupervision, The Clinical Supervisor, 1:1, 51-63, DOI: 10.1300/J001v01n01_06

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J001v01n01_06

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy ofall the information (the “Content”) contained in the publicationson our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever asto the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purposeof the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in thispublication are the opinions and views of the authors, and

are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. Theaccuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and shouldbe independently verified with primary sources of information.Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions,claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, andother liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out ofthe use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and privatestudy purposes. Any substantial 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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

6:53

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Toward a Practice Theory of Learning through Experience

in Social Work Supervision Zvi Eisikovits* Edna Guttman

ABSTRACT. The purpose of this paper is to present a concep- tualization of the learning component in social work supervision. Based on Dewey's concept of experiential continuum, a model with five components, each emerging from the other, is introduced. These components are: (1) placement of the supervisee in a deman- ding reality context; (2) emergence of the supewisee's need to learn and to master new, applied skills; (3) utilization of newly acquired s l l l s in responsible challenging action, coupled with (4) oppor- tunities for critical analysis and reflection, which inspires the (5) for- mation of abstractions, principles, and generalizations. Each compo- nent is briefly discussed, as is the viability of this practice theory model for learning through supervision.

INTRODUCTION

Supervision has been an intrinsic part of social work practice from its inception. Almost all works pertaining to supervision touch on the areas of learning, administration and self development; however, attempts to conceptualize structurally these components of the supervisory process are scarce and relatively recent (Berl, 1960; Kadushin, 1976; Munson, 1976). Although the theoretical "fads and foibles" in social sciences did not side-step the field of social work, they were rarely used as heuristic exploratory devices to generate sound practice models of supervision.

This paper attempts to conceptualize the learning component of supervision using Dewey's experiential educational theory, and to

he authors' contributions are equal in this paper. They are affiliated with the University of Haifa, Israel.

The Clinical Supervisor, Vol. 1(1), Spring 1983 O 1983 by The Haworth Press, Inc. A11 rights reserved. 51

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

6:53

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

52 THE CLINICAL SUPERVISOR

provide a model of learning through experience in social work supervision.

THE LEARNING COMPONENT IN SOCIAL WORK SUPERVISION LITERATURE

At the turn of the century, the charity organizations from which social work evolved as a professional domain acknowledged the relevance of supervision in the education, counseling and training of its membet:. Bracket (1903), in his early work on social work education, viewed supervision as an integral element in social work that should thus be used to complement academic training. He claimed that only academic instruction coupled with experience con- stitutes meaningful learning, and without explicitly saying so, em- phasized the importance of experiential learning-"learning through doing." Toward a similar end, Richmond (1917) con- sidered case material and case recording to be indispensable teaching tools. At the renowned 1929 Milford conference that set standards for professional education, participants stressed the value of experiential activities such as participation in conferences and discussion centering on problems commonly encountered in daily work.

During the thirties and forties, social work supervision was in- fluenced to a great extent by psychoanalytic theories. In this theoretical tradition supervisor-supervisee relationships often re- sembled worker-client relationships. Certainly the language of treat- ment and supervision was identical (Gustin, 1958; Sachs & Shapiro, 1976; Kahn, 1979; Gediman & Wolkenfeld, 1980; Caligor, 1981). It was widely believed that learning in supervision took place through personal change resulting from insight gained via processes such as transference, counter-transference, dealing with one's own defenses and developing ego strength (Hutchinson, 1935; Hollis, 1936; Berg, 1950; Hester, 1951; Flemming & Benedekex, 1966; Mattison, 1975).

In keeping with this tradition, Reynolds (1942) presented her "motivation theory" of learning in supervision as an individualized growth and change process based on personal experience. Towle (1945) saw the teaching process as a sequential spiral that moved from motivation to initiation of personally meaningful learning ex- periences, then to action which stimulated further learning. Austin (1952) introduced a modality of learning through supervision that

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

6:53

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Zvi Eisikovits and Edna Gumnan 53

dealt not only with psychoanalytic elements but also with super- visory roles, and thus provided some structural analysis of the supervisory process in teaching administration. According to Austin, effective teaching requires taking the learner's character in- to account, diagnosing his particular learning needs and subsequent- ly employing appropriate teaching modality. Berl's writing (1960) signaled a dramatic shift away from psychoanalytic influence in supervision. He identified four components in supervision: an in- stitutional, a methodological, an educational and a psychological one. Berl maintained that significant learning is contingent upon in- volvement which cannot be achieved without direct experience.

Kadushin (1976), in an effort to establish a sound basis for em- pirical research in the area of supervision, distinguished between the educational, supportive and administrative constituents. In his discussion of the educational component he stressed the instructive value of personal experience acquired through direct observation, audio and video taping of such experiences, participation in co- therapy, etc. Kadushin also elucidated the conditions under which purposeful learning occurs. Among these he emphasized motivation stemming from the learner's involvement in the process, content made personally meaningful for the learner, and opportunities for him to experience success related to positive outcomes of the learn- ing process (Kadushin, 1976).

Munson (1976; 1981) described and analyzed the various role sets of social workers as service deliverers, as well as the multiplici- ty of roles in relation to the status of the supervisee. In his opinion, frequent role conflicts among the various roles impede learning. Related to role performance 2nd role conflict, Munson's empirical research focused on structure and authority dimensions of the super- visory relationship (Munson, 1976; 1979a; 1979b, 1980) which may often conflict with canons of professional autonomy. Munson suggested a supervisee-centered individualized approach in which the supervisee is free to select situationally appropriiite supervisory models.

In recent years, learning theories have been applied to supervi- sion's assorted functions (Berlin, 1980; Larsen, 1980; Morton & Kurtz, 198O), for example, assessment of learning needs, conditions required for professional performance, specification of learning outcomes and finally, future planning and provision of feedback. With the implementation of learning theories, supervision has in- creasingly been using simulation and role playing techniques to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

6:53

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

54 THE CLINICAL SUPERVISOR

make learning more anchored in experience (Austin & Sodec, 1978; Shapiro et al., 1980).

Summarizing the learning process in social work supervision, Gitterman (1972) provided three alternative models of supervision. depending on whether the emphasis is on subject matter (subject centered); on the learner (student centered) or on the integration of these polar modalities (integrative model).

Most theoretical approaches to learning in supervision highlight in one way or another the importance of experiential learning. However, no attempt has yet been made to comprehensively con- ceptualize such learning modality. What follows is a step in this direction.

EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING

Experiential learning has been defined as a process whereby the learner observes an action andlor takes self-action, generalizes the principles derived from it, then applies these principles to subse- quent situations (Borzak, 1980; Hamilton, 1980). This is what Dewey (1938) termed the "continuous process of reconstruction of experience." Based on his analysis of traditional educational theories, Dewey identified a dichotomy between the belief that education is a development from within and the opinion that it is a "formation from without." He developed a model that linked such necessary "outside" factors as discipline, provision of structure, and normative frameworks with elements from "within" such as personal freedom, initiative, spontaneity and individuality. Dewey affirmed that education and actual experience are inseparable. An experience is educative if it is rooted in previous experiences and can be used to modify future experiences. He defined this process as "experiential continuum." The educator's role in this process is to organize environmental conditions and to direct the learner's ex- perience in order to make this "experiential continuum" viable.

Figure 1 schematically depicts a prescriptive model of experien- tial learning in supervision. (Note 1) A discussion of each compo- nent of the model as applied to the social work supervisory process will help elucidate its relevance.

( I ) Demanding Reality Context

A reality context is demanding if it confronts the learner involved with problems to be solved as well as with associated cognitive and emotional challenges that are above his given level of development,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

6:53

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Zvi Eisikovits and Edna Guttman

FIGURE ONE.

THE EXPERIENTIAL SPIRAL OF LEARNING THROUGH SUPERVISION

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

6:53

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

56 THE CUNICAL SUPERVISOR

knowledge and experience. Creating "demanding reality contexts9' for the supervisee should include efforts to make the learner aware of the complexity arising from the social and intersubjective nature of how reality is constructed (Berger, 1967). Clients, students, and supervisors are separately and interactively involved in creating realities of their own and in negotiating toward a common ground. Furthermore, this reality is contextualized and changes according to a variety of situations. Acknowledging the subjective and volatile nature of reality context does not, however, eliminate the need to identify some of its components in social work supervision.

We identified two sets of components. The first involves internal and external challenges to the supervisee. The second suggests elements of continuity by means of which experiences are pro- gressively evolving from each other. In his field placement, the social work student is faced with challenges on several levels, aris- ing both from the new learning situation and from the new supervisor-supervisee relationship. From the role of receiver (in classroom learning) the supervisee is suddenly placed into the role of giverlservice provider to "real life" clients (role discontinuity). In this position he is expected to perform simultaneously as receiver and as provider (role conflict, Borzak & Hursh, 1980). Such dual performance often leads to inconsistencies, a feeling of in- competence, and emotional tension and frustration. Being involved with hands-on practice is also associated with a new sense of respon- sibility toward both cleint and sponsoring organizations, which can further intensify these negative emotional reactions. Quite often the student nurtures a real or an illusionary sense of colleagueship be- tween himself and more experienced workers in the agency. A sub- jective feeling of belonging to the guild of professionals or a heightened aspiration to emulate them can place additional strain on the supervisee. Stepping into the role of provider, he moves out from under the protective umbrella of the classroom and into a universe where one's performances receive greater visibility. He becomes socialized to the idea of accountability on the one hand, and the inability of the profession to show "measurable outputs" on the other. Accountability is usually dealt with either on the control level (i.e., writing case records, being on time, making appoint- ments with clients) or on the ideational one (i.e., social workers have to be accountable for a product as part of their professional ideology) but seldom in the sense of accounting for some measurable output in their work. As part of the process of account-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

6:53

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Zvi Eisikovits and Edna Gutm?an 57

ability, the student is expected to give reasonable grounds for nis professional decisions. This is how "accounts" (Lyman & Scott, 1968) or professional justifications for one's actions are born.

The continuity component in supervision is expressed in several ways, In field work, doing comes before learning and analyzing what was done. The supervisory meeting is usually spent on critical analysis of the supervisee's activities. During this time questions are raised and avenues open for the exploration of ways in which the ac- tion taken by the supervisee can fertilize or refine future actions.

The client introduces an additional aspect of continuity in learning through supervision. When work performance is discussed in the supervisory session it is usually client-centered. By developing a treatment plan with and for the client, the student commits himself to continuous application of concepts, skills and techniques which, in the context of classroom learning, seem isolated.

Last, but by no means least, the student's emotional experiences are carefully weighed and analyzed. In addition to supervising what the student does, the supervisor helps to guide him toward an understanding of who he is. Introspection generates self develop- ment. Thus, self analysis gives continuity to the process of the stu- dent's growth.

One cannot conclude a discussion of '6demanding reality context" without addressing the issue of parameters. What is the op- timal degree of challenges that stimulates learning? In other words, how demanding should a learning situation be in order to inspire in- terest in the further pursuit of knowledge without producing stupor? Answers to these questions should be built on the sturdy foundations of empirical research. So far the best measure known to us is the ex- tent of the supervisee's interest in the acquisition of new skills.

(2) Acquisition of New Skills

Following Argyris & Schon (1974) we define skills as the various dimensions of the ability to behave effectively in action oriented situations. When the supervisee is faced with action or action plans that he perceives as challenging, he inevitably discovers that he lacks necessary skills. Faced with this "barrier" he may choose either to quit or to continue by first searching for ways to acquire these "missing" skills. At this point it is essential to make the op- tions available for skill acquisition visible to the learner. These sources belong to one of two major categories: one source is the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

6:53

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

THE CLINICAL SUPERVISOR

practice environment in the field, including the client, the peer group, more experienced colleagues and the supervisor; the other comes from either the classroom or from independent reading and learning through more or less formalized educational settings (Larsen & Hepworth, 1978). Due to the nature of our model, and because the first source mentioned is more readily accessible in learning situations related to social work field supervision, we are mainly interested in the first category. This is not to diminish in any way the importance of acquiring skills through reading and/or through other more formal learning situations.

Existing skill inventories in the social work literature classify skills according to competency areas (Larsen, 1980), for example, relationship oriented or change oriented skills, etc. Little attention has been given to the process of skill organization. In our context the question is which skills are most conducive to the acquisition of fur- ther skills? Two equally important factors are involved: the sources of skills, and the order of their acquisition. The following example may help to clarify this point.

In initial interviews with his client, the supervisee mainly listens and thereby learns this crucial skill. Later, based upon what he has heard he develops an understanding of what was said. He wants to communicate his understanding to the client, and thus recognizes the need to distinguish between description and interpretation. With the help of different sources (colleagues, supervisor, client), he then moves on to becoming aware of the basis of his interpretation. For this to happen, the supervisor/colleague/client teaches him slulls such as repeating, validating, reflection, and the conscious use of selfand knowledge. This in turn leads to self understanding beyond client's words. In subsequent interaction with his client the super- visee will use these skills to analyze each topic the client brings up. The supervisee encounters a new challenge: the client understands and agrees to the topics brought up by the supervisee; however, he is reluctant to accept the implications derived from their integration. Here the supervisee discovers the need to learn integrative skills, and the supervisor teaches him to develop an integrative summary at the end of each interview.

Listening skills create the need to acquire descriptive and inter- pretive skills based upon repetition, reflection and integration. The process of skill acquisition is successful if the supervisee has the op- portunity to exercise and refine these newly acquired skills by using them as part of his professional repertoire. Fascination with

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

6:53

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Zvi Eisikovits and Edna Guttrnan 59

discovery is channeled into familiar "everydayness" which we see as encouraging utilization on an ongoing basis.

(3) Responsible Challenging Action

This is the stage where a person moves from drilling skills in a protected environment such as simulation and role playing to public testing. Moving one's performance from private to public places (Goffman, 1959) is associated with considerable stress and fear of failure, as well as with anxiety related to reactions of the audience which has serious consequences regarding public identity formation (Robbins, 1974). In light of the above, facilitating responsible challenging action is one of the most difficult tasks for the super- visor. Several practice-based criteria for facilitating such action are listed below; however, the list is not an exhaustive one and should be further developed and empirically tested. (Note 2)

-The scope and objectives of the activity should be clearly delineated.

-The action should be important to someone (agency, client, community) in addition to the supervisee himself.

-It should provide opportunities for the supervisee: to experiment with ideas, action strategies and associated emotions without imposing irreversible consequences for the supervisee;

to gain experience in decision making on both the pro- fessional and the personal level; to experience the meaning of participation in the sense of participating as an equal in professional forums and at the same time, allowing colleagues and clients to participate; to achieve a sense of accountability in conjunction with an ability to experience success related to the positive outcomes of his work.

(4) Opportunity for Critical Analysis and Reflection

At this stage, concepts, which Bloom (1975) defined as ideas de- rived from experience and expressed through symbols, are formed out of experiences and remain connected to them. Concept forma- tion is made by grouping events in sets, and observing patterns and sequences among them. This stage is divided into two sub-stages:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

6:53

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

60 THE CLINlCAL SUPERVISOR

a. Each action is explained according to its specific results. These explanations are action theories; actions are related to their results but not to other actions and their results (Argyris & Schon, 1974).

b. Similar actions and consequences are assembled and put into action based conceptual categories (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). This is the process of building practice theory (Argyris & Schon, 1974), or what Bloom (1975) called "set of events. "

Referring back to our example, the following actions with their respective results can be expected at this stage: the supervisee learns that communication with his client results in the client's examining what he had previously said; this leads to the client's giving his own interpretations of the themes brought up, or to his agreeing with the ones provided by the supervisee; finally, the supervisee learns that an integrative summary helps the client to relate to the themes in their interconnectedness, which enhances the client's overall under- standing of his distress.

By the end of this stage, the enacted skills of listening, reflective description, interpretation and integrative summary are connected with their specific results. They fall together now into the more abstract category, namely, that clarifying the client's statements leads the client to communicate his growing self-understanding.

(5) Development of Abstractions, Principles and Generalizations

This is the stage of learning where experiences are molded into practice theory. Unfortunately, this is the most frequently neglected aspect of learning through supervision. Practice theory formation takes place in two subsequent phases: abstraction and development of principles, and generalizations (Bloom, 1975). Abstraction implies the removal of cases and actions, along with their consequences, from their time and space context. Concepts evolve from concrete, situation-bound events, and relationships among concepts are established. Action principles are then derived from interrelated concepts. Finally, from action principles generalizations are developed. The supervisee develops a set of higher Level, abstract ideas from the mental combination of abstrac- tions and principles. A series of cases with common characteristics gives birth to generic concepts, which can be used both for understanding and for validating other new cases (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Bloom, 1975).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

6:53

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Zvi Eisikovits and Edna Guttinan 61

Carrying our example to this final stage-the supervisee for- mulates the abstraction that analyzing the clients' statements helps them to gain insight. From this abstraction the supervisee draws the following principle: if analyzing the clients' statements helps them to gain insight, and the insight gained helps them to identify change goals, then analyzing the clients' statements helps them to develop change goals. Thus, a practice based, theoretical tenet the super- visee can formulate at this point is: analyzing what the clients say helps them in their change process.

SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS

Using Dewey's concept of "experiential continuum" as a heur- istic device, we developed a prescriptive model of optimal learning through supervision. Now we need to analyze the viability of this model as practice theory.

Argyris and Schon (1974), in their discussion of practice theory, argued that certain action theories (rules governing various sets of actions and their consequences); when ordered in specific ways that permit transferability of sets of actions and their consequences from one category of actions to another, combine to create practice theories. It follows then that one way to analyze the viability of the model as practice theory is to look at its components and the way in which they interrelate.

Our model can be seen as practice theory in that it I ) orders cer- tain stages in the learning process so that each stage can be viewed as action theory, 2) provides rules governing certain actions and delineates outcomes, 3) while simultaneously being the subsequent stage or another set of categories creating an action theory. Since the mode1 is prescriptive only, its use in practice and in empirical research can be the only true measure of its viability.

A variety of research questions can be derived from the model, such as: "How demanding should a reality context be in order to generate interest in the acquisition of new skills?" or "In relation to the development of an experiential continuum, what are the dif- ferences in the perceptions of supervisors and supervisees regarding the order of acqusition of skiils?"

Another way to test the model would be to use the method of analytical induction (Cressey, 1953); for example, to relate to each one of its components as a hypothesis or a set of hypotheses and to test these in practice. If confirmed they can be used as theoretical tenets; if not, another hypothesis emerging from the testing process

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

6:53

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

62 THE CLINICAL SUPERVISOR

can be substituted for the old one. Such an approach could be rewarding beyond the actual testing of the model as it could generate a variety of new practice related issues.

NOTES

1. The authors are indebted to Professor Dianne Hedin, from the Center for Youth Development and Research - University of Minnesota, for her help in conceptualizing this model in a different context.

2. Gisela Konopka (1973) in her article "Requirements for Healthy Development of Adolescent Youth" listed several conditions for healthy development of youth. These criteria were stimulated by her writing.

REFERENCES

Argyris, C. & Schan, D.A.: Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness; San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Publishers; 1974.

Austin, L.; Basic Principles of Supervision; Social Casework; 33110); 1952; pp: 41 1419. Austin, M.J. & Sodec, B.; Students as Management Simulation Designers: Guidelines for

Integrating Classroom and Practicum Experiences; Journal of Education for Social Work; 14(1); 1978, pp:3-9.

Berg, R.B.: ~ransference and the Camp Counselor: Social Casework; 31(5); 1950: pp: 201-204.

Berger; P. & Luckman, T.; The Social Consrrucrion of Reality; New York: Anchor Paper- backs; 1967.

Bert, F.; An Attempt to Construct a Conceptual Framework for Supervision; Social Casework; 4 1(7); 1960; 339-346.

Berlin, S.; A Cognitive-Learning Perspective for Social Work: Social Service Review; 5414): 1980; pp: 537-555.

Bloom, M.; The Paradox of Helping: Introduction ro rhe Philosophy of Scienrrjc Practice; New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 1975.

Borzak, L. (ed.); Field-Study; A Sourcebook for Expenenrial Learning; London, Sage Pub- lishers; 1980; pp: 9-15.

B o d , L. & Hursh, B.A.; Developing New Ways of Thinking: A Case Study; In: Borzak, L. (ed.); Field Study: A Sourcebook for Erperienrial Learning; London; Sage Publishers; 1980; pp: 122-134.

Brackett, J.R.: Supervision and Educarion in Charity; New York; Macmillan Company: a903.

Caligor, L.; Parallel and Reciprocal Processes in Pscyhoanalytic Supervision; Conremporap Psychoanalysis; 17(1); 1981 ; pp: 1-27.

Cressey, D.R.; Other People's Money. A Study in the Social Psychology of Embezlement: Glencoe 111.: Free Press, 1953.

Dewey, J; Experience and Education: New York, Macmillan: 1938. Flemming, J. & Benedekex, T.F.; Psychoanalytic Supervision: A Method of Clinical Teach-

ing; New York; Grune and Stratton Inc.; 1966. Gediman, H.K. & Wolkenfeld, F.; The Parallelism Phenomenon in Psychoanalysis and

Supervision: Its Reconsideration as a Traidic System; Pscyhoanalytic Quarrerly; 4912); 1980; pp: 234-255.

Gitterman, A.; Comparison of Educational Models and their Influences on Supervision: In: Kaslow, F.W. and Associates; Issues in Human Services; London: Jossey-Bass Pub- lishers; 1972; pp: 13-38.

Glaser, B.G. & Strauss, A.L.; The Discovery of Grounded Theory; Chicago; Aldine Pub- lishing Company; 1967.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

6:53

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Zvi Eisikovits and Edna Guttman 63

Goffman, E.; R e Presentation of Self in Everyday Life; New York; Doubleday; 1959. Gustin, J.; Supervision in Psychotherapy; Psychoanalysis and Psychoanalytic Review; 45;

1958; pp: 63-72. Hamilton, S.F.; Experiential Learning Programs for Youth; American Journal of Education;

88(2); 1980; pp: 179-215. Hester, M.; Educational Process in Supervision; Social Casework; 32(6); 1951; pp: 242-251. Hollis, F.; Emotional Growth of the Worker 7hrough Supervision; Proceedings of the Na-

tional Conference of Social Work; Chicago; University of Chicago Press: 1936. Hutchinson, D.; Supervision in Social Casework; 7he Family; 16; 1935; pp. 4447. Kadushin, A.; Supervision in Social Work; New York, Columbia University Press; 1976. Kahn, E.M.; The Parallel Process in Social Work Treatment and Supervision; Social Case-

work; 60(9), 1979; pp: 520-528. Konopka, G.; Requirements for Healthy Development of Adolescent Youth; Adolescence;

S(31); 1973; pp: 291-319. Larsen, J.A.; Competency-Based and Task-Centered Practicum Instruction; Journal of Edu-

cation for Social Work: 16(1); 1980; pp. 87-94. Larsen, J.A. & Hepwonh, D.H.; Skill Development Through Competency Based Education;

Journal of Education for Social Work; 14(1); 1978; pp: 73-81. Mattison, J .; 7he Rejection Process in Casework Supervision; London; Institute of Marital

Studies; 1975. Morton, T.D. & Kurtz, P.D.; Educational Supervision: A Learning Theory Approach;

Social Casework; 61(4); 1980; pp: 240-246. Munson, C.E.; Professional Autonomy and Social Work Supervision; journal of Educafion

for Social Work; 12(3); 1976; pp: 95-102. Munson, C.E.; Evaluation of Male and Female Supervisors; Social Work 24(2); 1979a; pp:

104-1 10. Munson, C.E.: Supervision and Consultation in Rural Mental Health Practice; In: Proceed-

ings, Fourth Narional Insriture on Social Work in Rural Areas; University of Wyoming; 1979b; pp:87-93.

Munson, C.E.: Differential Impact of Structure and Authority in Supervision; ARE@; 611); 1980; pp: 3-15.

Munson, C.E.; Style and Structure in Supervision; Journal of Education for Social Work; 17(1); 1981; pp: 65-72.

Report of the Milford Conference; Social Casework: Generic and Specl3c. New York; American Association of Social Workers; 1929.

Reynolds. B.C.; Learning and Teaching in rhe Practice of Social Work; New York; Russel & Russel Inc . ; 1965.

Richmond, M.E.; Social Diagnosis; New York; Russell Sage Foundation; 1917. Robbins, R.H.; Identity and the Interpersonal Theory of Disease; In: Fitzgerald, T.K. (ed.);

Social and Cultural Identity; U.S.A: University of Georgia Press; 1974; pp: 5-14. Sachs, D.M. & Shapiro, S.H.; On Parallel Processes in Therapy and Teaching; The

Psvchoana1.vtic Quarterly; 45; 1976; pp: 3944 15. Scott, M.B. & Lyman, S.; Accounts, American Sociological Review; 33(1); 1968;

pp: 46-62. Shapiro, C.H. & Lazar-Mueller, B.J. & Witkin, S.L.; Performance Based Evaluation: A

Diagnostic Tool for Educators; Social Service Review, 54(2); 1980; pp: 262-272. Towle, C.; Common Human Needs; Washington D.C.; U.S. Govt. Printing Office; 1945.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

6:53

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14