Assessing practice using PCF guidance - The College of Social Work

ASSESSING PRACTICE USING THE
PROFESSIONAL CAPABILITIES FRAMEWORK
OCTOBER 2012
GUIDANCE
Assessing practice using PCF guidance v-5 FINAL 8 October 2012 ©The College of Social Work 2012,
2-4 Cockspur Street London SW1Y 5BH
1

This best practice guidance for the assessment of practice learning for social
work at qualifying level using the PCF was produced with support from the
Higher Education Academy and The College of Social Work
It was written by
Helen Keville
with contributions from
Claire Barcham (TCSW), Hilary Burgess (HEA) and Professor Mark Doel
The guidance was developed from initial work undertaken for assessing the PCF,
specifically for the Assessed and Supervised Year in Employment (ASYE) led by
Mary Keating with input from TCSW, Skills for Care, the Higher Education Academy
and the DfE
We would also like to acknowledge the contributions from many people from both HE
and social work practice who attended an initial seminar in London on 8 June 2012 or
who contributed their ideas electronically
Peter Castleton, University of Sheffield + Yorks/Humberside
Jeannine Hughes, Northumbria University
Clare Stone, University of Central Lancashire + Greater Lancs and Cumbria
James Evans, Liverpool John Moores University + Merseyside and Cheshire
Ros Hunt, University of Manchester
Deborah Amas, Anglia Ruskin University
Alison Paris, University of Birmingham
Deborah Bardouille, Nottingham Trent University + E.Midlands
Mel Hughes, Bournemouth University
Adrian Vatcher, University of the West of England + Top SW region
Andrew Linton, Greenwich University
Martyn Higgins, London South Bank University
Jane Lindsay, Kingston University + Pan London Group
Mike Shapton, Coventry University
Sarah Robinson, University of Kent PAP Chair
Darlene Lamont, Westminster CC; SW London LR Network
Julie Phillips, Bristol Council
Frances Allerton, Somerset County Council
Naomi Knott, Plymouth Council
Joanne Solanki, Hampshire/IoW Council
Liz Bord, Wiltshire County Council + Dorset, Poole, Bournemouth
Chris Sherrington, Cumbria Council
Denise Wright, Gloucestershire County Council
Carol Dicken, Independent Practice Educator
Karen Baird, Independent Practice Educator/E.Sussex
Donna O’Neill, Learn to Care
Allison Coleman, NOPT
Caz Lawson, BASW
Maggie Challis, TCSW
Graeme Simpson, University of Wolverhampton
Rachel Hek, University of Birmingham
Clare Colton, Plymouth University
David Nilsson, Middlesex University
Sue Smith, Consultant
Assessing practice using PCF guidance v-5 FINAL 8 October 2012 ©The College of Social Work 2012,
2-4 Cockspur Street London SW1Y 5BH
2

Assessing practice learning using the PCF
Guidance
Contents
1. Purpose of guidance
2. Standards from 2013: the PCF and the HCPC standards of proficiency
3. Holistic assessment – what is it?
4. Holistic assessment – how does it work in practice?
5. Recommended template for practice educator assessment
6. Presenting a sample of supporting evidence
7. Identifying and responding to special issues
8. Role of students
9. Role of practice educators
10. Role of tutors
11. Role of employers
12. Managing problems and the role of practice assessment panels
13. Relationship between academic and professional assessment of
students
14. Grading practice learning
15. Role of partnerships
16. The Resource Bank
Types of evidence and key points
Managing problems and disputes
1. Purpose of guidance
The purpose of this document is to provide detailed guidance on the
assessment of social work students using the Professional Capabilities
Framework (PCF) for all those involved in placements taking place from
autumn 2013. In particular, it outlines the implications of holistic assessment
for the decision making of practice educators. It builds on guidance previously
issued by The College of Social Work (TCSW), which constitutes part of the
expectations of programmes required for endorsement. 1
TCSW expects programmes to use the PCF to assess practice and academic
learning, and also expects that this will be undertaken holistically. The use of
1 Overview of new arrangements for practice learning;
Use of the PCF and assessment criteria for practice learning;
Placement criteria;
Developing skills for practice and assessment of readiness for direct practice;
Practice Educator Professional Standards (PEPS) and guidance.
All available at http://www.collegeofsocialwork.org/resources/reform-resources/
Assessing practice using PCF guidance v-5 FINAL 8 October 2012 ©The College of Social Work 2012,
2-4 Cockspur Street London SW1Y 5BH
3

the templates and suggested supporting evidence is not a requirement, but is
presented as a model of good practice, that can be adapted and developed
over the coming years. It should also enable better harmonisation of practice
learning arrangements within and between regions in England, and provide
congruence with new arrangements for the assessment of newly qualified
social workers on the Assessed and Supported Year in Employment (ASYE).
The introduction of the PCF provides the profession with an opportunity to
build on existing good practice and to continue raising standards in the
assessment of students. It also offers an opportunity to respond to some of
the problems that have been identified in the current assessment framework,
using the National Occupational Standards (NOS).
Approaches to assessment vary considerably across the country, but some
concerns include:
There should be a better balance between the evidence presented by
students and the professional judgment of practice educators. Some
practice educators have suggested that the present arrangements limit
their scope to reach overarching decisions about students’ suitability for
social work.
The conceptual framework of the NOS is based on elements or
competencies, each one of which must be evidenced. This can create
‘gaps’ through which the assessment can fall, since judgments about
overall capability may get lost where there is a micro focus on competence.
The amount of evidence produced for assessment can be unnecessarily
burdensome, producing large and often unmanageable portfolios. The
search for this evidence can sometimes drive the learning, rather than the
evidence arising out of, and supporting, the learning.
2. Standards from 2013: the PCF and the HCPC standards of proficiency
The qualifying level of the PCF incorporates and extends the standards of
proficiency (SOPs) of the regulator, the Health and Care Professions Council
(HCPC). When the HCPC approves a programme, it will expect that the SOPs
are achieved by all students completing the programme and receiving the final
award. These are threshold standards, and their delivery and assessment
should take place across the programme, in both education and placement
settings.
The HCPC also expects programmes to deliver the higher professional
standards of the PCF, but considers the monitoring of these to be the
responsibility of TCSW, as the professional body. This will be achieved via
The College’s endorsement process.
The PCF has been mapped to the SOPs 2 ; similarly the SOPs have been
mapped against the qualifying level of the PCF. 3
2
http://www.hpc-uk.org/publications/standards/index.asp?id=569
3
Mapping of the PCF against HCPC standards of proficiency
Assessing practice using PCF guidance v-5 FINAL 8 October 2012 ©The College of Social Work 2012,
2-4 Cockspur Street London SW1Y 5BH
4

3. Holistic assessment – what is it?
Social work practice is a complex activity, requiring the interplay of knowledge,
skills and values, as exemplified by the PCF. It comprises nine domains that
are interdependent, not separate; they interact in professional practice, so
there are links between the capabilities, and many circumstances will be
relevant to more than one capability.
Understanding what a social worker does will only be realised by taking into
account all nine capabilities. Similarly, it is important that assessment of
progression should be made holistically: neither the nine domains nor the
capability statements set for each level should be evaluated in isolation from
each other.
Where learning or performance objectives are complex, Biggs suggests that:
‘…the judgment of the assessor is considered central in making a
holistic decision about the quality of performance 4 .’
He explains that ‘we arrive at [such judgments] by understanding the whole in
the light of the parts’, and that ‘the assessment is of the integrated action, not
of the performance of each part.’ He argues that analytic marking (i.e.
individuated marking of the parts) destroys the essential meaning of the task,
although this does not mean that the detail of the parts is ignored.
According to Doel et al 5 , achieving this hinges on the assessor understanding
and integrating the differences between two approaches:
Partial: this means a detailed understanding of the various behavioural
competences which constitute practice
Contextual: at a local level, this means an awareness of how practice
is influenced by time and place; and at a social level this is an
understanding of structural influences on practice
Doel et al argue that there is a risk of swinging from one approach to another,
thus creating a false dichotomy between the partial and the contextual.
‘To understand and undertake a holistic approach to assessment, the
partial and the contextual must be considered together. In this way, we
arrive at a synthesis of specific and general, discrete and dynamic.
This is a truly holistic approach to assessment.' (Doel et al, 1992, p39).
Thus the skill of the practice educator lies in bringing together different levels
of assessment to make a judgment.
4 Biggs, J (2007) Teaching for Quality Learning at University, Buckingham, SHRE and OU,
quoted in TCSW/Skills for Care/Higher Education Academy statement on holistic assessment.
5 Doel, M, Sawdon, C and Morrison, D (2002), Learning, Practice and Assessment, London:
Jessica Kingsley.
Assessing practice using PCF guidance v-5 FINAL 8 October 2012 ©The College of Social Work 2012,
2-4 Cockspur Street London SW1Y 5BH
5

'The ability to move…..from the partial to the contextual, and
understand the relationship between the local and the structural, is
what we understand as a holistic approach.' (Doel et al, op cit, p 34).
(A longer extract on holistic approaches to learning by Doel et al can be
viewed HERE. The full text of the statement on holistic assessment can be
viewed HERE.)
This definition has implications for the way a holistic assessment is
constructed, evidenced and recorded, and this is the focus of this guidance. It
aims to build on existing good practice in a number of key ways:
The progress of students on any specific placement should be considered
as part of their overall learning journey as professionals. Placements
should build on students’ previous stage of learning, assess the progress
that has occurred during the placement and then identify the students’
learning and development needs for the next stage 6 .
Assessment should be progressive and ongoing, to lead to a final
assessment decision. This will result from the overall interaction between
students and practice educators, and it should not be confined to particular
points in the process. Students are effectively being assessed in
relationship to the PCF all the time, and practice educators’ decisions can
be based on any relevant evidence from the students’ time on placement,
whilst taking into account their development and progress over the period
of the placement.
The assessment should be supported by the sample of evidence
presented, but not be driven by it. A range of different types of evidence,
linked to the PCF, should be used. There is an important role for students
as a source and provider of evidence, since it is essential that students
understand what is required of them, and they are able to critically reflect
on their practice in relation to the PCF; however, evidence will also come
from other sources. The role of practice educators is to achieve a
defendable judgment, drawing on all the evidence available. Holistic
assessment should make it neither easier nor harder to fail a student.
Practice educators will continue to back up their concerns with evidence –
but there are now more overarching criteria for the concerns.
Ongoing assessment and, specifically, the use of a formal interim review
should mean that practice educators can address and act on concerns
prior to the final assessment point. They should have access to support
from the tutor/HEI/partnership/practice assessment panel as soon as they
6
This might be achieved using a personal development plan/profile based on the PCF (see
Section 13),
Assessing practice using PCF guidance v-5 FINAL 8 October 2012 ©The College of Social Work 2012,
2-4 Cockspur Street London SW1Y 5BH
6

have concerns. It also means that students can be given clear
expectations with SMART 7 objectives about how they can improve at an
interim review (or earlier if needed).
4. Holistic assessment – how does it work in practice?
The flow chart on the next page illustrates how the ongoing assessment of
students by practice educators creates:
a continuous cycle of learning from practice throughout the placement
where there are no concerns about students’ progress (left side of the
chart)
a framework of support to practice educators and students alongside
the cycle of learning from practice where there are concerns about
students’ progress or the placement (right side of the chart)
7
Specific Measurable Attainable Relevant Timely.
Assessing practice using PCF guidance v-5 FINAL 8 October 2012 ©The College of Social Work 2012,
2-4 Cockspur Street London SW1Y 5BH
7

Practice Placement Cycle
Continue cycle of
positive learning
Student generated
evidence
No Concerns re; progress
Planning for placement
Information, Student access needs, CRB
checks
Placement Agreement
(including learning needs of student) – completed
prior to or at the start of the placement
PRACTICE ON PLACEMENT
Evidence linked to PCF
Practice Evidence
SUPERVISION SESSIONS
Capabilities Progress
Final Recommendation to :
Practice Assessment Panel or Exam Board for
final decision
Assessing practice using PCF guidance v-5 FINAL 8 October 2012 ©The College of Social Work 2012, 2-4 Cockspur Street London SW1Y 5BH
8
Induction
Practice Educator ongoing
assessment with evidence
to support
Interim review, normally with tutor
visit
Final Assessment
Recommend: Pass/Fail/Defer
Learning needs for next stage identified
Student response to assessment
Practice Educator
generated or directed
evidence
Student or Tutor concerns
about placement
Practice Educator
Concerns re; progress
Early Termination of
placement with subsequent
options e.g. New placement,
termination of studies
Support to Practice
Educator from
partnership- e.g. Early
intervention, second
opinion, tutor report

5. Recommended template for practice educator assessment
The use of the PCF to assess students’ practice in a holistic way provides an
opportunity to build on existing approaches to the recording of assessments.
A recommended template for assessment has been developed by
stakeholders, working with TCSW and HEA, based on the following principles:
The record of assessment should be focused and concise, so suggested
word limits have been provided for all sections.
A sample of evidence (and other supporting documents) should be
provided.
The recommended template has three sections:
Section 1: A summary of the outcome of the assessment and supporting
evidence/other documents.
Section 2: The assessment report, where practice educators record their
overarching judgment of students, and students have an opportunity to
respond.
Section 3: Assessment of each domain, where practice educators provide
additional information against the nine domains to support their overall
assessment.
Section 1 is a high level summary but may have been written last. Section 3
refers to capability in each domain separately, but may have been considered
first, in order to clarify the practice educator’s thinking about the assessment
presented in Section 2.
The heart of the assessment is Section 2, where the practice educator’s
overarching judgment is recorded, making reference to the student’s capability
across all nine domains.
In Section 3, the practice educator’s summary of the strengths and/or
difficulties of the student in relation to each domain is recorded. This may be
succinct if there are no concerns or more detailed if the student has not
demonstrated the required level of proficiency/capability or similar.
Each section provides information at a different level of detail, in order to bring
together a coherent holistic assessment, but the section numbers do not
necessarily represent the chronological stages of the assessment.
The template can be found here.
6. Presenting a sample of supporting evidence
In order to ensure that the sample of evidence used to support the
assessment is appropriate in terms of quantity and quality, it is recommended
that the following points are taken into account:
Assessing practice using PCF guidance v-5 FINAL 8 October 2012 ©The College of Social Work 2012,
2-4 Cockspur Street London SW1Y 5BH
9

a) Focused: The focus will be on providing robust evidence to back up the
practice educator’s assessment.
b) Volume: A sample of evidence should be selected, that is effective and
useful, creating a small portfolio. During a placement, a student will probably
produce a lot of evidence, but it is not necessary to use all of this to support
the assessment. Part of the discussion in supervision between the practice
educator and student is likely to be about identifying the pieces of evidence to
be submitted. Where there are concerns about a student’s progress, it may be
important to increase the sample size.
c) Linked to PCF: All evidence should be linked to the PCF.
d) Types: A range of different types of evidence should be used. These are
likely to fall into the following main categories:
Direct observation
Service user and carer feedback
Critical reflection of practice
Evidence from supervision
Evidence from work produced by students for agency
Other e.g. presentations, learning logs, feedback from other professionals,
webcam, video recording, live supervision/teaching
It will be important that practice educators ensure that a broad range of
evidence is included, and they may be responsible for directing students to
provide specific types of evidence, as appropriate.
Recommended minimum amounts:
As well as ensuring a broad range of different types of evidence, practice
educators are likely to need more than one example of some types to
ensure their assessment is fully supported. For example, it may be important
to demonstrate students’ progress through sampling the same kind of
evidence (e.g. direct observation) at different points in a placement.
As a minimum, there is likely to be:
Direct observation – at least two for the first and three for the last
placement.
Service user and carer feedback – at least two per placement.
Critical reflection of practice –at least three per placement.
Evidence from supervision – an overview record of the supervision
sessions that have taken place.
Evidence from work produced by students for agency – an anonymised
summary 8 of the work undertaken during the placement.
8
Feedback from stakeholders suggests that submitting actual agency records is generally not
effective as evidence, even if fully anonymised.
Assessing practice using PCF guidance v-5 FINAL 8 October 2012 ©The College of Social Work 2012,
2-4 Cockspur Street London SW1Y 5BH
10

However, partnerships may require more examples of key types of evidence
(e.g. direct observation), if this can be resourced.
The Resource Bank (see below) provides additional information about the
value and role of each type of evidence. It includes links to examples of
documents that stakeholders have offered to make available to others,
although these have not yet been adapted to reflect the PCF. It is hoped that
as stakeholders develop new documents, they will continue to contribute them
to the Resource Bank.
7. Identifying and responding to special issues
The practice educator’s assessment should clearly identify any special factors
that have affected the student’s progress. These are likely to fall into two
categories:
Placement issues e.g. workload, factors relating to the practice educator
or organisational factors.
Student issues e.g. health, personal circumstances, disability or dyslexia.
These factors should be briefly outlined in Section 1 of the assessment report.
If further information is appropriate, a report can be attached. For example,
this might be an investigation into a complaint made by the student, or a
formal assessment of a student’s disability needs.
The implications of these factors for the final assessment of the student
should be discussed by the practice educator in Section 2.
Programmes/partnerships are likely to have policies/procedures in place for
both of these areas but these may need to be reviewed. See the Resource
Bank below for examples of existing policies that have been shared by
stakeholders as a starting point.
8. Role of students
Using and understanding the PCF is part of the students’ learning. It is
important that they are able to work actively with the PCF themselves, both as
students and, in the future, as professional social workers. This means that
students should be responsible for identifying, discussing and presenting
evidence of their achievements linked to the PCF to their practice educators
and they should be able say why they believe it is sufficient and appropriate.
However, assessment should not be limited to the evidence students produce.
The role of practice educators is to give feedback on whether or not the
students’ evidence is sufficient and to suggest other ways capability can be
demonstrated, as necessary.
Students need to be aware that they are being assessed on their performance
for the whole time they are on the placement, and that the practice educators
Assessing practice using PCF guidance v-5 FINAL 8 October 2012 ©The College of Social Work 2012,
2-4 Cockspur Street London SW1Y 5BH
11

are responsible for generating/receiving feedback and/or evidence from a
range of sources for this purpose.
9. Role of practice educators
Whilst practice educators will already have varying degrees of experience in
the holistic assessment of students, the introduction of the PCF and the
development of new methods of recording assessments may present fresh
challenges. Practice educators may need to be offered further training and
support, underpinned by the Practice Educator Professional Standards
(PEPS), to clarify/highlight the links between the PEPS and the skills needed
for holistic assessment.
Assessing the capabilities of social work students is of great importance to the
future of the profession and employers may need to give attention to how the
practice educators’ own supervision might be used to support their role as
teacher and assessor. For example, it may be appropriate for supervision to
extend to critical reflection on the exercise of professional judgment.
Practice educators will be able to use their work as practice educators to meet
the Health and Care Professions Council’s (HCPC) re-registration
requirements for CPD, using practice education as their ‘scope of practice’
(see PEPS Guidance 9 ). This will provide an important means for practice
educators to demonstrate the continuous improvement of their own skills.
10. Role of tutors
Whilst the primary responsibility for assessing students is with the practice
educators, tutors have an important role in providing support to both the
practice educators and students during the placement. This might mean
offering to provide a fresh perspective on any issues that have arisen, either
by working with the practice educators to develop a robust assessment of the
students’ abilities or by helping students deal with specific difficulties they feel
are affecting their progress.
Tutors should sign the completed assessment template, and there is space for
them to record their comments if this is appropriate.
Tutors should be informed of any decision to draw on additional support from
the partnership/practice assessment panel or the use of dispute/complaints
procedures (see flow chart p.8), but they could also be helpfully involved in
the decision-making process leading up to this.
11. Role of employers
All levels of the organisation hosting the placement need to be aware of the
new arrangements for assessing practice using the PCF, with its emphasis on
holistic assessment. This in turn should link to reviewing the role of the PCF in
9 Practice Educator Professional Standards (PEPS) and guidance
Assessing practice using PCF guidance v-5 FINAL 8 October 2012 ©The College of Social Work 2012,
2-4 Cockspur Street London SW1Y 5BH
12

the professional development of all staff. This would include the team in which
students are placed and the middle/senior management of the agency.
It is particularly important that information is shared and the implications
understood of:
the role of practice educators in making a holistic assessment
the CPD and supervision needs that may need to be addressed, in order
to enable practice educators to perform this role at a high professional
level
the potential contribution of others in the agency in giving feedback that
may be part of the students’ assessment
the place of the PCF as a shared reference point about the abilities
students should be able to demonstrate whilst on a first or last placement
The training and development staff of the agency should have a key role in
understanding and disseminating these implications.
12. Managing problems and the role of practice assessment panels
Giving greater emphasis to practice educators’ judgment will require a real
shift in culture for some. Practice educators should not feel isolated in their
decision making, nor should they feel they are in conflict with the practice
assessment panel which may appear to have different views about the
significance of mitigating facts for the suitability or otherwise of a student to
practice. At the same time, it is important to acknowledge that practice
educators (as with all HEI assessors) make recommendations to the
Examinations Board and do not have the final say.
Differences of opinion between practice educators and practice assessment
panels can be minimised by making sure all those involved share an
understanding of the standards against which students are being assessed
and how the programme as a whole is constructed.
The HCPC expects programmes to ensure practice educators understand the
support available to them and the collaborative decision-making points open
to them, so that they can feed in concerns about potentially failing students at
an early stage. Exercising the judgment that a student has failed a placement
will never be easy and practice educators should not undertake this in
isolation. Programmes should prepare practice educators for this possibility
and support them throughout the process. (SET 5.11)
In the rare event of differences of opinion remaining, programmes should
have in place a procedure for providing feedback to practice educators, if the
practice assessment panel or Examinations Board makes a final decision that
does not align with the recommendation of the practice educators. Where
possible, local processes should be used to resolve any ongoing dispute, but
if this fails, practice educators would have the option of making a complaint to
the HCPC that the programme was not meeting the required standards.
Assessing practice using PCF guidance v-5 FINAL 8 October 2012 ©The College of Social Work 2012,
2-4 Cockspur Street London SW1Y 5BH
13

Students invest a great deal of time and commitment into becoming a social
worker and, with the increase in fees from 2012, failing a placement will have
significant financial implications for them as well. Students may appeal against
a decision on the grounds that the practice educator has made a wrong or
poor judgment, so the evidence used by the practice educator must be both
transparent and defendable.
A strong framework of support should be developed around the placement to
respond to the issues that can arise from holistic assessment of students –
building, of course, on processes that are already in place under the current
arrangements. This is illustrated in the flow chart (see p.8). Key in this should
be:
Clarity about the evidence the practice educator is using, linked to the PCF,
which is integrated into supervision and the ongoing assessment of the
student.
The option of early intervention and additional support from the practice
assessment panel or partnership, to address the concerns of a practice
educator about a student’s progress during the placement, rather than
waiting for a formal assessment point at the end.
A clear and transparent process for decision making and appeals, which
places the practice educator’s judgment in the context of a consistent and
moderated approach to decision making across the programme and/or
partnership.
The opportunity for early termination of placements and/or exit routes from
the programme as necessary.
The Resource Bank (see below) includes examples of existing schemes
shared by stakeholders as a starting point, but all existing processes may
need to be reviewed to ensure they provide a robust framework of support to
the professional judgment exercised in holistic assessment linked to the PCF.
.
13. Relationship between academic and professional assessment of
students
The expectations in relation to completion of the final placement have not
been specified separately from those expected at the end of the qualifying
programme as a whole. Assessment of students’ performance and learning on
placement is likely to form a substantial part of the final assessment using the
PCF, since in most programmes the end of the placement will be very close to
the end of the programme. However passing the last placement will not in
itself provide sufficient evidence of having met the PCF capabilities at
qualifying level as a whole. Similarly, the HCPC expects SOPs to have been
achieved and assessed through work across the programme, in both
education and placement settings.
The communication between practice educator, tutor and student is central to
the integration of practice with academic or university-based learning. Holistic
assessment focuses on professional assessment of capability, carried out by
Assessing practice using PCF guidance v-5 FINAL 8 October 2012 ©The College of Social Work 2012,
2-4 Cockspur Street London SW1Y 5BH
14

the practice educator, while the academic tutor can provide an external
sounding board for the practice educator and/or the student, enabling links to
be made to other modules and learning on the programme and through
moderation of standards.
Students’ development can be supported by mechanisms such as personal
learning profiles. The PCF provides a means by which information about
students’ previous learning can be collated and then communicated to the
practice educator. Some programmes already use a personal development or
learning profile to record and plan students’ work and development throughout
a programme; consideration could be given to adapting this to reflect
progression against the PCF, and sharing information between university and
placement based learning.
Co-marked written assignments (see next section and the Resource Bank)
are another means of integrating the practice and academic elements, in
order to arrive at a shared assessment of students’ overall competence.
14. Grading practice learning
Grading practice is a controversial area. At present the grading of actual
practice by practice educators is not a route that is recommended, given the
need to develop the skills of many practice educators and their confidence in
making judgments (this should take place gradually as the PEPS are
implemented).
However many programmes currently link a written assignment to the practice
module, and this provides a means of grading the module, as well as ensuring
that students work in depth at linking theory, research and knowledge with
reflective practice. Commonly this is an extended case study of 3,000–6,000
words (depending on whether it is the first or last placement and whether it is
for an undergraduate or postgraduate programme). In some programmes this
is marked by academic tutors, in others jointly by a tutor and the practice
educator. HEIs who do not currently use this approach may wish to consider it.
15. Role of partnerships
Partnerships have a key role to play in developing the holistic assessment of
practice learning, alongside other roles in the implementation of reforms to
social work and raising standards of professional practice in social work.
TCSW has produced a ‘health check’ for partnerships, which outlines the
tasks they may have to consider, review or undertake in response to the
SWRB reforms. With regard to holistic assessment, the ‘health check’
suggests partnerships should consider whether they have:
developed a template for recording holistic assessment for use in the
programme, partnership and possibly sub-region or region
planned and implemented CPD training for practice educators, to ensure
they have skills and confidence in the holistic assessment of practice, use
of evidence and effective recording in the new assessment template
Assessing practice using PCF guidance v-5 FINAL 8 October 2012 ©The College of Social Work 2012,
2-4 Cockspur Street London SW1Y 5BH
15

eviewed, and if necessary, improved processes dealing with difficulties in
placements, including:
early interventions/support for the practice educator/student
clear criteria for failing students and placements
transparent decision making
communicated information about holistic assessment to senior managers
and teams in agencies providing placements to their partnership
The full ‘health check’ for partnerships can be viewed here.
Assessing practice using PCF guidance v-5 FINAL 8 October 2012 ©The College of Social Work 2012,
2-4 Cockspur Street London SW1Y 5BH
16

16. The Resource Bank
The Resource Bank, hosted by SWAPbox (http://www.swapbox.ac.uk/view/groups/31.html) provides examples of documents that
stakeholders have offered to make available to others, although these have not yet been adapted to reflect the PCF. It is hoped that
as stakeholders develop new documents, they will continue to contribute them to the Resource Bank.
It also provides examples of existing schemes of managing problems and disputes. These have been shared by stakeholders as a
starting point, but all existing processes may need to be reviewed to ensure they provide a robust framework of support to the
professional judgment exercised in holistic assessment linked to the PCF.
Additional key points about the different types of evidence are summarised below, with links to the shared documents on SWAPbox.
It is NOT necessary to be registered with SWAPbox to access the Resource Bank – the links will take you directly to the documents.
Alternatively, you can access them via the SWAPbox website (http://swapbox.ac.uk/). The documents are in a group called
‘assessing practice learning’, which can be found by browsing ‘groups’. Again, it is not necessary to register with the site to view the
documents using this method.
Types of evidence and key points Documents available at
SWAPbox
Direct observation
A minimum of two for the first and three for the last placement is recommended. However,
as this is a valuable source of evidence, programmes may require more than this, especially
in the last placement.
All observations should be recorded with clear objectives.
Formal, planned direct observations should take place at least once in every placement.
They should be recorded across three stages:
o A record by students of how they prepared for the session
o The observation of the session itself, with the skills and knowledge demonstrated,
linked back to the PCF
o A self evaluation by students after the session
This record should form the basis of the feedback/assessment session between practice
Assessing practice using PCF guidance v-5 FINAL 8 October 2012 ©The College of Social Work 2012, 2-4 Cockspur Street London SW1Y 5BH
17
Birmingham – Guidance and form
to record direct observation
http://www.swapbox.ac.uk/1219/
Plymouth – Guidance and form to
record direct observation
http://www.swapbox.ac.uk/1222/
Bournemouth – Guidance and
form to record direct observation
http://www.swapbox.ac.uk/1220/
Live Teaching -
Extract from Doel, M et al (2010)

educators and students which follows.
All feedback must be linked to relevant domain and level of the PCF.
Where possible, feedback from the service user should also be obtained after the session.
Alternative options/models could be considered such as:
o whole/half day direct observation where practice educators shadow students. This
would give practice educators chance to assess key, overarching skills e.g.
communication, interpersonal skills. It might also give off-site practice educators
chance to understand the dynamics and work of a team, thus reducing their isolation
from their students’ experience. Service user consent would need to be sought
carefully in these circumstances
o Live teaching where practice educators co-work with the students and teach them
live in the company of service users. This gives students the chance to learn from the
modelling of practice educators, receive immediate feedback and support, and later
be observed by the practice educators taking an increasing role in leading the
intervention
Some observations could exclude service users e.g. team meetings, presentations,
professional meetings.
Other professionals such as the on-site supervisor, team manager, or health professionals
could be asked to undertake observations, thus increasing the perspectives on students.
But this option should be used sparingly, as the practice educators must still have the
opportunity to assess progress during a placement.
Service user and carer feedback
Service user and carer feedback should be integrated into the whole assessment process
but at least two pieces of evidence should be included for each placement.
The format used should be appropriate to the needs and styles of the service users and
carers involved.
A range of strategies should be used.
Students could devise their own tools to gain service user and carer feedback and this could
be part of the assessment.
Assessing practice using PCF guidance v-5 FINAL 8 October 2012 ©The College of Social Work 2012, 2-4 Cockspur Street London SW1Y 5BH
18
Social Work Placements: A
traveller’s guide, Abingdon:
Routledge, pp 64–70
http://www.swapbox.ac.uk/1223/
Birmingham – Service user and
carer feedback
http://www.swapbox.ac.uk/1228/
Plymouth – Service user and
carer feedback good practice
guidelines
http://www.swapbox.ac.uk/1227/

Critical reflection of practice
A minimum of three exercises requiring students to use critically reflective analysis of
practice are recommended for each placement, as these can be essentials tools for
students’ learning and development.
Students can be asked to refer explicitly to the nine domains in a column on the right hand
side of the page to ensure integration with the PCF.
Such analysis will be part of supervision, but students should also provide written evidence.
Suggested mechanisms were:
o Student’s Analysis of Practice
o Significant Learning Event
o Critical Incident Analysis
o Reflective Analysis of Practice
Other options include academic assignments linked to the placement module, ensuring
application of a theory to a case, alongside critical analysis of practice. They may be marked
by tutors and/or practice educators. Such assignments may be used towards grading the
practice learning module.
Evidence from supervision
Supervision is an important source of evidence. However, supervision notes belong to the
agency and cannot normally be shared due to professional confidentiality.
It may be appropriate to submit relevant extracts from supervision notes, if they are
specifically referred to by the practice educators in their assessment, but they must be fully
anonymised in relation to service users and carers. Alternatively, reflective supervision
notes could be maintained separately to agency records and included in the evidence.
Information about the supervision that has taken place can be included as evidence. This
includes:
o Number of supervision sessions
o Record of attendance
o Learning/supervision agreement
Assessing practice using PCF guidance v-5 FINAL 8 October 2012 ©The College of Social Work 2012, 2-4 Cockspur Street London SW1Y 5BH
19
Birmingham – Critical reflection of
learning on placement
http://www.swapbox.ac.uk/1224/
Bournemouth – Practice analyses
http://www.swapbox.ac.uk/1226/
Bournemouth – Co-marked
written assignment
http://www.swapbox.ac.uk/1225/
Birmingham – Record of
supervision
http://www.swapbox.ac.uk/1230/

Practice educators should ensure that information relevant to students’ progress is recorded
in supervision notes e.g. quality and effectiveness of students’ reflection, information about
case discussions and actions planned.
Practice educators can then refer to the content of the notes in their assessment as
appropriate – either as evidence of good progress or concerns.
Students may also want to refer to the content of the notes if they experience any problems
in the placement.
Evidence from work produced by students for agency
The work produced by students while on placement is another source of important
evidence. This might be assessments, agency records, or written communication to service
users. However, these documents belong to the agency, and cannot be used as evidence
without permission, and have to be completely anonymised before they can be submitted as
supporting evidence.
Anonymous summaries describing the cases students have undertaken while on placement
can be included as evidence.
Practice educators can refer to specific pieces of work produced by students for the agency
as part of their assessment.
This could be supported by separate pieces of work where students critically reflect on the
cases they have undertaken on the placement. (See critical reflection on practice above.)
Other
Other types of evidence may be considered. This opens up the possibility of introducing
innovative approaches such as presentations, video recording or the use of web cams.
Learning logs or formats for sharing learning needs/progress between placements or in a
consistent way in a region may also be helpful.
Assessing practice using PCF guidance v-5 FINAL 8 October 2012 ©The College of Social Work 2012, 2-4 Cockspur Street London SW1Y 5BH
20
Birmingham – Record of work
undertaken
http://www.swapbox.ac.uk/1231/
Birmingham – Work summary
http://www.swapbox.ac.uk/1232/
Plymouth – Record of work
undertaken
http://www.swapbox.ac.uk/1235/
Bournemouth – Summary of work
undertaken during the placement
http://www.swapbox.ac.uk/1233/
Plymouth – Required portfolio
content, including blogging
http://www.swapbox.ac.uk/1244/
Pan London – student learning
profile
http://www.swapbox.ac.uk/1242/
Bournemouth – presentation
http://www.swapbox.ac.uk/1256/

Managing problems and disputes, Links and documents
See Sections 4, 12 and 14 of this guidance. Partnerships may need to review their procedures
for supporting practice educators to make judgments about students. These examples have
been provided as a starting point.
Assessing practice using PCF guidance v-5 FINAL 8 October 2012 ©The College of Social Work 2012, 2-4 Cockspur Street London SW1Y 5BH
21
Birmingham – Disputes
http://www.swapbox.ac.uk/1253/
Birmingham – Action plan
concerns
http://www.swapbox.ac.uk/1254/
Plymouth – Where there are
difficulties
http://www.swapbox.ac.uk/1255/
Bristol – Suitability procedures
http://www.swapbox.ac.uk/1276/

Extract from Doel, M., Sawdon, C. and Morrison, D. (2002), Learning, Practice and
Assessment, London: Jessica Kingsley, pp. 28–39.
PARTIAL APPROACHES TO LEARNING
There are many ways in which we can construct the discussion about how
practice can be learned, but this often hinges around the differences between
two approaches. One is based on a detailed understanding of the various
behavioural competences which constitute practice, and the other takes a
broad view of the relationship between the various processes and systems
which have an impact on practice. We will refer to the former approach as
partial and the latter as holistic.
How do you take your tea?
Perhaps we can gain more understanding of these two approaches by
exploring their application in a different context altogether. From time to time
during Part 1, we will ask you to step outside the world of social and health
services and consider developments in The Training Organisation for Tea-
Making (TOTEM). Formerly the Central Council for Education and Training in
Tea-Making, TOTEM has been established to develop good practice in teamaking,
and has decided that the best way to help student tea-makers
develop sound practice is to consider the question ‘what makes for a good
cup of tea?’ The answer to this simple question should also provide guidance
about how to assess the learner as a tea-maker. If we know what a good cup
of tea is, we can then know whether tea-making students are able to make a
professional cup of tea sufficient for the award of the DipTM.
TOTEM sent the question ‘what makes for a good cup of tea?’ out for
consultation and began to categorise the responses along various criteria. For
example:
Some people liked their tea milky, others with just a drop, yet others with
none.
Some took sugar, honey or other sweeteners, yet others took no sweeteners.
Some liked it strong, others weak, and so on.
These various preferences help to develop indicators to map a good cup of
tea. So, a criterion of ‘sweetness’ covers those who would include sugar and
those who would not. ‘Strength’, ‘milkiness’, ‘brewing time’, and other criteria
could be similarly developed, like pieces in a jigsaw which together make up a
picture of the factors which contribute to TOTEM’s understanding of a good
cup of tea.
Identifying the various elements which constitute a good cup of tea enables
TOTEM to partialise something which is complex. This, in turn, enables
fledgling tea-makers to take a step by step approach to develop their tea-
Assessing practice using PCF guidance v-5 FINAL 8 October 2012 ©The College of Social Work 2012,
2-4 Cockspur Street London SW1Y 5BH
22

making abilities. The consultation exercise has also alerted TOTEM to the
necessary subjectivity of ‘a good cup of tea’, and the fact that one person’s
nectar is another’s dishwater. Each element could be presented as a
continuum, and an individual’s preference mapped along each one.
Fig 1 Learning to make a good cup of
milkin
ess
sweetness
brewing
time
tea
To summarise, partial approaches are those which break down a complex
activity into smaller parts to help us understand these separate elements and
learn them more easily. It has its philosophical roots in Cartesian dualism, with
its notion of separateness, otherness and discrete identities. In more recent
years, behavioural psychology has developed methods of learning, unlearning
and re-learning using partial approaches.
We have considered the partial approach to learning and illustrated it with
reference to the way a student might learn professional tea-making. What,
then, do we understand by holistic approaches to learning?
HOLISTIC APPROACHES TO LEARNING
Law of excluded middle
strength
?
water
quality
The dominant model of western philosophy and thought tends to dichotomy,
that is to see the world in terms of opposites: as this or that; black or white;
Assessing practice using PCF guidance v-5 FINAL 8 October 2012 ©The College of Social Work 2012,
2-4 Cockspur Street London SW1Y 5BH
23
temperature
crockery
Leaf type

good or evil. Indeed, when knowledge is digitalised it is reduced to either ‘0’ or
‘1’. Language reinforces this sense of either/or: something is either here or
there; either night or day; all was dark and then there was light. In philosophic
logic this has been codified as the law of excluded middle, ‘which states that a
proposition must be either true or false, or, in other words, that it is impossible
that a proposition and its contradictory should neither of them be true’ or,
indeed, both be true (Ayer, 1946: 76). Either P or not P (stage 1 of Figure 2).
This polarised thinking is widespread. When considering what makes us who
we are, there is a polarity between nature or nurture - explaining our makeup
in terms of genetic, biological determinants on the one hand, or the products
of social and environmental influences on the other. In fields of intellectual
enquiry, there is a similar opposition, such as quantitative vs. qualitative in
research activity; lateral or linear in ways of thinking. The bipolar approach is
evident in writings about professional practice; social work as ‘a rationaltechnical
activity or a practical-moral one’ (Parton, 2000: 452), practitioners as
positivist or anti-reductionist (Sibeon, 1999). Partial approaches and holistic
approaches are similarly presented as separate camps. Like two football clubs,
United or City, there are strong pressures to decide which group of supporters
to join, rallying round the red or the blue.
A ‘continuum’ approach
In the Tea-Making analogy, we begin to see how the act of piecing together
the jigsaw moves us towards a more complete picture of the skills needed to
learn how to make tea. Each piece on its own is a partial understanding of the
process, yet taken together we get a better understanding of the whole. This
leads us to a softening of the polar opposites we described earlier as P or -P.
Instead, we begin to conceptualise approaches to learning as perhaps tending
to partial or tending to holistic. They do not have to be either partial or holistic,
but lie somewhere along a continuum (stage 2 of Figure 2).
Using the notion of a continuum, we can identify shades of grey between
black and white, dawn and dusk between night and day. There are
approaches to learning practice which are more partial, and others which are
more holistic. Perhaps we can bring together the elements of a good cup tea
(the jigsaw pieces) to move towards a view of the whole picture.
Contextualising
The notion of a continuum is more satisfying because it is dynamic and allows
for a more subtle shading of the two approaches. Nevertheless, the continuum
continues to reinforce the view of two approaches which are, essentially,
opposites. The continuum is more subtle, yet still fails to do justice to the
complexity of professional practice and the ways in which it can be learned.
Assessing practice using PCF guidance v-5 FINAL 8 October 2012 ©The College of Social Work 2012,
2-4 Cockspur Street London SW1Y 5BH
24

Assessing practice using PCF guidance v-5 FINAL 8 October 2012 ©The College of Social Work 2012,
2-4 Cockspur Street London SW1Y 5BH
25

Figure 2 Reframing our understanding of holistic
Stage 1 – the either/or dichotomy:
Partial or –Partial P or –P
Stage 2 – two ends of continuum
partial holistic
Stage 3 – an integrated approach
H
O
L
I
Partial
S T
Contextual
Let us return to the tea-making analogy to expand on this. We began to
understand tea-making by looking at the elements which make ‘a good cup of
tea’ and we moved on from a series of mechanistic skills to an understanding
of how they associate with each other. We could encourage the student of
tea-making to see these separate elements as criteria, i.e. factors which they
must consider when understanding the idea of a good cup of tea, thus
providing a rudimentary framework for the student’s learning.
The student tea-maker has been focusing on issues intrinsic to the cup of tea;
in other words, the focus has been the cup of tea itself, its temperature,
milkiness, sweetness, etc. However, there are also factors extrinsic to the cup
of tea, which have a bearing on the understanding. These factors might be
Assessing practice using PCF guidance v-5 FINAL 8 October 2012 ©The College of Social Work 2012,
2-4 Cockspur Street London SW1Y 5BH
26
I
C

very significant, perhaps more so than the ones we previously identified. For
example, the company, the time of day it is drunk, who makes it, and the
occasion on which it is taken, may all be significant. All of these factors, and
more, can influence the tea-drinker’s view of quality when describing the cup
of tea, though none of them are related to what goes into the cup. Some of
these environmental factors will be within the tea-maker’s influence, others not.
The tea-drinkers have much to contribute to the tea-maker’s understanding of
all of these intrinsic and extrinsic elements. These tea-users can help to add
further pieces to the jigsaw. There may also be factors which few really
understand or identify but which, nevertheless, are very significant in the
quality of the cup of tea (the quality of the water might be rarely identified, yet
could be crucial to the taste of a delicate drink like tea).
Although the widening of our enquiry to the local context helps to satisfy a
need for the broader picture, we cannot yet say that we have arrived at a
complete picture of ‘what makes a good cup of tea’. For example, what
assumptions lie behind the very act of learning how to make tea? ‘A good cup
of tea’ is a commonplace phrase in England, and it carries many assumptions.
At a simple level it assumes ‘a cup’, when indeed a mug, pot or samovar may
be a more favoured description. At a more fundamental level, you may have
no view at all about a good cup of tea because you do not drink tea. For
cultural, aesthetic or other reasons, the drinking of tea is not an experience
you can relate to. You are not a tea-drinker and do not wish to be one. The
dominant group may be tea-drinkers, but it would be oppressive to assume
that there is a universal tea-drinking experience.
Moreover, we have focused on the tea-drinker and the tea-maker without a
consideration of the wider tea economy. Would it be possible to speak of a
‘good’ cup of tea without considering the relationships between tea-growers,
tea-buyers and tea-sellers? How ethical are the policies which have made the
cup of tea possible? If a cup of tea is made competently but it has been
brewed on the back of exploitative trade practices, to what extent can this be
considered a ‘good’ cup of tea?
We can see how the relatively simple question of how we might educate a
person in the art and science of tea-making has revealed the complexity of
levels to take into account when we consider education for professional
practice. One level of understanding is gained by partialising a complex
activity into its different and separate parts. This helps to acquire skills which
improve performance. However, our understanding is broadened by
considering the context of practice. At a local level, the factors are influenced
by time and place, such as the mood of the tea-drinker and the company in
which it is taken. At a social level, a structural analysis allows us to go deeper
as well as broader. This ensures that the education of professionals includes
the psychological and socio-political contexts.
Reframing our understanding of holistic
Assessing practice using PCF guidance v-5 FINAL 8 October 2012 ©The College of Social Work 2012,
2-4 Cockspur Street London SW1Y 5BH
27

It is said that because Louis Pasteur spent so much of his time peering down
a microscope at the particles which make up our world, he became somewhat
obsessed with the smallness of life and so troubled by the multitudes of
microbes he found that he used to break up his food and crumble the bread
on his plate as a part of his obsessive search. We might consider the moral of
the story to be that Pasteur lost the plot; focusing on the microworld led him to
forget the meaning of food, its appearance, its taste, and the social
significance of taking a meal. However, what the story tells us is that we
should know what our purpose is. If we want to isolate the virulent microbe
which is causing lethal food poisoning we surely need to ‘crumble the food’
and analyse it in fine detail. However, we will find neither the taste of the food
nor the social effects of a meal taken with good company, by breaking it into
crumbs. We need to know how to do both.
The ability to move between these various levels, from the partial to the
context, and understand the relationship between the local and the structural,
is what we understand as a holistic approach. It is misguided, therefore, to
consider a holistic approach as ‘the opposite’ of a partial one. It is better, but
still inadequate, to see a holistic approach as in a continuum with a partial
approach. A holistic approach is, therefore, not one which is in opposition to a
partial approach, but one which encompasses it. Partial approaches and
contextual approaches are different facets of the same sphere. In this analysis,
a holistic approach is holistic precisely because it envelops both the partial
and the contextual elements. The holistic approach is not a choice but an
absolute essential for professional learning and practice; partial approaches
are, paradoxically, an essential ingredient of holism.
ASSESSING PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE
There are many reasons why practice must be assessed and the most
important is protection for service users. As a minimum, assessment is
important in order to select out those people who are unsuitable and who
might engage in the kind of dangerous practices identified by Thompson
(2000: 129-34): routinised; defensive; defeatist; chaotic; and oppressive.
However, this is only a minimum. People have a right to expect fine services,
and assessment is necessary to test for the presence of good practices, not
simply the absence of poor ones.
Earlier, we came to an understanding that deciding what is knowledge for
professional practice is not a neutral activity. Assessment, too, is a highly
political area. As well as the laudable aim of protecting service users, ‘an
important aspect of professional power and occupational control is the way in
which access to and standards of an occupation are controlled’ (Payne, 1996:
153). Professions have a vested interest in maintaining their power and
credibility, and the doors to some professions swing more readily open for
certain social groups than others. Rigorous assessment is also part and
Assessing practice using PCF guidance v-5 FINAL 8 October 2012 ©The College of Social Work 2012,
2-4 Cockspur Street London SW1Y 5BH
28

parcel of the competition for territory amongst and between different
occupational groupings.
In addition to gatekeeping entry to the profession, assessment is necessary to
maintaining the standards beyond the point of qualification. In social work and
social care, the advent of a General Social Care Council and the slow but
steady advance of post-qualifying and advanced awards in social work all
herald a new and more systematic approach to continuing professional
development, and with it continuing professional assessment. Those who
manage frontline workers have a stake in the assessment of practice beyond
the point of qualification, and those who define the criteria for assessment and
inspection are in a powerful position of trust. We should expect safeguards,
too, that managerial assessments focus properly on dangerous practices such
as routinised and defeatist work, and not on practitioners who are rightly
critical of poor agency policies or inept managerial practices.
Partial approaches to assessment
Good practice is increasingly being described in terms of competence.
Considerable licence is taken with this word (O’Hagen, 1996), and the general
notion of competent practice is usually dissected into smaller parts, referred to
as competencies or characteristics (ENB, 1994).
Competency-based training may have its origins in performance-based
teacher education in America in the 1960s (Velde, 1999), but it is during the
1990s that it has become pre-eminent, in part a reaction to the almost cussed
refusal of the professions over many years to demystify the processes of
becoming a professional practitioner. There are obvious attractions to
partialising assessment by developing competencies, not least the scope for
incremental assessment, in which learners can acquire credit by taking one
‘module’ of learning at a time. As each competency is learned, so can it be
assessed, step by step. The specific and discrete behavioural indicators, or
learning outcomes, which have come to characterise the competency
approach, enable independent others to observe whether these behaviours
have been achieved or not. Competencies give assessor and assessed a
sense (or is it an illusion?) of objectivity.
Where training is designed to produce conformity, perhaps to ensure safety in
an industrial setting, a competency approach is likely to have a central place.
Mulcahy (2000: 261) refers to this as an instructional model of competency,
where training ‘involves bringing someone or something to a desired standard
or state’. Competency approaches have much in common, therefore, with
earlier industrial models such as apprenticeship (‘sitting by Nellie’), with Nellie
now replaced by a list of outcome indicators.
The partial approach to assessment has its difficulties. Is competence a
behaviour, an outcome, or a personal attribute? (Velde, 1999). How far do we
Assessing practice using PCF guidance v-5 FINAL 8 October 2012 ©The College of Social Work 2012,
2-4 Cockspur Street London SW1Y 5BH
29

educe the skills, knowledge and values of practice; to the smallest
behavioural tic? The reductivist approach can lead to pasteurised practice, in
which events are crumbled to the extent that their meaning and essence are
lost. Efforts to re-capture this sense of the whole can lead to comprehensive
but burdensome bullet points of dotted ‘i’s and crossed ‘t’s. ‘In competencybased
training, assessment tends to highlight the readily measurable, overemphasising
details, rather than promoting the essential aspects of
competence’ (Velde, 1999: 442).
The competency approach is of less value when we move towards what
Mulcahy (2000) terms the educational model, where the focus is more on
contexts than content, more on fluid, dynamic situations than fixed certainties.
Moreover, the supposed objectivity of competency models has also been
called into question, with a view that ‘competence can only be inferred rather
than observed’ (Jones and Joss, 1995: 20). Clearly, there are different
perspectives about what should or should not be considered a competency
and how it should be assessed, and the power to decide what is competent
practice and how it will be assessed is increasingly under centralised control
and linked to notions of employability (Gibbs, 2000), which we explore in Part
3. By keeping its eye so fixedly on the ball, the competency model is in danger
of forgetting the players, the spectators and the game itself.
HOLISTIC APPROACHES TO ASSESSMENT
We have seen that partial approaches to assessment reduce good practice to
its constituent elements, with each aspect examined on its own merits. In
place of general judgments about ‘pass’ or ‘fail’, a partial assessment enables
a consideration of which parts of the person’s practice are competent and why,
and which are not yet competent, and what specific improvements are needed.
The partial approach to assessment struggles to encompass the whole. Put
crudely, it might count and measure every fragment of a cup and find each
adequate, yet fail to notice that these broken pieces are not ‘a cup’. As with
learning, so assessment of practice must consider context. Professional
practice relies on ‘dynamic competence’, the ability to integrate skills, theory
and values (Manor, 2000: 209). This integration has been referred to as
artistry, the art of inventing on the spot (Schon, 1992). A rounded assessment
of professional talents requires us to find ways of assessing these kinds of
creative qualities, too.
To understand and undertake a holistic approach to assessment, the partial
and the contextual must be considered together, in parallel with the process
we described earlier in relation to holistic approaches to learning (Figure 1.4).
In this way, we arrive at a synthesis of specific and general, discrete and
dynamic. This is a truly holistic approach to assessment, and we will explore
how this might be achieved later, with a complete exemplar of this approach
presented in Part 2 [of the book from which this extract is taken].
Assessing practice using PCF guidance v-5 FINAL 8 October 2012 ©The College of Social Work 2012,
2-4 Cockspur Street London SW1Y 5BH
30

Assessing practice using PCF guidance v-5 FINAL 8 October 2012 ©The College of Social Work 2012,
2-4 Cockspur Street London SW1Y 5BH
31