How Power Dynamics and Relationships Interact with Assessment of Competence: Exploring the Experiences of Student Social Workers Who Failed a Practice Placement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Students have identified practice placements (or practice learning) as the single most important factor of social work education, but it is usually where issues of professional suitability become apparent. Whilst most students successfully complete their placements, a number experience difficulty and a minority ultimately fail. Protecting the profession from students not deemed suitable for professional practice requires a rigorous gatekeeping function and fair standards. On receipt of written consent, we interviewed eleven social work students who failed placement, and accessed progress reports written by Practice Teachers/Practice Educators. Participants included nine females, mean age of 33 years, seven failed their final placement and eight had registered with university disability services. Professionally transcribed interviews were analysed using an adapted version of Braun and Clarke’s method. Identified themes included the impact of personal issues; importance of working relationships; use and misuse of power; assessment and decision-making processes and developing insight and useful feedback. Students valued the opportunity to reflect on their experience and provided clear recommendations for improving how Practice Teachers, on-site supervisors, Tutors and peers can provide a supportive learning experience for students who require additional support during placement, and how to communicate concerns regarding competence more effectively.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".