(PDF) Measuring student social workers’ performance during field placements: The SASPER schedule

UNlSA university of south africa PRESS - UNIVERSITY - - O F - -- JOHANNESBURG SOCIAL WORK PRACTITIONER-RESEARCHER MAA TSKAPLIKEWERK NAVORSER-PRAKTISYN EDITOR ASSIST ANT EDITOR Prof Jean Triegaardt, Prof Kathleen Collins, University of Johannesburg University of Johannesburg JOURNAL ADMINISTRATOR Pat Silvey, University of Johannesburg

- Oil 559 2804 EDITORIAL BOARD ProfE Kaseke, University of the Witwatersrand Prof JBS Nel, University of Johannesburg ProfK Osei-Hwedie, University of Ghana Dr E Pretorius, University of the Witwatersrand Dr J Sekudu, Unisa ProfM Weyers, North-West University REVIEWERS Prof A Barretta-Herman (University of Saint Dr CE Prinsloo (University of Pretoria) Thomas, Minnesota, USA) Dr T Raniga (University ofKwaZulu-Natal) Dr N Behari (Office of the Premier, Dr RP Reyneke (University of the Free State) KwaZulu-Natal) ProfW Roestenburg (Unisa) Dr R Bhagwan (Durban University of Technology) Prof E Ross (Visiting professor, CSDA, University Ms C Bews (Johannesburg Child Welfare) of Johannesburg) ProfFJ Bezuidenhout (Nelson Mandela ProfCJ Schenk (University of the Western Cape) Metropolitan University) Dr J Schmid (Social work practitioner, Baden, Dr MG Booyens (University of Cape Town) Switzerland; Research fellow, CSDA, University Dr L da Rocha Silva (Centre for AlcohoVDrug- of Johannesburg) related Research) ProfSL Sithole (University of Limpopo) ProfS Drower (University of Winchester, UK) Prof C Snell (Howard University, USA) Dr L Engelbrecht (Stellenbosch University) Mrs S Sturgeon (University of Cape Town) Dr SB Ferreira (University of the Free State) Dr R Swanzen (Monash South Africa, a Campus Dr JM Loffell (Johannesburg Child Welfare) of Monash University, Australia) Prof C Matthias (University of KwaZulu-Natal) Prof A van Breda (University of Johannesburg) ProfL-KJ Mwansa (University of Botswana) Dr GG Wairire (University of Nairobi, Kenya) Dr I Palmary (University of the Witwatersrand) Dr L Walker (University of Hull, UK) Dr B Pretorius (Nelson Mandela Metropolitan ProfN Zaal (University ofKwaZulu-Natal) University) The Social Work Practitioner-Researcher, Vol. 25 (3), 2013 CONTENTS Editorial 23 3 Articles The family 's protection of young children from sexual abuse Maria Liggett and Madhu Kasiram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . ... 236 Easing the task of social workers: Recent developments in the law on foster care for abandoned and orphaned children Carmel Matthias and Noel Zaal . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . 254 Female adolescents ' perceptions of parent-adolescent communication and sexual risk-taking behaviours Zhaohua Wang and Abraham Greeff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 The relationship between services and resilience : A study of Sesotho-speaking youths Angelique van Rensburg, Linda Theron, Sebastiaan Rathmann and Ansie Kitching . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. 286 The SASPER: A tool to assess student social workers ' performance during field p lacements Mike (M.L.) Weyers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 309 Social protection for retired mine workers with physical disability in Maseru, Lesotho Thuso Tlhao/e and Edwe/1 Kaseke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 333 Stokvels as livelihood strategy for women living in urban townships: Lessons from South Africa Victor Chikadzi and Thakasile Lusenga . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . ...... ... . 350 Notes for contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368 The editorial board assumes no responsibility for opinions expressed by contributors. Manuscripts, book reviews, correspondence and subscriptions should be e-mailed to : The Journal Administrator, swjoumal@uj .ac.za Authors who want to submit manuscripts for publications must keep to the prescribed guidelines that are published on the back pages of this edition . Th e Social Wo rk Practitioner-Researcher is published three times per annum m March, Ju ly and November. [ ISSN: 1011 -2324] The Social Work Practitioner-Researcher, Vol. 25 (3), 2013 309 THE SASPER: A TOOL TO ASSESS STUDENT SOCIAL WORKERS' PERFORMANCE DURING FIELD PLACEMENTS Mike (M.L.) Weyers Professor, Social Work Division, School for Psychosocial Behavioural Sciences, North-West University: Potchefstroom Campus Mike.

.za ABSTRACT Even though workplace learning/field education is the signature pedagogy of social work, there are still very few standardised instruments that can be used to measure student social worker 's performance during their completion of this component of social work education. This is especially the case in South Africa. The S chedule for the Assessment of Student Performance (SASPER) was specifically developed to address this local need. The SASPER has been in use at one of the South African higher education institutions for more than 20 years and was recently updated and re-verified. Over the years it has proved to be an excellent profiling and measurement tool that could be used for both formative and summative assessments. The latest edition covers a relative large number of competencies, traits and indicators that can be used as a tool to pinpoint a student 's individual strengths and weaknesses and to guide appropriate student development endeavours. Key words: formative assessment, summative assessment, field placements, social work education, workplace/work-integrated learning The Social Work Practitioner-Researcher, Vol. 25 (3), 2013 310 INTRODUCTION Despite a wealth of knowledge and expertise in the application of effective teaching strategies, South African higher education institutions still possess few standardised instruments to measure the outcomes achieved by their social work training (cf. Bozalek, 2009). This especially applies to off- campus field placements where a lack of measuring tools has forced many institutions to resort to more indirect and qualitative forms of assessment. This article deals with a tool entitled the Schedule for the Assessment of Student Performance (hereafter referred to as "SASPER" and/or "schedule") that was specifically created to help address this deficiency. It will focus on the principles used in the design of the schedule, the requirements that should be met in its use and the SASPER's relative strengths and weaknesses. It is, however, necessary first to contextualise the instrument by taking a brieflook at the assessment dilemma faced by many social work educators. ASSESSMENT DILEMMA FACED BY SOCIAL WORK EDUCATORS International social work literature has, according to Widerman (2003:110- 111), revealed " ... ongoing concern about the use, validity, ethics, and effect of assessment processes leading to course grades" and that the grading of students' " .. .field performance can be difficult and anxiety producing" for the educators involved. The difficulties particularly lay in reconciling the 'practice educator' with the ' evaluator/grader' role, defining and prioritising assessment criteria, assessing performance directly, reducing performance to a single grade, and helping students to understand, accept and utilise the grade and accompanying feedback (Kealey, 2010). Assessment in South Africa is further complicated by the fact that the training for the profession occurs at undergraduate level. It is expected that students should already at this level be able to master social work both as a science and an art. The real difficulty does not lie in judging the mastery of scientific knowledge, but in assessing the extent to which a student could 'perform the art' of social work (Widerman, 2003). This is especially the case in off-campus (fieldwork) practice (Taras, 2009). The field placement component, also sometimes referred to as ' field training', 'field education', 'field practicum' and 'workplace/work-integrated learning' (Regehr, Bogo, Donovan, Anstice and Lim, 2012; Council on Higher Education (CHE), 2011 ; Strydom, 2011 ; Council on Social Work The Social Work Practitioner-Researcher, Vol. 25 (3), 2013 311 Education (CSWE), 2008), is the signature pedagogy of social work. It therefore represents " ... the central form of instruction and Iearning in which a profession socialises its students to perform the role of practitioner" and is intended to " .. .connect the theoretical and conceptual contribution of the classroom with the practical world of the practice setting" (CSWE, 2008:8). Assessing student performance during field placements requires the involvement of three core role-players. They are the university lecturer that provides the training, the supervisor that manages the student in the workplace and the student who functions as a practitioner-learner. Because all three should take part in summative and formative assessments process (Holloway, 20 12), the SASPER had to be designed in such a way that it would provide a structured set of explicit criteria that this 'assessment triad' would be able to use without much difficulty. BACKGROUND OF THE SASPER The SASPER was originally developed in 1993 for the former Department of Social Work at the Potchefstroom University (currently North-West University: Potchefstroom Campus). It has undergone a number of upgrades over the past 20 years in order to keep abreast of changes in South African higher education and the learning outcomes that student social workers are required to achieve. The schedule was again revised, updated and verified in2013 . DESIGN PRINCIPLES USED IN THE SASPER The five core design principles selected for the original 1993 schedule (Weyers, 1994) is still used in the current version. These principles, which were derived from an analysis of diverse literature on the subject, were that it should: • be able to function both as a formative and a summative assessment rubric, • use the requirements of beginners' practice as its primary criterion, • be able to enumerate a student's performance, • form part of an assessment continuum, and • be user-friendly. The nature, context and implications of each of these design principles are covered next. This will include the latest sources that were used to update the schedule. The Social Work Practitioner-Researcher, Vol. 25 (3), 2013 312 Design principle 1: The schedule should function as a rubric The first principle was that the schedule had to function as a rubric that could be used in both summative and formative assessments. Within this context, the construct summative assessment refers to a judgement or certification of a student's level of competence or mastery at the end of a particular learning process (Schneller and Brocato, 2011). It is, therefore, in essence the " ... measurement of a product" (Kealey, 2010:66) that generally occurs at the end of a module or course and usually produces a final quantitative performance rating (Holloway, 2012). A typical example would be the final mark for an examination and field placement. It is fairly easy to allocate final marks in the case of social work theory. Educators have the additional advantage that they could use internationally developed taxonomies as a basis in compiling their examination papers. These enable them to pinpoint which types of cognitive processes the student has mastered. In the case of Bloom's revised taxonomy, it would range from remember, understand and apply to analyse, evaluate and create (Nasstrom, 2009). The same situation does not apply to field placements. No generally accepted taxonomy or typology currently exists. In cases where criteria are provided, they predominantly only apply to a particular country's educational system (e.g., Bogo, Regehr, Katz, Logie and Mylopoulos, 2011 ; Hamilton, Buchan, Hull, Christenson, Gerritsen-Mckane, Rodenhiser and Smith, 2011). It was also not possible to trace any recent South African publication on this subject. It seems as though every local training institution has developed its own and exclusive in-house system. A formative assessment is, similar to a summative assessment, also a judgement of a student's level of mastery or performance (Taras, 2009). It, however, occurs at a different time, at a different level and for a different purpose. It is done during a learning process with the aim of identifying the specific 'gaps ' that exit between a student' s current and expected levels of performance and then uses this information as a basis to close or eliminate the gaps (Teater, 2011 ; Kealey, 2010). In social work training, performance issues may centre on knowledge, attitudes, values, skills and competencies, but may also include personality traits (Regehr et al. , 2012). Gaps can be eliminated through the effective use of feedback. In work-integrated learning, an on-campus and or off-campus instructor or supervisor usually serves as the main source of feedback. The goal of their The Social Work Practitioner-Researcher, Vol. 25 (3), 2013 313 feedback is to enable the student to identify his or her strengths and weaknesses and to use this information to improve professional functioning (Teater, 2011). The effectiveness of such attempts is usually determined by the availability of structured and detailed assessment information provided by rubrics (Schneller and Brocato, 2011 ; Kealey, 2010). It was clear from the outset that the SASPER would have to take on the form of a rubric in order to function as an effective assessments and feedback tool. Rubrics are guides that have three essential features. These are a: • set of items to be assessed (usually a short description of the student's inputs, outputs, competencies and/or traits that would be judged), • set of assessment criteria (to distinguish acceptable from unacceptable performance or to rank it from least to most desirable), and • scoring strategy (typically an indication of the weight that an item and/or cluster of items will have in the calculation of an overall mark) (Schneller and Brocato, 2011 ; Widerman, 2003). The use of rubrics has a number of advantages. It include that they would: • clarify performance expectations by predefining what 'good' work or practice entails, • specify the relative importance of the components of an activity or field, • provide consistent guidelines understood by all parties, • help to normalise measurements across different assessors, • permit individualised assessment and measurement, • enable students to assess their own work and progress, and • yield helpful feedback on teaching and learning effectiveness (Schneller and Brocato, 2011; Widerman, 2003). A successfully developed SASPER would have the same advantages. Design principle 2: The schedule should use the beginners' practice as a primary criterion Deciding on the exact number, nature, content and structuring of the set of items to be included in the rubric posed one of the major challenges in the design of the SASPER. The process began with the end in mind: the 'end' being the 'type of social work student' that would be able to meet the registration requirements set by the South African Council for Social Service Professions (SACSSP) and be The Social Work Practitioner-Researcher, Vol. 25 (3), 2013 314 able to function effectively in the beginner's practice. It was evident from the outset that only relying on the exit level outcomes (ELOs) as prescribed by the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) for the Bachelor of Social Work (BSW) degree (SAQA, 2003) would not suffice. Other assessment frameworks and criteria also had to be considered. Selection of an assessment framework The literature analysis indicated that the performance appraisal system used in the human resource management (HRM) field would form the most appropriate framework for the development of the schedule. To accommo- date both general performance indicators and uniquely social work characteristics, the HRM field's core criteria of "behaviours", "personal traits" and "objective results" (Jackson, Schuler and Werner, 2009; Noe, Hollenbeck, Gerhart and Wright, 2000) were changed to 'competencies', 'profession traits' and 'productivity'. They would now entail the following: • Competencies focus on how the work is performed and covers measurable practice behaviours that consist of skills, values and knowledge (Holloway, 2012; OPTSQ, 2006). • Professional traits focus on the personal qualities required to perform the work, including the distinguishing characteristics and the habitual patterns of behaviour expected from a social worker (Augustine and Larsen, 2012). • Productivity focus on what was accomplished, including the volume and quality of work produced as measured against set standards (Nel, Werner, Haasbroek, Poisat, Sono and Schultz, 2008; Snell and Bohlander, 2007). The decision to use both competencies and traits was based on the premise that, although the mastery of social worker theory and skills is a prerequisite for practice, the practitioner's authenticity and personality traits represent the most important tool in the promotion of social change, problem solving in human relationships and the empowerment of people (cf. IFSW, 2012; Walters, 2008). Productivity was added as a third criterion because of the production output that would be expected from students during their training and in the beginners' practice (Herbst and Strydom, 2008). The next step in the design process was to create a typology of all possible social work related competencies, traits and productivity indicators. These would be subjected to a review and selection process by panels of social work academics. The Social Work Practitioner-Researcher, Vol. 25 (3), 2013 I ~ Creation of a draft typology The results of a comprehensive analysis of local and international social wor and other literature were used to inform the development of the typology. This analysis did not only focus on the three selected assessment criteria, but also on the statutory prescribed training outcomes. The statutory requirements especially entail the 27 exit level outcomes (ELOs) that are prescribed for BSW training (SAQA, 2003). These range from "develop and maintain social work relationships with client systems" (ELO no. 1) to "identify the purpose, functions and principles of social work within the social development paradigm" (ELO no . 27) (SAQA, 2003). The ELOs were reanalysed in conjunction with later publications on the subject (e.g. , Collins, 2012; Maistry, 2012 ; Engelbrecht, Pullen-Sansfa9on and Spolander, 2010; Bozalek, 2009). It emerged that, although the ELOs and their associated assessment criteria do provide a good baseline for a summative assessment, they lacked the detail and structure necessary to generate a substantive profile of a student's required professional functioning . They also contain some elements that are not measurable (Simpson, 2010) and do not cover the professional competency, traits and productivity criteria as such. In order to identify potential competencies to be included in the schedule, the requirements set by countries such as Australia (e.g., Gibbons, Bore, Munro and Powis, 2007), Canada (e.g., OPTSQ, 2006), the United Kingdom (e.g. , Holmstrom and Taylor, 2008) and the USA (CSWE, 2008) were analysed. Especially those of the USA, where a competency-based educational approach is followed, were included in the li st that was ultimately presented to a panel of reviewers/experts. The analysis of various publications on professional and personal traits produced an unexpected number of recurring themes. Among others, they include that a social worker should be adaptable, analytic, attentive, perceptive, self-confident and thorough (Hamilton et al., 20 II; Collins, 2007; Gibbons et al., 2007; OPTSQ, 2006). To identify productivity indicators that could potentially be included in the typology, both social work and non-social work literature was analysed. It included literature on the: • South African government's monitoring and evaluation policies and the performance management framework for social work services (e.g. , The Social Work Practitioner-Researcher, Vol. 25 {3), 2013 316 Naidoo and Henning, 2012; Public Service Commission, 2007; Krause, 2004), • organising principles that may be used in the structuring of assessment instruments such as logic models and results-based management (e.g., Meyer-Adams, Potts, Koob, Dorsey and Rosales, 2011 ; Public Service Commission, 2008), and • performance appraisal processes and tools used in social work and other settings (e.g., Leonard and Hilgert, 2007; Snell and Bohlander, 2007). The results from the literature analysis were used to update and benchmark the SASPER. After the elimination of duplicate items and the reorganisation of assessment clusters to fit the new framework, the resultant typology was ready for verification. Verification of the typology A qualitative and quantitative verification process was followed. It consisted of two phases. During the frrst phase (November 2012 to January 2013), the typology was provided to all 12 lecturers of the Potchefstroom Campus of the NWU for their assessment. The feedback required included: the evaluation of the exiting items; the specification of existing items that should be excluded and new items that should be included; recommendations for the improved formulation of items; and the specification of the ' weight' that each item should have in the final schedule. The feedback was then used to update the schedule. In the second phase (February to March 2013), the same type of assessment was performed on the updated schedule by the lecturers of the Mafikeng and Vaal Triangle campuses of the university. Their feedback was used to finali se the typology and schedule. The final typology In the final typology, the principles implied by the logic model (Meyer- Adams eta!., 2011 ; Public Service Commission, 2008 ; Rankin, Weyers and Williams, 2008) and contained in other performance appraisal tools (e.g., Bogo eta!., 2011 ; Leonard and Hilgert, 2007; Snell and Bohlander, 2007) were used to cluster items into four fields and a total of 12 categories. The fields covered the student's work inputs and outputs (i .e. the productivity The Social Work Practitioner-Researcher, Vol. 25 (3), 2013 317 dimension) (see Table 1), professional and personal traits (see Table 2), competencies (see Table 3), and professional cooperation (see Table 4). The latter represents a selection of specific traits, skills, ELOs and ethics that have a bearing on the central competency of " cooperation" (OPTSQ, 2006). This separate field was created in order to assess a student's ability to function effectively within a specific field placement setting. Table 1: The SASPER typology: Work inputs and outputs FIELD CATEGORY ITEMS AND DEFINITIONS u Goal-setting (Extent to which the student social worker (SSW) continually set goals to be achieved andfonnulated plans on how to do so) 1.2 Evaluation of goal-attainment (Extent to which 1A. Level of the SSW continuously evaluated the achievement self· of stated goals/objectives) organ is- ationlseff- 1.3 Systematisation (Extent to which the SSW manage- completed the work in a systematic and purposeful ment manner) 1.4 Compliance with procedural requirements --II) :::1 Q. :::1 (Extent to which the SSW complied with the rules and procedures prescribed by the agency and/or university) 0 ~ c 1.5 Work tempo (Extent to which the SSW could "' !1:::1 complete tasks within the expected time frame) Q. 1B. Volume of 1.6 Quantity of work produced (Extent to which the .5 amount of work completed by the SSW met work ~ expectations) 0 produced 3: 1.7 Accuracy with which work was completed ......: (Extent to which the SSW's work was without errors and meticulouslydone) 1.8 Quality ofthe work produced (Extent to which the SSW's work met the expected standard of excellence) 1C. Quality of t 9 Results achieved (Extent to which the SSW's work inputs effected the required changes in the client produced system) 1.10 Orderliness (Extent to which the SSW's filing system and or file/portfolio contents were well- organised}_ The Social Work Practitioner-Researcher, Vol. 25 (3), 2013 318 Table 2: The SASPER typology: Professional and personal traits FIELD CATEGORY ITEMS AND DEFINITIONS 2.1 Perseverance (Extent to which the SSW was steadfast in the execution of duties, even when faced with difficulties or opposition) 2.2 Identification with the profession/Pride in service (Extent to which the SSW demonstrated a 2A. Motivation sense of loyalty and pride in the profession and placement agency) 2.3 Self-development (Extent to which the SSW saw and utilised the practicum as an opportunity to learn and grow as a person and as a professional) 2.4 Ethical behaviour (Extent to which the SSW met or surpassed the values and ethics espoused by J!l the profession [It includes confidentiality, honesty, -... "iV "'iV c::: 2.5 integrity, trustworthiness, and respect for clients and other stakeholders]) Sense of duty/dedication (Extent to which the ...0 VI Cl) 28. Respons- SSW fully executed tasks and utilised available c. opportunities and time) "'0 ibility c::: nl 2.6 Punctuality (Extent to which the SSW met Cii deadlines and kept appointments) c::: 0 ·u; 2.7 Reliability (Extent to which the SSW could be -... ~ VI Cl) 0 relied on to perform duties and meet obligations without having to be directly supervised or monitored) c-.i 2.8 Professional personality (Extent to which the SSW's temperament and personality traits befit that of a social worker [e.g. being committed, dedicated, empathetic, altruistic, open, objective, a critical thinker, able to cope with stress]) 2.9 Utilisation of a scientific approach (Extent to 2C. Attitude which the SSW utilised the knowledge base of social work and followed scientific procedures in executing tasks [As opposed to going it on a 'gut fee/ing1 ) 2.10 Neatness - self (Extent to which the SSW complied with the agency's dress code and expectations regarding personal care) Th e Soc ial Work Practitioner- Researcher, Vo l. 25 (3 ). 20 I 3 319 2.11 Self-knowledge (Extent to which the SSW showed insight into his/her own abilities/inabilities, strengths/weaknesses , beliefs, attitudes, ideology and preiudices, and tlad a plan of action to address them) 20. Self· 2.12 Self-confidence (Extent to which the SSW's under· actions demonstrated a belief in his/her own standing abilities) 2.13 Self-control (Extent to which the SSW could regulate his/her emotions, desires and behaviour in order to serve the best interest of all involved ri.e. client, organisation, community, setm The Social Work Practitioner-Researcher, Vol. 25 (3), 2013 320 Table 3: The SASPER typology: Competencies FIELD CATEGORY ITEMS AND DEFINITIONS 3.1 Level of knowledge (Extent to which the SSW's knowledge of social work theory and practice was sufficient to function effectively within the agency) 3A. Knowledge 3.2 Application of knowledge (Extent to which the SSW could successfully apply own knowledge and experience in the execution of duties) 3.3 Comprehension (Extent to which the SSW could independently get to the core of an issue and integrate theory and practice) 3.4 Judgement (Extent to which the SSW could , with 38. Insight due consideration of the possible consequences, decide on the correct or appropriate action) 3.5 Initiative (Extent to which the SSW could independently generate new ideas and take the VI Q) lead when required to by circumstances) '(3 c: Q) 3.6 Problem-solving skills (Extent to which the SSW Q; could identify a problem, independently evaluate c. E available options and decide on an appropriate 0 (.) solution) .,.; 3.7 Interpersonal communication skills (Extent to which the SSW was able to conduct a professional conversation with clearly delineated purposes with people who are involved in the intervention process) 3C. Skills 3.8 Report writing skills (Extent to which the SSW could accurately and effectively communicate facts and professional insights in a written fomnat) 3.9 Oratory skills (Extent to which the SSW could confidently and convincingly communicate facts and professional insights in a public forum) 3.10 Skills in utilising technology (Extent to which the SSW has effectively mastered the computer and/or other technological tools that could be utilised in practice) The Social Work Practitioner-Researcher, Vol. 25 (3), 2013 321 Table 4: The SASPER typology: Professional cooperation FIELD CATEGORY ITEMS AND DEFINITIONS 4.1 Tact (Extent to which the SSW acted with discretion and diplomacy) 4.2 Impartiality (Extent to which the SSW could act with objectivity and justice towards others) 4.3 Consistency (Extent to which the SSW's actions 4A. Pro- were logical and consistent) fessional 4.4 Conflict management (Extent to which the SSW behaviour could constructively deal with clashes between him/herself and others , and accept criticism) 4.5 Persuasive power (Extent to which the SSW could behave assertively and convince others to adopt or to accept his/her viewpoint) 4.6 Co-operation (Extent to which the SSW was able c: to work constructively as part of a team or with ~ others to achieve a mutual goal) ... It! Q) 4.7 Leadership qualities (Extent to which the SSW c.. 48. Function- was able to take the initiative and inspire, motivate 0 0 ing within (.J and give guidance to others) (ij a team/ c: 4.8 Adaptability (Extent to which the SSW could 0 agency 'iii adjust to people and circumstances) "' Cl> 4.9 Utilisation of supervision (Extent to which the 0... SSW used the guidance from the supervisor(s) to ll.. improve as a person and a professional) ..; 4.1 0 Relationship with the supervisor (Extent to which the SSW accepted the supervisor's leadership and authority) 4.11 Relationship with personnel/staff (Extent to which the SSW actively engaged with the agency 4C. Relation- and maintained good reciprocal relations with staff) ships with 4.12 Relationship with clients (Extent to which the key role- SSW acted professionally towards clients and players inspired trust) 4.13 Relationship with members of the community (Extent to which the SSW was able to network with resources in the community and to create a positive image of him/herself and the agency in the community) The panel of lecturers selected a total of 46 items. The clustering of these items into categories (see Tables l to 4) made it easi er to use the schedule in formative and summative assessments. They would produce a ' quick profile ' The Soci al Work Practition er-Researcher, Vol. 25 (3), 201 3 322 of and associated marks for a student' s relative strengths and weaknesses and expose discrepancies between current and expected levels of performance. The identified categories of underperformance could then form the basis of a detailed plan of action to close or eliminate the gaps. Design principle 3: The schedule should enumerate students' performance In order to function as a rubric, the schedule had to be able to enumerate a student's performance. This required the linking of the typology to a single assessment scale and the weighting of items. Experiments were previously conducted with different types of assessment scales. It included the use of percentage marks and/or specific indicators (Widerman, 2003). These alternatives proved to be confusing for one or more members of the assessment triad. The decision was, consequently, taken to continue using the following performance level descriptors (cf. Bogo et al. , 2011) in the latest edition: " 1 =Performance is unsatisfactory" "2 = Weak performance" "3 = Average performance" "4 = Above average performance" "5 =Performance is exemplary" "6 =Performance is exceptional (probably represents top 5% of students)" Not all 46 selected items are necessarily equally important. For example, a single trait such as 'tact' (see Table 4: 4.1) could not carry the same weight as 'quantity of work completed' (see Table 1: 1.6); the relative importance of the three 'competency' categories would be different (see Table 3: 3) and even the four fields could not count equally. To accommodate potential differences, a weighting system was introduced (Holloway, 2012). Each lecturer who participated in the verification process was requested to utilise a six-point scale to indicate the relative importance of every item. The results were statistically analysed to produce a relative weight per item, category and field. Design principle 4: The schedule should provide an assessment continuum from first to final year To function effectively as a formative assessment tool, the use of the schedule could not only be limited to the fourth year level. It had to form part The Social Work Practitioner-Researcher, Vol. 25 (3), 2013 323 of an assessment continuum that run from the first to final years of study. This would, among others, enable the training institution to track the development of a student ' s competencies, traits and productivity over time and ascertain whether remedial plans of action succeeded in eliminating the gaps between actual and expected levels of performance. Up until 2012, only adapted versions of the SASPER were used for the other field placement components of the NWU's BSW training programme. New placement specific schedules have been created since and are currently in use. The design and verification process followed in their development was identical to that of the fourth year instrument. Design principle 5: The schedule should be user-friendly The SASPER had to meet three basic requirements in order to enhance its ease of use. They are that all the members of the assessment triad must find it easy to complete, that the calculation of marks should be done automatically and that the results produced should be easy to interpret. To meet the first requirement, the schedule is designed as a straightforward four A4-paged questionnaire consisting of the following five sections: • the identification particulars of the student and placement, • instructions on how to complete the questionnaire, • the lists of items and their accompanying six-point Likert-type assessment scale, • a section for a written substantiation for the different assessments and the incidents on which these asses sments were primarily based, and • an optional "Feedback to lecturer" section which can be used by place- ment supervisors/instructors to give an indication of additional issues that the un.iversity should attend to in its social work training . A Microsoft Excel-based computer programme was created for every schedule. It allows for the easy capture of data from the SASPER question- naires and includes formulae that would automatically calculate a weighted mark per category and field . Once the capture of data is complete, the computer programme produces a printed one-page profile of a student ' s performance (see Figure 1 on the following page). This printout is easy to interpret and can, as a result, be effectively used in formative assessment discussions. It also provides a fmal, summative mark. The Social Work Practitioner-Researcher, Vol. 25 (3) , 2013 324 the profession IPnde in serv~ 64.8 2013 Figure 1: An example of a SASPER printout The Social Work Practitioner-Researcher, Vol. 25 (3), 2013 325 REQUIREMENTS THAT SHOULD BE MET IN THE USE OF THE SASPER The protocol followed in the utilisation of the SASPER would largely depend on the curriculum structure and training procedures of a particular higher education institution. There are, however, three core requirements that should be met as far as its use as an assessment tool is concerned. The first is that the schedule must not be seen as a 'stand-alone' instrument (cf. Bogo et al. , 2011). It should rather be used in conjunction with other instruments, as well as qualitative assessment opportunities in order to produce an accurate and more nuanced overall profile of a student's professional functioning. Special attention should also be given to the section of the questionnaire in which the placement supervisor and student provides a written substantiation for the different assessments and the incidents on which these assessments were primarily based. This will, amongst others, indicate gaps and omissions that should be followed up by the university. The completion of the schedule must, secondly, form part of a multiple assessment approach (cf. Bogo et al. , 2011). At least the placement super- visor and the student must complete a SASPER questionnaire before the results would constitute a substantive assessment. In the case of its use as a summative assessment tool, the university has the added responsibility to ensure that the measurements across a cohort of students are valid. This implies that the lecturer must take the fmal, informed decision on the mark that would be given per student. This is best achieved when the lecturer completes a final schedule for each student. To function as a formative assessment tool, all three schedules completed by the assessment triad must, thirdly, be discussed with the student. This is to ensure that the findings are substantiated, understood by the student and can be used as a basis for a (remedial) plan of action (Widerman, 2003). In this regard it should be noted that Cartney (2010) has found that the provision of feedback alone is insufficient to effect higher standards of work by students. It rather requires that they should be enabled to act on the feedback by being made aware of the connections between this information and the mechanisms that they could use to improve their work in the future. This ability to change 'feedback' into ' feed-forward' will depend on the nature and quality of the feedback loops that are employed during training (Cartney, 2010; Kealey, 2010). The Social Work Practitioner-Researcher, Vol. 25 (3), 2013 326 THE SASPER'S RELATIVE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES The extensive use of the SASPER for nearly two decades has revealed a number of relative strengths and weaknesses. It has proved to be an excellent profiling instrument. It covers a relative large number of competencies, traits and indicators and this, together with the clustering of items in categories, makes it easy to pinpoint a student's individual strengths and weaknesses. The profile also makes students aware of the specific expectations of the university and functions as a guide for the issues that they would have to focus on in future. The measurement component of the schedule has, however, proved to be susceptible to rating errors. These include: • the halo effect (i.e. judging a student favourably/unfavourably on the basis of a single strong or weak point which the assessor values highly) , • the 'similar-to-me ' or 'doppelganger' effect (i.e. a tendency by assessors to inflate the assessment of people who have something in common with them) , • central tendency errors (i.e. a reluctance to assign either extremely high or low ratings which results in a narrow distribution of marks usually centred on the 'average ' or 'above average ' levels), • recency errors (i.e. a tendency to largely base an assessment on a student's most recent ' good ' or ' bad ' behaviour), • contrast errors (i.e. a biased upwards or downwards adjust of an assessment based on experiences with previous or other students), • strictness and leniency errors (i.e. tendency of some assessors to be overly critical of all students and others to rate all students highly because they feel that it is the ' easiest' route to follow) , and • standards interpretation errors (i.e. inconsistencies between different assessors' interpretation of the criteria that are applicable to every level of performance) (Nel eta!. , 2008 ; Snell and Bohlander, 2007). It has been found that especially practice supervisors, but also most students, are adept at identifying strong and weak points and consequently produce fairly accurate profiles. Their measurement levels, however, tended to vary greatly because of the presence of one or more of the rating errors. To counteract such trends and create consistency in measurement, the university lecturer has to be the final judge of standards and associated performance levels. The Social Work Practitioner-Researcher, Vol. 25 (3), 20l3 327 The schedule has been designed to function only within the parameters of 'normal' levels of student performance. The range of the measurement produced by the computer programme is therefore limited to between 35% and 85%. This implies that other forms of assessment would have to be used when a student, for example, contravenes the SACSSP's code of ethics and rules for social workers (SACSSP, 2007) and has to fail. The same principle will apply if it is judged that a student should receive a mark of above 85%. The final primary strength of the SASPER is that it is 'context neutral' . Because of its focus on core social work competencies and traits, it can be used for placements that range from clinical settings (e.g. hospices) to those in which the developmental social work service delivery paradigm operates more strongly. The extent to which students meet the specific requirements of their placement setting should be assessed through other means such as an analysis of portfolios. The SASPER's potential weaknesses are that its validity, reliability and usefulness have thus far been tested at only one of South Africa's higher education institutions and that this was predominantly done through qualitative research. The ideal would be to subject it to a combined qualitative and quantitative analysis in a variety of settings. CLOSING REMARKS During its two decades in existence, the SASPER has proved to be a very useful instrument in the formative and summative assessment of students ' field placement performance. Its pinpointed assessment of a variety of competencies, traits and productivity indicators, ease of use and ability to enumerate student performance from the fust to final years of study have contributed significantly to the quality and especially the relevance of social work training at one higher education institution. The SASPER has now probably ' come of age ' and is ready to be tested in other settings. This could pave the way for its more extensive use in the training of South African social workers or, at least, trigger a more rigorous academic discussion on the use of formative and summative assessments in the workplace learning of student social works. The Social Work Practitioner-Researcher, Vol. 25 (3), 20 I 3 328 REFERENCES Augustine, A.A . and Larsen, R.J . (2012). "Is a Trait Really the Mean of States?" Journal ofIndividual Differences 33(3) : 131-137. Bogo, M., Regehr, C. , Katz, E. , Logie, C. and Mylopoulos, M. (2011). "Developing a Tool for Assessing Students ' Reflections on Their Practice" Social Work Education 30(2): 186-194. Bozalek, V. (2009). "Outcomes-based Assessment: Necessary Evil or Transformative Potential?" Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk 45(1 ):91-11 0. Cartney, P. (2010). "Exploring the Use of Peer Assessment as a Vehicle for Closing the Gap Between Feedback Given and Feedback Used" Assessment and Evaluation in High er Education 35(5): 551-564. CHE see Council on Higher Education. Collins, K. (2012). "Contradictions of Concern to Benchmarking in the South African Bachelor of Social Work Degree" Social Work!Maatskaplike Werk 48(2) :113-125 . Collins, S. (2007). "Social Workers, Resilience, Positive Emotions and Optimism" Practice: Social Work in Action 19(4): 255 -269. Council on Higher Education. (20 11 ). "Work-integrated Learning: Good Practice Guide" HE Monitor 12:1-78. Council on Social Work Education. (2008). "Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards", http://www.cswe.org/Accreditation/2008EPAS Description (Accessed on 14/08/20 12). CSWE see Council on Social Work Education. Engelbrecht, L. , Pullen-Sansfar;:on, A. and Spolander, G. (20 10). "Service User Involvement in Social Work Education: A Juxtaposition of Practices in England and South Africa" Th e Social Work Practitioner-Researcher/Die Maatskaplikewerk Navorser-Praktisyn 22(2) : 154-170. Gibbons, J., Bore, M., Munro, D. and Powis, D. (2007). "Using Personal Quality Assessment for Selection of Social Work Students" Australian Social Work 60(2): 21 0-221 . The Social Work Practitioner-Researcher, Vol. 25 (3), 201 3 329 Hamilton, T.D., Buchan, V.V., Hull, G.H., Christenson, B., Gerritsen- Mckane, R., Rodenhiser, R.W. and Smith, M.L. (2011). "Responding to the 2008 EPAS: Baccalaureate Education Assessment Direct and Indirect Measurement" The Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work 16(1): 1731 . Herbst, A. and Strydom, H. (2008). "Die Realiteit van die Praktyk: Eise en Uitdagings wat die Beginnerpraktyk aan Maatskaplike Werkers Stel'' (The Reality of Practice: The Demands and Challenges Faced by Social Workers in Beginners ' Practice) . Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk 44(3):273-289 . Holmstrom, C. and Taylor, I. (2008). "Mapping the Terrain of Selection for Social Work: A Critical Analysis of Policy, Theory and Research" Social Work Education 27(5):519-535. Holloway, S. (2012). Some Suggestions on Educational Program Assessment and Continuous Improvement for the 2008 EPAS Washington: Council on Social Work Education. IFSW see International Federation of Social Workers. International Federation of Social Workers. (2012). "Definition of Social Work", http://ifsw. org/policies/defrnition-of-social-work/ (Accessed on 07/02/2013) . Jackson, S.E., Schuler, R.S . and Werner, S. (2009). Managing Human Resources Mason: South-Western Cengage Learning, Tenth Edition. Kealey, E. (2010). "Assessment and Evaluation in Social Work Education: Formative and Summative Approaches" Journal of Teaching in Social Work 30:64-74. Krause, B. (2 004). An Evaluation of the Peiformance Enhancement Process (PEP) of the South African Police Service (SAPS): A Case Study at Parow Police Station (Unpublished Master 's Dissertation) University of Stellenbosch. Leonard, E.C. and Hilgert, R.L. (2007). Supervision: Concepts and Practices ofManagement Mason: Thomson Higher Education, Tenth Edition. Maistry, M. (2012) . "Community Engagement, Service Learning and Student Social Responsibility: Implications for Social Work Education at South The Social Work Practitioner-Researcher, Vol. 25 (3), 2013 330 African Universities: A Case Study of the University of Fort Hare" Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk 48(2): 142-158. Meyer-Adams, N. , Potts, M.K., Koob, J.J ., Dorsey, C.J. and Rosales, A.M . (2011) . "How to Tackle the Shift of Educational Assessment from Learning Outcomes to Competencies: One Program's Transition" Journal of Social Work Education 47(3):489-507. Naidoo, I. and Henning, K. (2012). "Public Service Monitoring and Evaluation System - Coming of Age" PSC News: Official Magazine of the Public Service Commission February/March Edition, 5-12. Niisstrom, G. (2009). "Interpretation of Standards with Bloom's Revised Taxonomy: A Comparison of Teachers and Assessment Experts" International Journal of Research and Method in Education 32(1) :39-51. Nel, P.S., Werner, A., Haasbroek, G.D. , Poisat, P., Sono, T. and Schultz, H.B. (2008) . Human Resource Management Cape Town: Oxford University Press Southern Africa, Seventh Edition. Noe, R.A., Hollenbeck, J.R. , Gerhart, B. and Wright, P.M. (2000). Human Resource Management: Gaining a Competitive Advantage Boston: McGraw- Hill, Third Edition. OPTSQ see Ordre Professionnel des Travailleurs Sociaux du Quebec. Ordre Professionnel des Travailleurs Sociaux du Quebec (OPTSQ). (2006). "The Core Competencies of Social Workers", http ://www.optsg .org/docs/ autres/1 a-corecompetenciesofsw (Accessed on 12/08/20 12). Public Service Commission see South Africa. Public Service Commission. Rankin, P., Weyers, M.L. and Williams, H.M . (2008). The Use of the Programme Logic Model (PLM) in Structured Social Work Interventions: Theory and Practice The Social Work Practitioner-Researcher/Die Maat- skaplikewerk Navorser-Praktisyn 20(3):334-357 Regehr, C. , Bogo, M. , Donovan, K., Anstice, S. and Lim, A. (2012). "Identifying Student Competencies in Macro Practice: Articulating the Practice Wisdom of Field Instructors" Journal of Social Work Education 48(2):307-318. The Social Work Practitioner-Researcher, Vol. 25 (3), 20!3 331 SACSSP see South African Council for Social Service Professions. SAQA see South African Qualification Authority. Schneller, D.P. and Brocato, J. (2011). "Facilitating Student Learning, the Assessment of Learning and Curricular Improvement through a Graduate Social Work Integrative Seminar" Journal of Teaching in Social Work 31:178-194. Simpson, B. (20 I 0). "Outcomes-based Education: Is it Right for Social Work?" Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk 46(3):274-282. Snell , S. and Bohlander, G. (2007). Human Resource Management Mason: Thomson Higher Education. South Africa. Public Service Commission. (2007). Guide on Performance Management for Social Development Departments Pretoria: Public Service Commis ion. (RP : I 0/2007). South Africa. Public Service Commission. (2008). Basic Concepts in MoniTOring and Evaluation Pretoria: Public Service Commission. (RP: 14/200 ). South African Co uncil for Social Service Professions. (2007). "Policy Guideline fo r Course of Conduct, Code of Ethics and the Rules for Social Workers··. http://www.sacssp.co.za/website/wp-content/uploads/20 12/06/ Code-of-Ethi .pdf(Accessed on 19/08/2012). South frican Qualification Authority. (2003). "Bachelor of Social Work (B \.V) 'Qf Leve l 7" Government Gazette, No. 24362 (7 February 2003). Strydom. :-.f. (20 II). "The Rationale for the Involvement of Field Instructors in Pra ri Edu ation" Social Work/Maatskap!ike Werk 47(4):416-429. Taras. \L (_009). "Summative Assessment: The Missing Link for Formative As e rn n .. Journal of Further and Higher Education 33(1) :57-69. Teater, B.A. (20 II) . "Maximizing Student Learning: A Case Example of Applyin~ Tea hing and Learning Theory in Social Work Education" Social Work Educ non 30(5):57 1-585. The Social Work Practitioner-Researcher, Vol. 25 (3), 2013 332 Walters, H.B. (2008). "An Introduction to Use of Self m Field Placement" Th e New Social Worker 15(4):8-12 . Weyers, M.L. (1994). "SASPER: A Computerised Schedule for the Assessment of Social Work Student' s Field Work Performance". Poster Presented at the 27th Congress of the International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW) held in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Widerman, E. (2003). "Performance Evaluation Using a Rubric : Grading Student Performance in Practice Courses" The Journal of Baccalaure 8(2):109-125 . Acknowledgement The author wishes to acknowledge the contributions of the staff at all three social work departments of the North-West University, and especially Prof E.H. Ryke, to the development and verification of the SASPER schedule. The Social Work Practitioner-Researcher, Vol. 25 (3), 2013