The Possibilities for Studio Pedagogy in Social Work Field Education: Reflections on a Pilot Case Study
Keywords:Studio pedagogy, Field education, Design thinking, Co-design, Interdisciplinary practice
Studio pedagogy takes a situated approach to Higher Education learning that is used in many discipline areas but, as yet is little explored in social work. Studio pedagogy sees collaborative groups using design thinking and co-design to approach real-world problems and their resolution in new ways. The collaboration and resourcefulness required in studio work reflects the social work ethos. Also, the studio skills base of interdisciplinary work and creative thinking are contemporary workplace requirements for social workers. This suggests the usefulness of studio learning in social work education. In this article we introduce the concept of a social work studio as a possible new form of project-based social work field education. We reflect upon a case study pilot project undertaken by RMIT, Melbourne with a major partner agency. Drawing on a consultation with the key stakeholders, our reflection on practice suggests the integration of design enquiry offers considerable potential to advance methodologies of field education in ways that better equip students to respond to some of the challenges of contemporary practice.
Australian Association of Social Workers (AASW). (2017). Australian social work education and accreditation standards. May, 2017. Melbourne, VIC: Author.
Bogo, M. (2010). Achieving competence in social work through field education. Toronto, ONT: University of Toronto Press.
Bogo, M. (2015). Field education for clinical social work practice: Best practices and contemporary challenges. Clinical Social Work Journal, 43(3), 317–324. doi:10.1007/s10615-015-0526-5
Bogo, M., & Rawlings, M. (2016). Using simulation in teaching and assessing social work competence. In I. Taylor, M. Bogo, M. Lefevre, & B. Teater (Eds.), International handbook of social work education (pp. 265–274). Abingdon, England: Routledge.
Both, T., & Baggereor, D. (2009). Design thinking bootleg. (Working document viewed 7 February 2018). Hasso Plattner
Institute of Design at Stanford University. Retrieved from https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57c6b79629687fde090a0fdd/t/ 58890239db29d6cc6c3338f7/1485374014340/METHODCARDS-v3-slim.pdf
Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design thinking for social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 8(1), 31–35.
Carpenter, R. (2013). Studio pedagogy: A model for collaboration, innovation and space design. In R. Carpenter (Ed.), Cases on higher education spaces: Innovation, collaboration, and technology (pp. 313–329). Hershey, PA: ICI Global.
Crowther, P. (2013). Understanding the signature pedagogy of the design studio and the opportunities for its technological enhancement. Journal of Learning Design, 6(3), 18–28.
Hanlen, P. (2011). Community engagement: Managers’ viewpoints. In C. Noble & M. Hendrickson (Eds.), Social work field education and supervision across Asia Pacific (pp. 221–241). Sydney, NSW: Sydney University Press.
Moxley, D. P., Feen-Calligan, H., & Washington, O.G.M. (2012). Lessons learned from three projects linking social work, the arts, and humanities. Social Work Education, 31(6), 703–723.
Noble, C., & Sullivan, J. (2009). Is social work still a distinctive profession? Students, supervisors and educators reflect. Advances in Social Work and Welfare Education, 11(1), 89–107.
Nsonwu, M. B, Gruber, K., & Charest, R. (2010). The urban studio project recipe: A multidisciplinary approach to feminist practice through community engagement. Affilia, 25(3), 307–312.
Nurius, P. S., Coffey, D. S., Fong, R., Korr, W. S., & McRoy, R. (2017). Preparing professional degree students to tackle grand challenges: A framework for aligning social work curricula. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 8(1), 99–118.
Schiff, M., & Zeira, A. (2016). Group supervision in social work field education: The perspectives of supervisors. In I. Taylor, M. Bogo, M. Lefevre, & B. Teater (Eds.), International handbook of social work education (pp. 254–262). Abingdon, England: Routledge.
Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Shulman, L. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52–59.
Sletto, B. (2012). Insurgent planning and its interlocutors: Studio pedagogy as unsanctioned practice in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 33(2), 228–240.
Strauss, P., U, A., & Young, S. (2011). “I know the type of people I work well with”: Student anxiety in multicultural group projects. Studies in Higher Education, 36(7), 815–829.
Sutton, S., & Kemp, S. (2006). Integrating social science and design inquiry through interdisciplinary design charettes: An approach to participatory community problem solving. American Journal of Community Psychology, 38(1–2), 51–62. van Ewijk, H. (2018). Complexity and social work. London, UK: Routledge.
Wayne, J., Bogo, M., & Raskin, M. (2015). Non-traditional field models. In C. Hunter, J. Moen, & M. Raskin, (Eds.), Social work field directors: Foundations for excellence (pp. 41–59). Chicago, IL: Lyceum.
Zufferey, C., & King, S. (2016). Social work learning spaces: The social work studio. Higher Education Research & Development, 35(2), 395–408.
Copyright (c) 2018 Australian and New Zealand Social Work and Welfare Education and Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.