Social Work Education: Developing Professional Identity and Readiness for Practice

This themed Issue brings together quality articles concerned with the delivery model of social work education and the embedding of core curriculum. Contributions consider, for example, the value of e-portfolios in assessing students’ graduate attributes (Powell et al., 2024) and the use of simulation in field education (Harris & Newcombe, 2024). Several articles are specifically focused on innovation addressing the limited capacities and challenges of field education that were present long before, but were exacerbated during, the COVID-19 pandemic (Haralambous et al., 2024; Harris & Newcombe, 2024; Morley et al., 2024). A final set of contributions look to extend curriculum content, including forensic social work, ecological justice, human–animal relations, and cross-cultural learning opportunities (Battaglia et al., 2024; Daddow, 2024; Duvnjak & Dent, 2024; Lattas & Davis, 2024). In this issue, many authors argue for changes in social work education and consider how such change can be achieved.

Australian education in social work is at a pivotal moment where calls for change have emerged from multiple sources. The Australian Social Work Education and Accreditation Standards (ASWEAS) are currently being reviewed (Australian Association of Social Workers [AASW], 2024); the Australian Council of Heads of Social Work Education (ACHSWE) has initiated a field education taskforce; and the Australian University Accord (Australian Government, 2024) is making recommendations to improve the delivery and funding of higher education.

As a self-regulating profession, the AASW (2020a) provides ASWEAS to guide higher education providers (HEPs) in the delivery of social work education. The current ASWEAS were launched in 2020, with the latest update issued in August 2023. The ASWEAS (AASW, 2020b) use the AASW (2023) Practice Standards and the AASW (2020b) Code of Ethics as a frame to guide social work education and to ensure that graduate social workers meet graduate attributes and are ready for professional social work practice. Several authors in this Issue explore what should ideally be guiding a revisioning of the standards and what this means for field education.

Field education consistently has been described as the cornerstone, distinctive pedagogy, or signature pedagogy of social work education (AASW, 2020a; Bogo, 2015; Egan et al., 2018). The intent of field education is to socialise students into the profession through practice in the field, and the associated “application of knowledge, reflection, feedback and critique of practice experiences”, allowing students to develop their practice framework and integrate their professional identity (AASW, 2020a, p. 10). Social work education thus needs to prepare students as life-long learners for practice that meets current standards through the application of competencies, values, skills, and knowledge, and enables them to critically engage with, and reflect on emerging issues, contemporary practice, research, and evidence. The pedagogical focus of field education and social work education in general remains central to revisioning these endeavours.

A key question is what is really needed to ensure that social work graduates are work ready, and that they possess the skills and knowledge to be a professional practitioner. This is particularly pertinent considering the context of limited placements for direct practice learning; student poverty due to unpaid placement requirements; variable learning opportunities; and assessment of student learning and competency in placements (Egan et al., 2018; Haralambous et al., 2024; Morley et al., 2024; Zuchowski, 2019). National and international social work field education research has pointed to the importance of a pedagogical framework in envisioning a field education curriculum. Marion Bogo (2015), for example, has consolidated decades of research to highlight five important key elements of a strong field education pedagogy in clinical practice: existence of positive learning environments; collaborative relationships between students and field educators; opportunities for observation and debriefing; opportunities to practice; and direct observation by the field educator of the students’ practice. In considering the context of field education with external supervision in my own previous writing, I have argued for a key pedagogical focus on student learning that considers placement preparation, collaboration between the key players, establishing the placement context, ensuring safe placements, and the appropriate resourcing of field education support (Zuchowski, 2019). Picking up on current, national field education challenges, Morley and colleagues (2024) in this Issue present results of an inquiry that considered stakeholders’ experiences of modified placement arrangements allowed under amended ASWEAS (citing AASW, 2020b) during the COVID-19 pandemic. The findings suggest that students’ learning and professional development generally were not undermined by, and at times were facilitated by, reduced placement hours, work-based placements, and flexible working and supervision arrangements. Morley et al. (2024) posit a more permanent adoption of the modified ASWEAS trialled during COVID-19.

The Australian University Accord (Australian Government, 2024) highlights significant feedback from students about placement poverty due to unpaid work placements and identifies how onerous mandatory placement hours can financially disadvantage students. Recommendations of the Australian University Accord include: establishment of a job brokerage system to help students find part-time work; greater flexibility in regard to undertaking placements whether part-time, online, or off-shore; recognition of existing work experience in the field as recognition of prior learning (RPL) towards placement; use of Simulated Work-Integrated Learning (WIL) as part of placements (discussed by Harris & Newcombe in this Issue); that accrediting bodies establish “placement requirements to ensure that students gain industry relevant skills and experience without imposing onerous placement length and conditions” (p. 4); and that financial support is provided for placements. The Australian University Accord (Australian Government, 2024) further states: “This should include funding by governments for the nursing, care and teaching professions, and funding by employers generally (public and private) for other fields” (p. 6). What these recommendation mean for social work placements was initially unclear. This ambiguity was unfortunate, considering that social work academics and students have been at the forefront of highlighting student poverty during placement as a critical consideration (Gair & Baglow, 2018; Hodge et al., 2024; Morley et al., 2023).

We will need to await how the Australian Government will implement the recommendations and what impact this will have on social work field education. Payments for mandatory placement are now on the agenda. Further exploration of how many placement students can access the means' tested payment would be important to ascertain, and, in turn, lead to further consideration about what this means for placement learning, student progression, readiness for practice, and the roles and responsibilities between the HEPs, students, and placement providers.

Overall, we need to consider how we bring about changes to social work education that are meaningful and achieve the desired outcomes. What is needed is a core curriculum, including field education, that facilitates the professional growth of future graduate social workers and equips them to practise professionally and competently in changing contexts as critical practitioners. We want conditions in field education that are reflective of innovative practice, are pedagogically sound, provide supervision by a qualified supervisor, and create a positive learning environment and a context where students can financially, physically, psychologically, and emotionally thrive. I hope that the field education taskforce, the AASW in reviewing the ASWEAS, and the Australian Government in reviewing the recommendations of the Australian University Accord will lead to positive change.

In this Issue, Angela Daddow, in discussing students’ views of greening the social work curriculum, argues that “[a]ny change in practices, in social work education, and in the field, need to negotiate cultural and systemic barriers” (Daddow, 2024, p. 387). I agree and would argue that this critical reflection can be applied to our thinking about the Australian field education curriculum. The question is how we address the cultural and systemic barriers to reimagine field education. Some stakeholders might argue we have always done it this way, or that governments, universities, or placement agencies are not prepared to outlay funding to alleviate student hardship, or that HEPs are looking for savings and might be less focused on the pedagogy that is critical for field education and graduate readiness for practice. This year’s challenge is to negotiate the cultural and systemic barriers to re-envision social work field education.