Clinical Social Work Journal

, Volume 47, Issue 1, pp 103–112 | Cite as

Grading Individual Observations of Practice in Child Welfare Contexts: A New Assessment Approach in Social Work Education

  • Alison DomakinEmail author
Original Paper


Students in the Frontline social work qualifying program undertake seven graded observations of practice in child welfare contexts during their qualifying studies. Before the Frontline program, educators had not attempted to implement graded observations of practice in a qualifying program in the United Kingdom. In this paper, we seek to show how graded practice observations have been undertaken in the Frontline program and provide information about the research base informing its development. A summary of findings from three preliminary research studies are presented. We suggest it is possible to grade practice consistently in child-welfare social work. However, we found considerable variation in marks awarded and evidence of grade inflation in all three studies. Using an interpretive lens, we argue that differences between graders should be anticipated because this is a complex assessment task requiring context-dependent judgment. We recommend developing a “consensus discussion” approach to moderation to improve reliability of grading practices, in which graders are encouraged to make the reasoning behind their grading decisions explicit.


Grading practice Observations of practice Social work education Assessment Child welfare social work 



With thanks to Professor Donald Forrester for his original research in this area, which has provided the foundation on which the grading of individual observations in child welfare contexts is built.


  1. Adie, L. (2013). The development of shared understandings of assessment policy: Traveling between global and local contexts. Journal of Education Policy, 29(4), 532–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beddoe, L., Ackroyd, J., Chinnery, S., & Appleton, C. (2011). Live supervision of students in field placement: More than just watching. Social Work Education: The International Journal, 30(5), 512–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bellinger, A. (2010). Talking about (re)generation: Practice learning as a site of renewal for social work. British Journal of Social Work, 40(8), 2450–2466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bloxham, S. (2009). Marking and moderation in the UK: False assumptions and wasted resources. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(2), 209–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bloxham, S., den Outer, B., Hudson, J., & Price, M. (2016). Let’s stop the pretence of consistent marking: Exploring the multiple limitations of assessment criteria. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(3), 466–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bloxham, S., Hughes, C., & Adie, L. (2016). What’s the point of moderation? A discussion of the purposes achieved through contemporary moderation practices. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(4), 638–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bogo, M. (2006). Field instruction in social work: A review of the research literature. The Clinical Supervisor, 24(1/2), 163–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bogo, M. (2015). Field education for clinical social work practice: Best practices and contemporary challenges. Clinical Social Work Journal, 43(3), 317–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bogo, M., Lee, B., McKee, E., Baird, S. L., & Ramjattan, R. (2016). Field instructors’ perceptions of foundation year students’ readiness to engage in field education. Social Work Education: The International Journal, 35(2), 204–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bogo, M., Lee, B., McKee, E., Ramjattan, R., & Baird, S. L. (2017). Bridging class and field: Field instructors’ and liaisons’ reactions to information about students’ baseline performance derived from simulated interviews. Journal of Social Work Education, 5(4), 580–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bogo, M., Regehr, C., Katz, E., Logie, C., Tufford, L., & Litvack, A. (2012). Evaluating an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) adapted for social work. Research on Social Work Practice, 22(4), 428–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bogo, M., Regehr, C., Power, R., & Regehr, G. (2007). When values collide: Field instructors’ experiences of providing feedback and evaluating competence. The Clinical Supervisor, 26(1/2), 99–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bogo, M., Regehr, C., Woodford, C., Hughes, J., Power, R., & Regehr, G. (2006). Beyond competences: Field instructors’ descriptions of student performance. Journal of Social Work Education, 42(3), 579–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Boitel, C. R., & Fromm, L. R. (2014). Defining signature pedagogy in social work education: Learning theory and the learning contract. Journal of Social Work Education, 50(4), 608–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bostock, L., Forrester, D., Partrizo, L., Godfrey, T., Zonousi, M., Bird, H., & Tinarwo, M. (2017). Scaling and deepening the reclaiming Social work model evaluation report. Department of Education (HMSO). Retrieved February 27, 2018, from
  16. Brodie, I., & Williams, V. (2013). Lifting the lid: Perspectives on and activity within student supervision. Social Work Education: The International Journal, 32(4), 506–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Buck, P. W., Fletcher, P., & Bradley, J. (2016). Decision-making in social work field education: A “good enough” framework. Social Work Education: The International Journal, 35(4), 402–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cleak, A., Hawkins, L., Laughton, J., & Williams, B. (2015). Creating a standardised teaching and learning framework for social work field placements. Australian Social Work, 68(1), 49–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Crisp, B. R., & Hosken, N. (2016). A fundamental rethink of practice learning in social work education. Social Work Education: The International Journal, 35(5), 506–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Croisdale-Appleby, D. (2014). Revisioning social work education: An independent review. London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
  21. Cross, S., Hubbard, A., & Munro, E. (2010). Reclaiming social work: London Borough of Hackney Children and Young People’s Services. London: Human Reliability Associates and London School of Economics.Google Scholar
  22. Domakin, A. (2015). The importance of practice learning in social work: Do we practice what we preach? Social Work Education: The International Journal, 34(4), 399–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Domakin, A., & Curry, L. (2017). Partners in practice: Developing integrated learning opportunities on the Frontline child and family social work qualifying programme. Child and Family Social Work.
  24. Domakin, A., & Forrester, D. (2018). Putting practice at the heart of social work education: Can practice skills be reliably graded by different markers in child and family social work contexts? Social Work Education: The International Journal, 37(1), 66–77.Google Scholar
  25. Domakin, A., Forrester, D., & Killian, M. (forthcoming) Marking practice skills in social work qualifying education: A study of consistency in grading seven hundred observations of practice.Google Scholar
  26. Domakin, A., & Williams, J. (forthcoming) Learning how to grade practice reliably-developing a new pedagogy for marking practice in social work education.Google Scholar
  27. Finch, J. (2010). Can’t fail, won’t fail—Why practice assessors find it difficult to fail social work students: A qualitative study of practice assessors experience of assessing marginal or failing social work students (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved February 27, 2018, from
  28. Finch, J., Schaub, J., & Dalyrmple, R. (2014). Projective identification and the fear of failing: Making sense of practice educators’ experiences of failing social work students in practice learning settings. Journal of Social Work Practice, 28(2), 139–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Forrester, D., Kershaw, S., Moss, H., & Hughes, L. (2008). Communication skills in child protection: How do social workers talk to parents? Child and Family Social Work, 13(1), 41–51.Google Scholar
  30. Forrester, D., Westlake, D., McCann, M., Thurnham, A., Shefer, G., Glynn, G., & Killian, M. (2013). Reclaiming social work? An evaluation of systemic units as an approach to delivering children’s services. Luton: Tilda Goldberg Centre, University of Bedfordshire.Google Scholar
  31. Frederico, M., Long, M., McPherson, L., McNamara, P., & Cameron, N. (2016). A consortium approach for child and family practice education. Social Work Education: The International Journal, 35(7), 780–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Goodman, S., & Trowler, I. (Eds.). (2012). Social work reclaimed. London: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
  33. Gordon, R., & Mackay, G. (2017). The practice pyramid: A model for integrating social work values, theory and practice. Journal of Practice Teaching and Learning, 14(3), 52–67.Google Scholar
  34. Holden, G., Barker, K., Rosenberg, G., Kuppens, S., & Ferrell, L. W. (2011). The signature pedagogy of social work: An investigation of the evidence. Research on Social Work Practice, 38, 115–133.Google Scholar
  35. Lee, M., & Fortune, A. E. (2013). Do we need more “doing” activities or “thinking” activities in the field practicum? Journal of Social Work Education, 49(4), 646–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Litvack, A., Bogo, M., & Mishna, F. (2010). Emotional reactions of students in field education: An exploratory study. Journal of Social Work Education, 46(2), 227–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Maidment, J. (2000). Methods used to teach social work students in the field: A research report from New Zealand. Social Work Education, 19(2), 145–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Maxwell, N., Scourfield, J., Le, M., de Villiers, Z., Hadfield, T., Kinnersley, M., Tayyaba, P. (2016). Independent evaluation of the frontline pilot research report. London: Department of Education.Google Scholar
  39. Meadows, M., & Billington, L. (2005). A review of the literature on marking reliability. London: National Assessment Agency.Google Scholar
  40. Miller, B., & Rollnick, S. (2012). Motivational interviewing: Helping people change (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  41. Moyers, T. B., Martin, T., Manuel, J. K., Hendrickson, S. M., & Miller, W. R. (2005). Assessing competence in the use of motivational interviewing. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 28(1), 19–26. Scholar
  42. Munro, E. (2011). The Munro review of child protection (Final report: A child-centred system). London: Department for Education. Retrieved February 27, 2018, from
  43. Muskat, B., Bogo, M., & Perlman, I. (2012). Making rotational field placements work: Review of a successful pilot of rotational field placements in hospital settings. Journal of Practice Teaching & Learning, 11(1), 5–18.Google Scholar
  44. Plenty, J., & Gower, D. (2013). The reform of social work practice education and training and supporting practice educators. Journal of Practice Teaching and Learning, 12(2), 48–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Regehr, C., Bogo, M., Donovan, K., Anstice, S., & Kim, A. (2012). Identifying student competencies in macro practice: Articulating the practice wisdom of field instructors. Journal of Social Work Education, 48(2), 307–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ruch, G. (2015) Evidence scope regarding the use of practice observation methods as part of the assessment of social work practice. Dartington: Research in Practice.
  47. Scourfield, J., Maxwell, N., Le Zhang, M., De Villiers, T., Pithouse, A., Kinnersley, P., & Tayyaba, S. (2017). Evaluation of a fast-track postgraduate social work program in England using simulations. Research on Social Work Practice. Scholar
  48. Shay, S. B. (2004). The assessment of complex performance: A socially situated interpretive act. Harvard Educational Review, 74(3), 307–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Shulman, L. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus: Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 134(3), 52–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Silman, J. (2016). One in four new children’s social workers will train on fast-track schemes by 2018. Retrieved February 27, 2018, from
  51. Singh, T., Kundra, S., & Gupta, P. L. (2014). Direct observation and focused feedback for clinical skills training. Indian Pediatrics, 51(9), 713–717.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Smith, D., Cleak, H., & Vreugdenhila, A. (2015). “What are they really doing?” An exploration of student learning activities in field placement. Australian Social Work, 68(4), 515–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tapp, K., Macke, C., & McLendon, T. (2012). Assessing student performance in field education. Field Scholar, 2(2), 1–14.Google Scholar
  54. Vinton, L., & Wilke, D. J. (2011). Leniency bias in evaluating clinical social work student interns. Clinical Social Work Journal, 39(3), 288–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wayne, J., Bogo, M., & Raskin, M. (2006). Field notes: The need for radical change in field education. Journal of Social Work Education, 42(1), 161–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wayne, J., Bogo, M., & Raskin, M. (2010). Field education as the signature pedagogy of social work education: Congruence and disparity. Journal of Social Work Education, 46(3), 327–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Whittaker, C. E., Forrester, D., Killian, M., & Jones, R. K. (2017). Can we reliably measure social work communication skills? Development of a scale to measure child and family social work direct practice. International Journal of Child & Family Welfare, 17(1/2), 47–63.Google Scholar
  58. Zeira, A., & Schiff, M. (2014). Field education: A comparison of students’ and novice social workers’ perspectives. British Journal of Social Work, 44(7), 1950–1966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.FrontlineLondonUK

Personalised recommendations