Exploring the experiences of practice teachers who are not social workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Professionals without a social work qualification have been involved in the practice teaching of social work students since the days of CCETSW (the former education and training body for social work in the UK). Historically this has always happened more in the voluntary sector. With the advent of the Social Work Degree in England, the 50% increase in demand for placements in a variety of settings has seen reliance on practice teachers who are not social workers.This raises some interesting questions about how professionals who are not social workers should be trained and supported in the role of practice teacher.We will attempt to explore these questions, drawing on responses to a questionnaire sent to a range of practice teachers in a county in northern England as well as feedback obtained from a focus group drawn from respondents to the questionnaire. The participants in the research came from a range of work backgrounds in the voluntary and statutory sectors. The experiences discussed in the research, in the main, relate to the Diploma in Social Work (the former UK qualification) as the degree only started in 2003- 2004. We will refer to research participants as Practice Teachers. The key criterion for involvement was that all participants in the study had had sole responsibility for at least one social work student.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.039 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".