Reflections in Case-Based Learning: Experiences of Computer-Based Simulations in Social Work Education

ABSTRACT

Case-based learning has a long history in social work education, but has been relatively unaffected by the advances of information and computer technology. The aim of this study is to discuss new, and perhaps more rewarding, forms of decision case learning by using a computer-based simulation, SimChild, that puts the student in the position of a professional social worker assessing a child protection case. Aggregated statistics from the SimChild exercise form the basis for seminars where the students can reflect on their decisions. The study indicates that the simulation promotes reflections and learning insights among students as well as new insights into the importance of more collective and interactive learning.

This article deals with case-based learning in the form of a computer-based simulation called SimChild, and what reflections this exercise elicits in Swedish social work students. In Sweden, three and a half years of study are required to become a professional social worker. The social work program entails both theoretical knowledge as well as practical skills, such as assessment work. Students must also be aware that social workers often have considerable room to maneuver where their own choices and assessments become decisive. That is why reflection remains a central component within professional social work. Simultaneously, case-based learning relates to a professional social worker who must deal with the complexity of peoples’ living conditions, which often entails dilemmas and problems with no given answers. In such situations where choices of action are being made, the reflection of the professional becomes crucial.

Although reflection as a concept has been criticized for being vague and difficult to measure, it is now considered a central component in professional social work and social work programs (Ixer, 1999; Milner et al., 2015). The reason why reflection has been assigned this value is due to the nature of social work, which is characterized by a high degree of complexity and challenges. Thus, it is crucial that professional social workers take a critical approach to their own practice, for example, when it comes to issues of power and how this can affect assessments and interventions. One field where reflection has been highlighted as a necessary dimension in social work relates to an increasingly multicultural society and things like discrimination and prejudice. In that sense, increased reflection can facilitate the visibility and understanding of how, for instance, cultural factors can influence attitudes and action strategies. “It is only when we acknowledge what ideas influence our actions that we are in a position to question them” (Milner et al., 2015, p. 71).

To reflect means thinking about something in a more systematic and conscious way. Reflection deals with a certain action in terms of how and why it was interpreted in a certain way, on what grounds certain choices or decisions were made, and the consequences of those choices in relation to a desirable outcome. To reflect on an action while it is in progress can be identified as reflection-in-action, while reflecting on a previous action is reflection-on-action. According to Schön (1984, 1987), both these kinds of reflections must be part of a professional strategy. Subsequently, reflection-in-action, as well as reflection on-action, can, as stressed by Thompson and Thompson (2008), lead to reflection-for-action that helps the professional social worker to prepare for upcoming assessments and meetings with the client.

Since students are not always given the opportunity to engage with real clients, Schön (1987) underlines the importance of creating safe training environments, something that Schön (1987) denotes in terms of a practicum. In this, the students are encouraged to develop their skills through the utilization of reflections. What differentiates the students’ reflections from the professionals’ is the fact that students’ reflections are seldom connected to real social work experiences. Rather, students may hold unexamined assumptions and ideas about what that practice will entail in a real-life situation. In that sense, the practicum assists the student’s reflection-in-action, as well as reflection-on-action—even though the student, as such, is not engaging with clients in a real social work setting (Redmond, 2004). This presupposes that social work programs are designed in such a way to facilitate making visible the students’ underlying norms and assumptions—and how these affect the decisions being made in the context of professional assessments. By questioning one’s own actions, students’ self-awareness may emerge, which can increase readiness for upcoming client interactions (Gardner, 2001; Horner, 2012). One way to promote that type of reflection is through case-based learning.

Traditional case-based learning has a long and rich history in social work education (e.g., Cossom, 1991; Towle, 1954), as in other professional education, such as nursing (e.g., Thomas et al., 2001), business administration (e.g., Barnes et al., 1994) and teacher education (Merseth, 1991). The specific forms of case-based learning have varied over time (Gray et al., 2006), but the method has remained fundamentally the same. In short, it involves assigning students to analyze a description of a professionally relevant real-world situation—a case—and its professional implications in teacher-led discussions. In social work, as in some other professional education programs, the case method has often been equated with the decision case method, presenting “challenging problem-solving opportunities” (Wolfer & Gray, 2007, p. 41). The basic idea here is that the students are confronted with a real-world situation as a potential professional decision maker. In so doing, the students assume the role of social worker who, based on analysis of the situation, arrives at a particular intervention. One central criterion for decision cases is that they should reflect the complexity typical of social work as professional practice. Like the professional social worker, who must evaluate the pros and cons of a particular intervention against the backdrop of often contradictory and incomplete information, students are presented with cases. Those cases are characterized by “undefined problems, incomplete information, and unasked questions” (Austin & Packard, 2009, p. 220).

Although social work programs have, as Colvin and Bullock (2014) noted, started to incorporate computer technology, these changes have hardly affected case-based learning. Case-based learning is largely being pursued as before. The only difference is that written cases are, in exceptional cases, replaced by multimedia presentations (e.g., Ballantyne & Knowles, 2007). One way to develop case-based teaching is to use computer-based simulations as an educational tool that can facilitate and perhaps increase students’ reflections in the context of social work.

Computer-based simulations have been used within several disciplines, such as engineering and social sciences. According to previous research it has the potential to enhance things like cognition abilities, relational abilities, motivation, and engagement (Vlachopoulos & Makri, 2017). Even though computer-based simulations have been somewhat present within social work since the 1960s (Goldmeier, 1968), it would take until the 21st century before the development of various forms of simulation were intensified (Huttar & BrintzenhofeSzoc, 2020; Wretman & Macy, 2016). A number of concurrent factors can explain this delay. Traditionally, technical solutions within the context of social work education have been viewed with suspicion and considered a threat. It can, according to its critics, reduce the complexity of human living conditions and social problems, and have a negative effect on human encounters and ethical issues. Other scholars point out that this aligns with a general fear within social work practice when it comes to the use of technology (Dodds et al., 2018; Parker-Oliver & Demiris, 2006). However, things have changed. The softening resistance to technology within social work education can, among other things, be explained by the effect of the internet and the growing importance of distance learning. All of this underlines the potential of technology (Huttar & BrintzenhofeSzoc, 2020; Wretman & Macy, 2016).

SimChild

Today, various computer-based simulations are used in social work education, ranging from simulations where the student interacts with the computer through text forms (cf. Dodds et al., 2018) to advanced simulations in the form of virtual reality where students work in a virtual environment (Huttar & BrintzenhofeSzoc, 2020). The computer-based simulation SimChild is based on a model that entails a professional context. In this, social work students are given the opportunity to act as a social worker in situations where assessments and decision making are at the center. Besides child protection, SimChild could also be used in, for instance, needs assessment within rehabilitation. In technical terms, SimChild can be described as a text-based or document-based simulation. This is a kind of simulation Wastell et al. (2011) called a microworld of professional assessments and decision making. In this microworld, the students are supposed to experience a realistic social work assessment situation in relation to continuously learning information that is incomplete and fragmented. What also characterizes this microworld is the possibility of an experimental approach in which different background variables can be manipulated. More specifically, the students are, with a child case as a starting point, tasked with individually analyzing various types of written documents. The simulation includes two consecutive phases. In the first phase, the only information the students are given is that a neighbor of a family has called social services and expressed concerns for a child in the family in question. In the next phase, additional information is provided, such as notes from a meeting between social workers at child protection services and the family. In each of these phases, the students are presented with closed multiple-choice questions about the child’s situation. The students have the task of explaining their assessments and decision in free-text form. Subsequently, they decide about whether emergency protection and an investigation are justified under the circumstances. They are also asked to consider what negative consequences may arise for the child if an investigation is initiated or not (for a case summary, see the Appendix).

In the SimChild exercise the students are given access to the same case, but the background information of the targeted family, such as ethnicity or socioeconomic status, can be varied and is unknown to students. The reason for this is that SimChild can be used to uncover/reveal the students’ biases. According to Lipsky (2010), the presence of biases and stereotypes is something that must be recognized in the context of, for instance, social work practice. To ensure that the variance of background information remains hidden for the students they are divided in different groups depending on what information they are given. The SimChild exercise is always followed by a seminar where students can discuss the student group’s assessments on an aggregated level (charts from the SimChild exercise are presented to the students).

The intersections between SimChild and the conventional form of decision case learning are apparent. Both forms involve giving students the opportunity to immerse themselves in the role of an analyzing professional social worker for which there is no obvious correct solution. In both forms, it is a goal that a case should mimic the complexity of reality and that students should experience the situation as realistic.

SimChild thus has authenticity as an important target, something that is often emphasized in the literature on decision case learning. If we expect the social work student to step into the role of professional social worker, a case must reflect real-world situations in a tangible and engaging way for the students (e.g., Jones, 2003). Authenticity, however, as previously suggested (Egonsdotter et al., 2020), can be seen as a combination of two dimensions: substantial versus formal authenticity. Substantial authenticity has to do with the narrative qualities of a case: above all, its capacity to realistically reflect the complexity and ambiguity of professional practice. As a consequence of endeavors to depict actual situations encountered by practitioners, the importance of consulting practicing social workers is often emphasized (Gray et al., 2006).

Substantial authenticity is a central quality for both the conventional form of decision case learning and SimChild, but SimChild also entails a clear ambition to achieve formal authenticity. The conventional form for a decision case is a written story of varying length. In SimChild, the story is replaced with a flow of documents containing contradictory and diffuse information, similar to that which social workers are called on to manage. SimChild is thus also an attempt to create formal structural similarities between students’ fictional assessments and the structures and processes that characterize child welfare assessments in Sweden and other European countries. Without directly imitating these procedures, students are given access to the documents that such assessments typically contain. The assessment criteria resemble those that apply to professional social work in several European countries (e.g., Léveillé & Chamberland, 2010). The work with cases, as well as the work with the formal structure of the simulation, is based on real cases and interviews with practicing social workers in Sweden.

The most important difference between conventional decision case learning and SimChild is the manipulation of background information. One challenge shared by both methods is to use teacher-led discussions to encourage students to elaborate on various interpretations and suggestions for solutions to the problems described in a case. A central component is to “learn new ways of looking at situations that challenge attitudes and mindsets” (Austin & Packard, 2009, p. 217). The points of departure for such discussions, however, vary widely between conventional decision case learning and SimChild. While the discussion input for the first approach is restricted to discussions of the case as such, the students using the other approach have access to charts on how the understanding of the same situation is affected by the variety of background information. These varieties deal with, for instance, family’s ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or the child’s gender. Participation in this type of exercise provides an additional basis of awareness of how unreflective thinking can affect assessments and decisions in child protection cases (Egonsdotter et al., 2020).

The overall question guiding the article is to what extent SimChild can promote student reflections in the context of social work education?

Method

As an aspect of the development of SimChild, the simulation exercise was conducted at three of the 16 schools of social work at Swedish universities (these three universities were the first to pilot SimChild). All together, 176 social work students participated (University A, n = 72; University B, n = 39; University C, n = 65). The three student groups had a similar distribution of age (mean age University A = 25.3, University B = 25.9, University C = 27.3) and gender (percentage of female studies, University A = 83.1, University B = 88.2, University C = 86.7). The SimChild exercise was carried out on the bachelor’s level during the social work students’ third semester when they were studying law and child protection. The students performed the SimChild exercise before their social work internship, which means that their experiences of real assessment work were limited. In turn, this might have influenced the students’ judgments regarding the authenticity of SimChild. Participation in the simulation exercise was required but students were not graded. The SimChild exercise is described further in Table 1.

Table 1. SimChild: The work process.

Day 1 30 minutes	A brief introduction to SimChild and the ideas behind the exercise are provided 1 week before the exercise is held.
Day 2 30 minutes	Previously provided information is repeated in connection with the exercise and students are afforded the opportunity to ask questions. The SimChild program is demonstrated and a manual for the exercise is distributed.
About 1 hour	Individual work with Phase I.
About 1.5 hours	Individual work with Phase II.
15 minutes	The seminar begins with a general and free discussion of perceptions of the individual exercises.
1.5 hours	Diagrams that illustrate the outcome of various background variables are presented and the result discussed.
15 minutes	Debriefing. Free discussion of the exercise and reflections surrounding the seminar discussions.

As previously mentioned, students participating in a SimChild exercise are given access to the same case, but background circumstances are varied at random. In the current study, one half of the student group was given typical Somali names and the other half typical Swedish names. At each university the SimChild exercise was followed by a focus-group session made up of eight randomly selected students (i.e., 24 students in all). In the focus-group session, the students were shown the statistical outcome (i.e., charts) of the individual exercises. Then, they were given the opportunity to discuss patterns they observed in the assessments. The reasoning revolved around the manipulation of background information and how that might have influenced the understanding of the case and the interventions at hand. Thus, the focus groups engaged in the same discussions as the regular seminars, which always follows the SimChild exercise, analyzing the outcome of the SimChild assessments. The focus-group participants were also encouraged to reflect on SimChild as a pedagogical tool for learning. Unlike individual interviews, a focus group promotes a more dynamic and interactive discussion in which various opinions and perceptions are encouraged and made visible (Bryman, 2018). The sessions were led by the first author who tried to encourage the students’ freer discussion and not make use of detailed or leading questions.

Focus-group discussions were conducted, recorded, and transcribed verbatim by the first author. Subsequently, the focus-group data underwent a thematic content analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1984; Padgett, 2008). The coding, which was performed jointly by the first and second author, can be described as follows (see also Table 2).

Table 2. Example of the coding process.

In vivo codes	Categories	Theme
“When you’re making the assessment on your own, you rely on yourself. Then when you get to hear what others think, then it’s like … yes, that could also be the case”	Synchronous interaction	Interaction as a means of learning opportunities
“The fact that you are not alone, but discuss and problematize with others… “Have you thought about this?” “No, I have not.” I think that’s the most important thing.”
”Everyone enters with different perspectives and looks at [the problems] from different directions. There is a wide age range in the group and we all come from different backgrounds. And some have more experience than others.”	Perspectives/experiences

In the first step, the transcription was read repeatedly in its entirety. In the second step, chunks of text, in terms of in vivo codes, were identified based on their relevance linked to reflection. In vivo means that the participants’ own utterances were used to illustrate and strengthen the analytical categorization of the data. In turn, these in vivo codes constituted, through comparison, categories with similar traits. In the third step, these categories were merged into overall analytical themes that entailed a higher level of abstraction capturing vital aspects of the students’ understanding of SimChild in relation to reflection. Quotations from the transcript are annotated with the group letter (i.e., University A, B, or C).

The study underwent ethics vetting.¹ The students were informed that participation was voluntary, and that all information collected and presented would be treated as confidential. The researcher was not engaged as the students’ teacher at the time of the study, and the participants were also informed that their involvement would not affect their education or grade in a negative sense. The focus-group leader was also prepared to intervene if students, for instance, began to question each other’s assessments and values in an intolerant way, something that did not occur.

Findings

When analyzing the focus-group discussions, two themes emerged that seemed to catch vital aspects regarding the students’ perceptions concerning the SimChild exercise. The first theme dealt with the fact that SimChild promotes a sense of authenticity and motivation among the students. The other theme dealt with the interaction in relation to learning opportunities. Both themes are elaborated on in the following sections.

Sense of authenticity and motivation

According to the students, the fragmented information embedded in SimChild promoted thoughts about what they will face in their upcoming role as professionals. In this, the focus groups revealed awakening in the students—that real assessments are about reaching decisions even though the reports at hand are often incomplete or contradictory. As stated in the focus groups, “As a social worker, you are probably going to have to take a stance on these kinds of reports” (A:1).

Thus, the SimChild session seemed to promote an insight concerning what assessment work is not about. It is not a situation in which the assessors have access to perfect and complete information that will answer all their questions. It is rather characterized by fragments of incoming information. Efforts to achieve these kinds of student reflections concerning what the assessment work will entail are expressed in SimChild, not only through the case, but also its presentation. In the simulation, there is no cohesive fact-filled story, but rather a flow of scattered information resembling a normal professional social worker situation.

The discussions in the focus groups indicated that the students were somewhat puzzled and perhaps frustrated by the fact that they had to deal with such a complicated case within a limited amount of time. Thus, they had to manage and evaluate various reports and, on that basis, come to a decision. In that sense SimChild could be perceived as a “very realistic” element within the social work program (C:2). The sense of authenticity following those reports, were, according to the students, something that gave rise to motivation. “I am more motivated by this, more interested,” one student explained. “It is fun to actually be allowed to do something real” (C:5). Another student indicated that SimChild gave her the opportunity to practice what she believed was closer to real social work practice. “It is so good to get to do something so real,” the student noted, “because so much of what we do otherwise is so general and a little hard to get a grip on” (A:4).

The fact that SimChild let the students take a stance based on a situation that is uncertain and not fixed seemed to promote other forms of reflections and action strategies compared to traditional social work teaching (e.g., reading and lectures). Accordingly, the focus-group sessions captured some of the students changing their assumptions about what their future role as social workers will hold. According to the students, SimChild helped them to realize that child protection services is about bridging theory and practice in a more independent manner. To adapt to changes and rapidly reach decisions based on vague reports were described as vital components in the students’ image of a professional social worker. As one student put it:

It is one thing to read the textbooks—this is what you are supposed to do—but another thing entirely when you are presented with a real case and have to take a position. […] All of a sudden, things are very different. (C:7)

Some participants said that they were made aware of how the exercise highlighted their own knowledge gaps. This indicates how students, through SimChild, also perceive the relationship between practical training and theoretical learning. Another aspect of the exercise that the students brought up—which touches on their uncertainty about their choices and knowledge, as an important part of their reflections—has to do with the need for expertise. The exercise showed the participants that they lacked the requisite skills for investigations of this kind. “I think it was a good exercise, but I feel that so far, I do not have enough knowledge and experience” (A:4), one student admitted.

The students also linked their perceived knowledge gaps to future studies: “I think [the exercise] was useful, even though it will be a long time before I have that much responsibility. There is still a lot to be learned, and that feels reassuring” (C:1).

Thus, SimChild made the students reflect on their knowledge base in a wider sense. A more common reflection was that the individual exercise had given them the opportunity to immerse themselves in the challenges they will encounter as practicing social workers. According to several participants, their feelings and assumptions of being in a “real” situation gave them insight into the uncertainty and complexity of professional decision making. This could also be perceived as something rewarding. “It was a very good exercise,” said one of the students, “especially because it allows participants to perceive their uncertainty. It is good for us to experience that” (C:1). Thus, the ability to handle the demand for immediate action in an uncertain SimChild assessment landscape, in which various reports and actors interact, laid the foundation for the students’ wider reflections. Those reflections were about what their future position as professional assessors will contain. Not knowing exactly what to do was perceived as something fruitful. “The feeling of uncertainty,” claimed one student, “is above all something good.” The chance to practice decision making through SimChild, without risk of causing harm to clients—to “get to see and to try things” as one of the students put it—was thus perceived as highly positive. One student indicated how SimChild could also promote a lingering form of reflection on one’s own position. This suggests how not knowing exactly how to do things remain as a fruitful reflection even after the SimChild session has ended. “I am going to go home and think about this,” one student concluded, “about how I assessed the case and why” (A:4).

In all, SimChild put the students in a position in which they, within a limited time frame, had to take a stance, based on fragmented and incomplete information, which paved the way for a state of uncertainty among the students. This was about the students dealing with fragments of information with no given manual assisting them in trying to grasp the child’s life situation. When the students were asked to reflect on this feeling of uncertainty it also seemed to promote curiosity and thoughts concerning their own knowledge base and what was needed to handle the assignment at hand. This led to students raising questions about assessment work in relation to theory and practice. This in turn promoted deepening reflections concerning how various forms of knowledge intertwine in real assessment challenges. Not knowing exactly what knowledge and skills to use in this situation made the students feel somewhat puzzled. In that sense, feelings of uncertainty did not only cause frustration, but also triggered reflections on what it means to be a social worker. Thus, a crucial aspect of this theme is that the SimChild exercise in many ways paved the way for a reflection that was based on the students’ understanding of their own lack of confidence in their decision making. In addition, the reflection did not, based on the students’ discussions, seem to end with the state of uncertainty, since it was also accompanied with elements of interest and curiosity, that brought further motivation into their own learning process.

Interaction as a means of learning opportunities

A central idea behind both conventional forms of decision case learning and SimChild is to give students opportunities to elaborate various interpretations of a case in a follow-up seminar. Different ways to understand the same case are illustrated in this way, and students’ biases can be challenged. How students assessed the case was visualized in the SimChild charts, presented in the focus-group sessions. Another theme that emerged in those discussions related to the students’ understanding of their own profession. The theme was that as a social worker you are expected to be objective and to treat everyone equally.

To start with, the focus-group discussions illustrated how the interaction and discussion between the students, based on the SimChild exercise, was highly valued. The students’ discussions, as mentioned above, clearly involved the difficulties of analyzing a case characterized by diffuse and sometimes contradictory information. This, in turn, triggered, as mentioned above, the surprising uncertainty they felt when confronted with the task of making decisions based on that material. The students were asked to relate their reactions to the differences in the assessments based on the manipulation of ethnicity. They described their reactions in various terms, ranging from “scary” to “shocking,” as well as “intriguing” and “interesting.” In other words, students became aware of the fact that variations in background information in relation to ethnicity could affect the assessment of the case (see, also, Egonsdotter et al., 2020).

A consistent perspective in the focus-group discussions was that SimChild had given the participants opportunities to compare their individual deliberations with others’ thinking regarding the case at hand. According to the students, the varied life experiences of the participants affected their assessments of the case:

Everyone enters with different perspectives and looks at [the problems] from different directions. There is a wide age range in the group, and we all come from different backgrounds. And some have more experience than others. (C:8)

The students also emphasized the effect of the variation in the case on their reflections:

I think it was good that we worked with families of two different ethnic backgrounds. Once we sat down and discussed this, we had more perspectives than we would have had if the case had dealt only with a family of Swedish ethnicity. (B:2)

The variations embedded in the exercise, according to another student, provided opportunities to “have some of your own thoughts confirmed while also being given a wider view” (A:4). Yet another student put it this way: “When you’re making the assessment on your own, you rely on yourself. Then when you get to hear what others think, then it’s like … yes, that could also be the case” (A:2).

The students stressed that SimChild gave them the opportunity to interact with others and exchange views and interpretations. That kind of collective, or group-based, reflection could be of higher value than the individual form, or as highlighted by one student: “The fact that you are not alone, but discuss and problematize with others. … ‘Have you thought about this?’ ‘No, I have not.’ I think that’s the most important thing” (B:7).

Thus, for several students, these experiences led to various types of reflections regarding their future as practicing social workers. The exercise, according to some, shed light on the responsibility entailed in being a social worker and the sometimes-profound effect that unexamined decisions may have on clients. “After all, we are here,” explained one student, “to learn a profession that involves pretty heavy responsibility” (A:2). In one interesting and frequently recurring reflection, the students emphasized the importance of discussions in building new knowledge and skills. One of the students expressed this as follows: “I think about how I might have completed the tasks differently [in the computer-based simulation] after these discussions. This shows the importance of discussion when you work in this profession” (B:2).

Simultaneously, the sessions also entailed students’ thoughts concerning what future organizational support will include, or not, in terms of the possibility of reflection. “I wonder,” one student asked, “how many conversations of this kind I am going to have [as a professional social worker]?” (C:2).

Concurrently, the focus-group students repeatedly underlined the importance of tolerance in the SimChild follow-up seminars. Several students maintained that there must be an accepting, open climate where discussions could be held without regard for status, for example, and where they are allowed to change their assessments of the case afterward: “I am here to learn how to do this. To take that step, you can’t feel stupid or be afraid to ask questions. And you have to have the courage to make mistakes” (A:2).

In all, the SimChild exercise, including subsequent discussions and analyses, exposed a kind of collective friction between the students’ original assumptions and notions of the premises governing their assessments. The friction that was aroused indicated that their assessments on an aggregated level were not always as neutral and objective as the students might expect. This friction suggests that the SimChild model enables moments of surprise and discomfort in which students’ assumptions are being challenged. In that sense, SimChild seemed to promote a wider collective reflection. This reflection concerned an “us,” and what social work assessors working with child protection as a collective should represent when it comes to knowledge and values. The discussion thus exposed a kind of collective friction, meaning a perceived gap between who they (the social work students) thought they were and who they actually are (in the sense of implicit biases). Thus, the variety of variables triggered, according to the students, uncertainty, uncomfortable feelings, but also a curiosity that laid the foundation for a more collective form of reflection. In other words, the interaction and exposure of different perspectives was not the end point of their reflection. Rather, it seemed to add new values to the students’ own learning opportunities.

Discussion

The objective of the article was to discuss the concept of reflection, as prompted by SimChild simulations, from the perspective of social work students. The fundamental idea behind decision case learning and simulation is that students are given authentic opportunities to improve their ability to combine theory and practice, and to strengthen their capacity to identify problems and possible solutions. In so doing, students can gain new insights into how social problems can be understood and responded to (e.g., Lundeberg & Fawver, 1994). Thus, SimChild offers students an opportunity to immerse themselves in the role as a professional social worker. It presents them with the task of understanding and managing a problem that entails a complexity that offers no obvious correct solutions.

A central idea behind conventional decision case-based learning is to develop a case narrative that stimulates students toward understanding that a problem can be perceived in various ways. In short, the intention is to create the cognitive dissonance that is essential for the development of reflective thought (e.g., Milner & Wolfer, 2014). This means that participating students, doing the SimChild exercise, are given access to the same case but with varied background variables. It is precisely herein that the most important difference between SimChild and conventional case-based learning is found. The SimChild approach, with the manipulation of variables, makes it obvious to the students that they sometimes assessed the very same case differently depending on, for example, the ethnicity of the family assessed.

One important theme that emerged from the focus-group sessions was that the SimChild exercise promoted feelings of authenticity that, in turn, triggered motivation. The fact that the students were faced with incomplete and scattered information made the assignment more realistic and the students more uncertain. The fact that they had to make their decisions based on fragmented data contributed to the students’ feeling that this was a realistic exercise with a significant degree of authenticity. The focus-group sessions illustrate how the SimChild design, which let the students take a stance based on vague reports, promotes a deeper reflection among the students on what social work assessment is about and what challenges lie ahead. The reactions to the consequences of their assessments were, as data from the focus groups show, myriad and profound: they involve everything from expressions of surprise to expressions of interest and curiosity. The students, one might say, were put into a state of intellectual uneasiness. In this, they realized that the variations of background variables gave rise to different assessments and suggested interventions. In light of this, the question that became the crux of the students’ discussions can be formulated as follows: Can the differences in assessments and actions be justified by ethnic differences? Further, should these differences be considered a manifestation of unchallenged, stereotypical beliefs about various groups of clients? Simultaneously, the sense of authenticity, and the feeling of not knowing exactly how to assess and decide that came with it, is not an end. Rather, they are among the first steps when it comes to fuel students’ motivation linked to their own learning process.

The other crucial theme that the focus-group sessions entailed was the value of students interacting with each other. In the seminar, they are not asked to “represent” or “defend” their own analysis, but to try and understand the differences based on the aggregation of the entire student group’s assessments, as presented to them. As previously argued (Egonsdotter et al., 2020), this does not stop students from sometimes referring to their individual work. Still, the focus of the discussion aims toward the differences in the combined assessments. In so doing, cognitive lock-in (e.g., cultural presuppositions) and confirmation biases were counteracted, and a more open and exploratory discussion was developed. As noted by Lipsky (2010), stereotypes and bias are something that can influence street-level bureaucracy even though its bureaucrats “are expected to treat all people in common circumstances alike” (p. 151). Previous research underlines how participation in this type of case-based simulation raises awareness of how unreflective thinking can affect assessments in relation to child protection (Egonsdotter et al., 2020). The student group discussions, dealing with these issues, are very much facilitated by the fact that students are confronted with SimChild data that present statistics concerning similarities and differences in students’ assessments (cf. Butcher, 2006; Egonsdotter et al., 2020).

Thus, SimChild seemed to reinforce the question of how assessment work is to be understood on a more collective basis. In this way, the discussions, following the SimChild exercise, seemed to provide a rather unique opportunity to compare and confront not only the assessments as such but the perspectives and values that precede them. It touched on students’ assumptions of what social workers as a collective should represent in relation to knowledge and values. Put another way, the follow-up seminar where students interact in relation to the SimChild exercise was perceived as an important contribution when seeking new learning opportunities.

How can this be understood in the context of reflection? The SimChild exercise promotes various forms of reflection among the students about what it means to be a professional social worker. It includes questions like, What knowledge is required? How does theory inform practice?, and What values should form the basis of the profession? In the SimChild exercise, students must reflect on their own judgments and choices, which relates to reflection-in-action. In this, the students must take a stance on whether or not to intervene and then reflect on the consequences following that decision. When interacting and discussing with their fellow students, they are also engaged in reflection-on-action. That is, they reflect on what motivates a certain choice, and how assessments can be understood in various ways (Schön, 1987). One can also note that SimChild may trigger a form of lingering reflection that the students carry with them. This might indicate that SimChild contributes to reflection-for-action. In this, the SimChild experience may affect students’ reasoning and choices in upcoming assignments (Thompson & Thompson, 2008). But, for this to function in a meaningful way, the SimChild session must also take ethical issues into account. For instance, the teacher who leads the discussion seminar, following the SimChild exercise, must be aware that the outcome of the exercise can arouse negative emotions in the students. Students may reflect on their own prejudices or question their own knowledge and skills. It is vital that the discussion is not about individual assessments but stays at a more general level. The students must feel that they can speak freely.

To conclude, SimChild should be regarded as an attempt to use information and computer technology to further the development of decision case learning and not as a new track in social work education. An advantage of SimChild is also that the model can easily be adapted to different international conditions. Thus, SimChild can, in line with the principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, contribute to the strengthening of childcare internationally (cf. Léveillé & Chamberland, 2010). Further, decision case learning relies heavily on discussion (e.g., Wolfer & Gray, 2007). Discussion and interaction are also crucial aspects of SimChild.

The computer-based simulation, and the reflection that it triggers, is not an end in itself. It is meant to improve students’ ability to empathize and provide them with a further basis for understanding that a single problem can be understood in myriad ways. That the students get to see their own assessments on a group level—that might expose the students’ biases—is something that often separates SimChild from other forms of computer-based simulations. The perceived authenticity and the use of interaction as a pedagogical tool trigger students’ reflection, which in turn can create motivation and new learning opportunities. In that sense, the SimChild experience likely contributes to the students’ metacognitive thinking and transformative learning (cf. Redmond, 2004). This is something that could be further investigated in future studies within the field. Thus, studying the SimChild format raises questions about whether it can contribute to the kind of practicum outlined by Redmond (2004) and Schön (1987). In this, a microworld is created with the ambition to offer a safe environment in which the student, in a realistic assessment situation, is allowed to feel uncertain and to make mistakes. In those settings, students can try various strategies that can contribute overall to the development of a reflective practice. This study suggests that SimChild has been a successful initial trial in that direction.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Gunilla Egonsdotter

Gunilla Egonsdotter is a PhD candidate in the Department of Social Work at Jönköping University, Jönköping, Sweden. Staffan Bengtsson, PhD, is an assistant professor in the Department of Social Work at Jönköping University, Jönköping, Sweden.

Notes

¹ The Ethics Committees review, School of Health and Welfare, Jönköping University (Dnr HHJ2016/2147-51).

Appendix: A

Case Summary

The individual computer-based exercises consist of two phases. During the first phase, the students involved in this study were presented with a case in which their assignment consisted of assessing whether a child needed emergency protection. The case was described in the same way for all the students, but with one difference that was unknown to them: the child and its family had Somali names for half of the students, and typical ethnic Swedish names for the other half. The following, very limited information was available: The situation involved a 10-year-old boy living with both his biological parents and three younger siblings, which was brought to the attention of social services by a telephone call from an elderly neighbor. The neighbor reported having heard “noise” from the boy’s apartment on several occasions, with raised voices and slamming doors. On the most recent occasion, the neighbor encountered the boy on the staircase “late one evening.” The boy responded angrily when the neighbor spoke to him and left the building. When the social worker contacted the family by telephone to find out what had happened, the mother replied that “there wasn’t any danger” and that the boy had simply left the residence to pick up a homework assignment from a friend. The social worker was given no opportunity to speak with the child, since the mother indicated that he was “sick and asleep.”

During the second phase, the students were tasked with deciding, based on additional information about the case, whether a formal investigation of the child should be launched. The following information was available: The family had been called in for a meeting with child protection services. The father and son came to the meeting, since the mother was minding the three younger children, who were reportedly sick. The father reaffirmed the mother’s previous statement over the telephone and believed that the neighbor who had contacted child protection was “easily irritated.” Only after some persuasion did the father allow the social worker to have a private conversation with the boy. During this conversation, the boy reported that he had run out of the apartment because he was angry about having to watch his younger siblings. The father made it clear at the meeting that the family did not want any further contact with child protection. In addition to the information about this meeting, the students were given access to records showing that the family had not had any previous contact with child protection (for further details, see Egonsdotter et al., 2020).