Vol
11:4 pp11-17 |
Communities and welfare
practice: learning through sharing Liz Timms is a
lecturer in social work at the University of Edinburgh, contracted part-time
to the SCHEMA project at the University of Stirling and can be contacted
at: Abstract This paper presents a case for embedding welfare practice in the context of community and for preparing for the demands of collaborative practice. Reviewing the process of launching online collaborative learning, attention is drawn to the different requirements on the educator and the principle of ensuring that educational, rather than technical goals, drive planning and delivery. Concluding comments refer to the potential of online learning for fostering inclusion, but warn that accessing and sustaining learning is likely to be impeded by technological obstructions such as unreliability and user-unfriendliness and material obstruction such as poverty. IntroductionThe subject of this paper is Community Portraits, an online course designed for welfare professionals. The course topic is the community and the teaching method is collaborative. This course has been developed within SCHEMA, (Social Cohesion through Higher Education in Marginal Areas) an EU funded project which is investigating the use of the Internet and computer mediated communication for collaborative learning in continuing professional development. The first part of the paper sets out the rationale for the three main aspects of Community Portraits: 1. The community as
a context for welfare practice The second part outlines the experience of a trial run of the course in the Spring semester 1999 and presents some of the questions raised by early experiences. The community as a context for welfare practiceThe literature of social work has always recognised the professional relevance of the social situations and social institutions that impinge on clients’ problems. Families and communities are implicitly part of this backdrop to practice as are broader political issues such as poverty and exclusion. What has not been so readily accepted is that incorporating this recognition into professional practice can take as its starting point either clients and their problems or communities, their dynamics and their implications for community members. The casework origins of professional social work and government policies for service development have each encouraged practice that starts with clients and their problems. The case for the alternative, community focussed, starting point has been less commonly stated, but has been presented, most forcibly in the 1980’s, by Hadley & McGrath (1980; 1984). The work of Smale at the National Institute for Social Work in the 1980’s supported community-focussed social workers throughout Britain and produced case studies of social work practice and service with a community based approach (Smale & Bennett, 1989; Darvill & Smale, 1990). Hadley and Leidy (1996) later lament the demise of community social work in Britain in a policy shift to a market economy of welfare, referring to the irony that “there are some in America who are looking to Community Social Work as a way out of the dilemmas created by the very system the British are now emulating”. (p. 826) In Britain, the Barclay Working Group (1982) presented a case for community oriented social work based on their definition of community in terms of “local networks of ... relationships with their capacity to mobilise individual and collective responses to adversity” (p. xiii) and their perception that: "Social workers, as the spearhead of the personal social services, may find ways of developing partnerships between informal carers (including self-help groups), statutory services and voluntary agencies.” (p.202) In an article developing ideas from the Barclay Report, Timms (1983, pp 405-415) suggested that: “Social workers at local level will need to obtain a grasp of community life - cultural patterns and the meanings these hold for members of the community. ....... Clearly what is needed is a service that works in partnership with the community as a whole, supporting existing support systems, promoting new support systems when appropriate and mobilising appropriate specialist help only when that is the most precisely suitable action. In working with the community the emphasis would be on supporting and extending the caring systems that already exist - neither taking them over nor supplanting them.” This partnership is well illustrated by Green (1989, p 120) in a case study of his team’s development of a community social work approach: “Individual casework remains very important to the team and is vital to sensitive assessment of service required by clients and to intervention in personal problems. We do not live in isolation from the community and we have tried to capitalise on all available resources in that community to improve upon and take over some of our tasks. By mobilising the abilities of others we can find some time to practise our own skills more effectively.” Martinez-Brawley (1990) sets out a full argument for a community-based approach to social work including theoretical bases, documentary evidence from small towns and a discussion of implications for practice: “Community-oriented social work depends on an attitude of mind that sees community as a potentially nourishing and important source of support and identity to its members. The notion that community nourishes its members is not commonplace. It is probably not an idea that is in the forefront of consciousness when social workers help clients make decisions.” (Martinez-Brawley 1990 pp 216-7) The presentation by Martinez-Brawley is thorough and illuminating. It suffers only from the limitation of her argument to small, territorial communities when it applies equally well to other conceptualisations of community. Since a pervasive element in the definition of community appears to be a sense of belonging, communities can helpfully be conceived and understood as sets of people linked by interest or location or whatever they feel holds them together. Wellman and his colleagues (1988, pp 130-184) have developed the notion of social networks as personal communities, a view which supports this consistent but more flexible approach to community. In a series of publications written in the late 1990s, (e.g. Wellman and Gulia,1999) the argument has been extended to include computer mediated personal networks: virtual communities as communities. It may appear from these arguments that a community orientation in social work practice depends on a benign view of communities. Such an approach would be naive and probably ineffective. However, Martinez-Brawley (1990) and other authors (Timms, 1983, Hearn & Thomson, 1987) refer to the negative pressures and impact of communities on their members both as informative aspects of the life contexts of clients and as significant factors in relation to the potential of social work intervention. These authors are clearly aware of the role that local and personal networks play in enhancing or undermining the opportunities and constraints of their members. They also make clear reference to the research evidence indicating the contribution that local communities can and do offer to individual welfare as well as the power they have to undermine unwelcome social work intervention strategies. The implication is that social workers ignore the dynamics of the community at their peril. The argument for dovetailing formal social work services with their community contexts is logical and powerful. In Scotland it is built into core social work legislation (The Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968). Guidelines, still extant, are permeated with directions to attend to the community context of the service (Scottish Office 1968, Scottish Office 1969). It seems unfortunate, therefore, that the implementation of more recent Child Care and Community Care legislation has most frequently targeted the most needy with formal service provision that arrives too late to be able to find, let alone sustain, the efforts of natural caring networks. (Smale et al. 1994, pp. 87-88, Hearn, 1995). Collaboration as a method for working and learningCollaboration has been an invariable feature of welfare practice in general and social work practice in particular. It has also been a focus of much criticism: the amount of our experience appears to have made little impact on the quality of collaborative practice that can be assured. Structures and procedures have been established, such as child protection committees and guidelines, but, helpful though these may be, they are likely only to deal with problems in collaboration that are structural or procedural. Essentially professional collaboration is an interpersonal process involving relationships with colleagues within and between professions and/or agencies. It is about people working purposefully with people, across boundaries of various kinds and regardless of personal congruity. It is not easy. It is therefore regrettable that, whereas a great deal of social work literature and education concentrates on workers establishing and sustaining effective working relationships with clients, the processes of productive worker-to-worker relationships are given little emphasis. It might be argued that, like riding a bicycle, relationship skills established in one context will be intuitively transferred into the whole range of a worker’s interpersonal relationships. It takes only a moment of reflection to recognise the fallacy of this. How many of us have been confronted by pleas of our partners or children not to 'social work' them when we have made inappropriate use of our social work skills in our personal relationships? Even recognising the worker-client relationship as a base for collaboration, the components of that relationship are systematically different from worker-worker relationships at least in terms of purposes, processes, knowledge bases and power. Add to that the complexities inherent in user involvement with its inevitable accompanying dynamic of differences in purposes, levels of power, interpersonal perceptions and processes, and it quickly becomes clear that there is a need for social work education to address situationally specific relational requirements of collaboration in social work practice. The requirements and opportunities of collaborative learning may be connected in some way to preparation for, or review of, collaborative practice, but if any connection exists, its nature and impact are not clear. The process of collaborative learning itself is currently under sustained experiment and discussion. Hartley (1999 p.4) mentions common reference to the advantage of collaborative learning in encouraging “active learning and more thoughtful participation from teachers and students”. Referring to evidence that students who self-question and self-explain show greater understanding and more easily acquire new knowledge, he says, “How much better therefore if such questions and explanations are addressed not only to oneself but to others, so that queries seeking clarification, challenges requiring justification, inconsistencies needing resolution, qualifying implications and differing views can become part of the argumentation and discourse processes of the group.” The questions Hartley (1999 p.8) poses at the end of his opening statement for an on-line discussion of effective approaches to collaborative learning indicate that this educational form is at an early stage of development. The questions refer to the characteristics and advantages of collaborative learning; ask whether the difficulties have been underplayed and seek discussion of the possible shifts in teacher attitudes and skills that might be required. Most of the current discussion derives from continuing education and relates to the burgeoning of collaborative learning via the Internet. In attaching importance to learning exchange between peers there is recognition of the potential of the social processes in learning for enhancing the development of knowledge, skill and understanding. Face-to-face collaborative learning has long been a part of social work education where there has been an emphasis on working in groups and learning from one another including, rather than relying on, the tutor. The Enquiry-Action-Learning method set out by Burgess, (1992) makes formal and substantial demands on students to contribute to, as well as to learn from, their peers. Perhaps implied in this collaborative learning process in social work education is not only a link to the collaborative requirements of practice but also a professional values message about non-hierarchical attitudes to people and their potential. But is this our intention? If it is, do we have the evidence that it works? If it does should we be developing more and new initiatives in collaborative teaching/learning processes? The Internet as an enabler of collaboration/collaborative learningFormal education, when made compulsory was intended for children. In Britain the law fixed the age at which a child could leave school, though school education has been available beyond that age on a voluntary, but encouraged, basis. The steady raising of the school leaving age in Britain has stopped at 16, not simply setting the boundary between childhood and adulthood, but increasingly recognising the importance of continuing education. The adult education of the 1930's and 40's became the continuing education of the 1970’s and the lifelong learning of today. The change of language appropriately reflects a genuine shift from basic learning to read, write and count, to a sense of excitement about learning and its potential not only for life management and job-seeking but also for personal development. More recently the spread of computer based learning in the school classroom, and the increase in personal ownership of computers, has interacted with the development of the Internet and the World Wide Web to open up exciting possibilities for educational development and involvement, now potentially barrier free as long as there is a political will to ensure access for all. The implications for life-long and distance learning were immediately recognised and seized, though, as with earlier distance learning, the perceived wisdom is that the new opportunities require of teachers new attitudes and skills. As many have discovered from experience, the straight transfer of lessons or lectures on to the World Wide Web, using whatever chosen learning framework, is neither adequate nor likely to be educationally successful. More exciting than the use of the Web to overcome problems of distance in the provision and exchange of information is the recognition of the many other barriers that computer mediated communication can overcome: difficulties with mobility, restrictions on timing, social exclusion, shame or fear in interpersonal encounters, difficulties with unbalanced status or power in relationships. The flexibility and anonymity of the Internet can encourage and support access for everyone to information, learning, networking and socialising on a phenomenal scale where quantity and selection can be controlled entirely by the participant. There is huge potential for empowerment of people here. People can learn what they want, when they want, where they want: the locus of control shifts from the teacher to the learner. Of course the Internet challenges the gatekeeping processes associated with previous information systems which required (and still require) authorisation to enter and retrieve information. On the Internet anyone can make information generally available that they legitimately hold and can legitimately disseminate. Information made openly available on the Internet is available to anyone able to find it. Even for many who are liberal minded this devolution of control to the individual is disconcerting. It raises many questions, from vetting the quality of information put online to dealing with potentially damaging impacts of some information on those who receive it. A natural impulse may be to seek to impose some controls on information input and access, thus inviting, if such controls are possible, reinstatement of power relationships in information flow. A more constructive approach is to seek to promote the advantages of the liberation of information while preparing to put in place appropriate actions to limit, mediate or respond to damaging impact as and where it occurs. Clearly computer mediated communication facilitates collaborative practice as well as collaborative learning. In Scotland workers in remote areas were first to take up the opportunities that video-conferencing and online communication offered to overcome long and difficult journeys to case conferences. Academic centres in remote areas also seem to have been quicker to take advantage of the new technology than those in more central locations. But there is still work to be done everywhere to increase awareness of the many other barriers to learning, mentioned above, that might be breached if Internet access were made easily and freely available. From this it clearly follows that the flexibility of the Internet to encourage the take up of learning opportunities by those otherwise obstructed could usefully be extended into social opportunities by presenting the learning as a collaborative - that is a social - process. The many examples of online collaborative learning recently and currently being undertaken, including Community Portraits and other SCHEMA modules, will hopefully yield evidence of feasibility, effectiveness and best practice. SCHEMA and community portraitsThe SCHEMA project, within which Community Portraits is being developed, is funded by the European Commission as part of the programme orchestrated by the Educational Multimedia Taskforce. The Project is co-ordinated by the University of Stirling in Scotland, with partners in Finland (Oulu and Lapland), Sweden (Orebro and Karlskrona-Ronneby) and Germany (Stuttgart). The development aspect of SCHEMA involves the use of the World Wide Web and advanced communications for teaching and learning, including, if possible, the use of Network ComputersTM. The emphasis is on the use of the Web to meet the continuing professional development needs of health and welfare workers in remote communities. A major research interest of the Project is the extent to which the Web can support collaborative learning. Further details of SCHEMA are available from the Project’s Web site http://www.stir.ac.uk/schema A principle informing SCHEMA is that, in any educational enterprise, the technology used should adapt to the educational and social goals of the activities. The educational content and process, not the technology, must be the focus of student’s attention. To achieve this, the technology, whether it is chalk-and-talk teacher, overhead projector or computer, must be learner-friendly and unobtrusive. The community portraits proposalThe conception of Community Portraits derives from a module delivered in on-campus social work education in which students working in small groups, were required to explore and report on communities. The planners of this module made explicit their aim: "to promote a pattern of social work practice and social work service that applies law and procedures as required, and theory as informative, within an active appreciation of the context of people’s everyday lives and patterns of culture." The collaborative process of this social work module lent itself well to SCHEMA’s remit to develop opportunities for continuing professional development for health and welfare professionals using collaborative learning. At the same time SCHEMA presented the module planners with a vastly extended arena for dissemination of their commitment to embedding welfare practice securely in the context of the community. There was a good match of technological promise with educational objectives. Community Portraits is presented entirely via the Internet making use of a learning environment developed at the University of Oulu. It requires participants to work collaboratively in small groups to produce comparative ‘portraits’ of the communities in which they work. Groups of three participants, each from a different country, work together to produce a comparative portrait of their three communities. Participants are expected to use their cultural and individual differences of perspective to sharpen each other’s awareness of their own work community. This collaborative process is also expected to enhance the participants’ awareness of their own, as well as each other’s, perceptual frameworks and should encourage them to recognise the advantages of collaboration for extending ways of gathering and interpreting information, deepening understandings and developing ideas and innovations. The extent to which these aims are achieved will be evaluated within the SCHEMA research framework. Supervision and support for participants in Community Portraits is supplied via the Internet. The expertise of the SCHEMA developers and the technical teams throughout the Project is available to the tutor and to participants to assist their collaboration and to enable them to optimise their use of the technology available in the course of their work and in the production and presentation of their portraits of the communities on the Internet. While students are encouraged to make demands on the technology, efforts are made to ensure that the technology does not make demands on the students. Engaging with the technologyIt would seem that a feature of technologically driven projects is that excitement about the potential of imminent technological developments breeds creative notions amongst the technophiles (e.g. SCHEMA leaders) about applications. So it was that, presented with the opportunity for transnational, collaborative project work on communities using computer mediated communication, the practical possibility that the course could be conducted via desk-top video-conferences was naively accepted. Students would be able to see and talk with one another, so minimising the estrangement of remote links without speech or vision. This opportunity to see and hear each other would be a significant support for the major part of their work which would be in some form of electronic print. A clear aim was that technology should not be a barrier. It must be easy to use, even with no training. With the use of Network ComputersTM the familiar problems of software incompatibility and of Apple Macs not understanding, and not being understood by, anyone else, would be overcome at a stroke. Participants would put their Smart Cards into their NCs, and enter a system which had on it all the software and Internet connection facilities that they would need and which rendered all their contributions compatible. This 'plug in and go' system, would require only one finger typing and the capacity to follow simple instructions. Unfortunately development problems meant that Network Computers are not available and prohibitive pricing has effectively ruled out standard use of desk-top video-conferencing. One result of this was a need to scrutinise more carefully the options for learning environments within which Community Portraits would operate. Two frameworks were on offer from the University of Oulu, both designed specifically for collaborative learning. While one of these frameworks had initially appeared better suited to plans for shifting between small groups and plenary discussions, the alternative (TELSIpro) was chosen because it made few technical demands on participants. Because of their fundamental contribution to user friendliness, Network ComputersTM, in their new guise as 'set-top boxes', are still regarded as vital to developments within SCHEMA. The technical experts are therefore exploring various ways of re-establishing this facility, thus restoring a wider basis for choice of learning frameworks. Preparing the programme: the teaching-learning shiftA significant lesson learned confirms the experience and perceived wisdom of online educators: that the demands of preparing for computer mediated learning are different from those associated with face-to-face courses. For anyone newly shifting from the real to the virtual classroom this requires some acrobatics in perception and thinking. However, prior attention to the plentiful advice does not necessarily prepare the novice for the impact that this shift may have on their perception of their skills as an educator. It can, initially, be a de-skilling experience in which good advice on the educational shift, reliable and user-friendly technical help and the occasional successful event contribute to sustained motivation. The practical details that required attention in order to have Community Portraits ready and workable for students were tedious, extremely time consuming and constantly demanded rethinking the teaching-learning process. There needed to be a deep-seated cushion of enthusiasm to sustain motivation.At each step of construction it was necessary to reflect on how every detail of the material - the tasks or the timing or whatever - would be experienced by the students. Unlike face-to-face teaching, there would be no opportunity for on the spot modification in response to puzzlement or worse in a student’s reaction. It is possible that, in the students’ interests, the tasks and activities, week by week for the whole course need to be spelled out in detail with accompanying time estimates and that this information needs to be set out in full at the beginning. Distant students with other work commitments need to know what is expected of them so that they can plan their time. This problem may not be peculiar to distance learning and different course processes may demand different responses. The practical difficulties of planning and managing the presentation of detailed guidance and instruction were usually resolved with advice to tabulate the course. This proved a breakthrough: tabular presentation of course aims and activities against the sequence of weeks showed clearly where multiple demands were being made on the same time space: it enabled good ordering of the educational process. Nevertheless it was difficult to see how to retrieve some of the flexibility for ongoing negotiation with students, reflecting and modelling a partnership approach to learning and practice. Community Portraits: starting the trial runFor the trial run of Community Portraits nine participants were ‘enrolled’: two in each of two sites in Finland, (Lapland and Jyvaskyla) two in Stuttgart and one in each of three sites in Scotland. Four are postgraduate students, three are university lecturers, one a youth strategy worker and one a retired social work team leader. One of the nine never ‘appeared’ and one joined fully in the eighth week having had technical difficulties getting access. One person is participating with two colleagues to support her by helping with the community-based tasks and being ready to stand in on the Internet link if and when needed. Three small groups were formed, each group made up of participants from different countries where possible, or at least from different sites. The collaborative work of the small groups must therefore, of necessity, take place via the Internet. Prior to first log-on in February, participants were sent on a hard copy of information about the TELSIpro learning environment which was also available on line. The Community Portraits material was entered in TELSIpro with a start page, as shown, welcoming participants to the module. Participants were then e-mailed their user name, password and the Web that when they logged in they should browse the online course material. They were also asked to enter an introductory statement about themselves and, if possible, a photograph. Those not equipped to send photographs electronically sent them by 'snail' mail for SCHEMA staff to enter them. The first photograph arrived electronically within an hour of the start-up mailing: a motivating successful event! The Community Portraits trial run has settled down to one group of three, one of two which then integrated a late starter, and one of two (with two extras in one community). The pattern of activity has varied from group to group. One pair has made regular use of the Chat facility to negotiate and complete staged tasks and use of the documents folder to present their ideas to other participants. The other groups have made no use of Chat, though one group is trying to overcome technical problems to do so. Participants in these latter two groups have made individual contributions to their small group but their exchanges are slow to produce collaborative results. Launching the collaborative processAs all social workers know, intervention starts with the very first signals of communication and the messages sent and received at that point, whether through content or process, may determine the rest of the working relationship. But we also know that faulty starts must be redressed. So it has been with this trial of Community Portraits. The course was launched with a mass of information and too little guidance to students about how to begin to engage with it. Not enough time had been allowed for people to join in and familiarise themselves with the system. Neglecting the significance of informal interchanges in the development of collaborative relationships, it was short-sightedly decided to use a substantive course exercise as a vehicle for people to begin their interpersonal exchanges. The demands of the relationship building prevailed, however, and the week by week planned programme of collaborative activity fell behind. The more realistic response of the participants required the tutor to adjust, revise and slow down. Since Community Portraits is a structured programme of collaboration towards the completion of one major task, with a long deadline (twelve weeks) this adjustment seemed appropriate. Erratic behaviour of the technology may explain some hesitations in the collaborative process. In particular Chat buttons have sometimes disappeared from all participants’ screens, and sometimes disappeared unpredictably on individual machines. For some participants no Chat button is ever available. Early responses from participants indicate that ease of use of the technology is highly significant for the development of collaboration and that the reliability of the technology is crucial. Given the importance of small talk in the development of successful collaborative relations the unreliability of Chat buttons is serious. Such technical problems also test collaborative skill. When queries about technical problems have been raised in the plenary mail tray a 'me too' response, rather than a separate statement of the problem, represents a collaborative approach to the engagement. This may seem a small point, but it has significance for understanding what helps or hinders the development of effective computer mediated collaboration. There is a possibility that the experience of a slow establishment of collaborative relationships in Community Portraits is an indication that online relationship building may reflect its face-to-face counterpart but in slow motion. The author’s previous experiences in face-to-face exercises simulating collaborative working have persistently resulted in evidence that collaborative relationships take time to develop and that the process benefits from being steered. Provision for this time would need to be built into any collaborative learning programme according to the time factors associated with the medium of communication. There is still much to be learned about the processes and dynamics of collaboration in general. The visibility of collaborative relationships developing in online learning may yield significant insight into this process and indicate training needs for collaborators across all media of communication. Collaborative learning or collaborative workingIt became clear during the planning of Community Portraits that learning through collaboration is different from collaborative learning and requires differences in approach to course delivery. Much discussion of collaborative learning appears to refer to studying academic material on which students work together to promote not only their own but one another’s learning. Material is staged and group and individual academic tasks are set with deadlines for completion. It is possible to set the whole programme out and for individual students to pace themselves differently, as long as they are prepared for their collaborative events and interchanges. Collaboration may be required and enhance the learning but acceptable results may be possible with minimal commitment to the collaborative process. At the core of Community Portraits, however, is a collaborative task, broadly outlined, with a long deadline for completion. It is designed so that student groups themselves collaborate to decide the form and content of their final product and how they will produce it. Collaboration is essential: individual pursuance of the goal would be counter-productive. The conclusion drawn from the comparison is that learning about collaboration through the experience of collaboration requires a different process of course presentation from conventional collaborative learning. We need now to consider what the requirements of experiential collaborative learning are and to revise the delivery of Community Portraits accordingly. To mix the learning environments - or notReports on computer-mediated collaborative learning most frequently advise a face-to-face induction before beginning online activities, but the decision was taken, perhaps naively at the time, to offer Community Portraits exclusively online. In reviewing the delivery it will be important to set the gains of easier access against possible losses. The loss of the contribution of transnational differences to collaborative learning and learning about oneself as well as others might be redressed by alternative arrangements that mix transnational and local group work. On the other hand, the exclusion of some candidates as a result of a range of absolute barriers to their face-to-face involvement poses a more serious problem. Planning more varied ways of delivering Community Portraits is good practice, but to do so to the exclusion of struggling with the educational demands of total online delivery would fail to attend to the potential of computer-mediated-communication for social inclusion. Having noted this potential, proceeding to neglect it would constitute discriminatory practice. ConclusionA broad conclusion midway through Community Portraits is that the educational potential of computer mediated collaborative learning on the Internet is considerable, particularly in terms of its extensive power to include. The caution is that accessing and sustaining learning is likely to be seriously impeded by technological obstructions, such as unreliability and user unfriendliness, and material obstruction such as poverty. As current technological developments rapidly increase opportunity for erosion of technical barriers it is crucial that efforts are made to ensure that there is access for all, otherwise an unjustifiable divide will develop between the information rich and the information poor that is likely to doubly disadvantage many, including a high proportion of those who rely on social work services. Work in SCHEMA, ancillary to Community Portraits, which is focussing on computer supported community networks in two Swedish cities, advocates the adaptation of the module as a basis for networking within and between communities with a view to fostering social inclusion. (Ferlander and Timms 1999). The core work unit of SCHEMA at Stirling is a group of three staff who have been working together in a succession of information technology projects related to teaching and learning over the past few years. They have woven their different skills and resources together in a way that enables them to spin creative ideas off one another to varying levels of the feasible, the possible or the ridiculous. Their funding allows and requires them to do so. It is clear that in their desire to work at the cutting edge of technology and education they assume that success is never guaranteed and possible failure, which has to be contemplated, is to be enjoyed as a challenge and with a sense of humour. The team sets an example of fruitful skill mix in which all value the opportunities of online collaborative learning, but not everyone who works with them is expected to be technically smart. Experience as a newcomer in SCHEMA has demonstrated the value of technical specialists being committed to tolerant encouragement of the technically illiterate educator and technophobic learners. Where, as in SCHEMA, the technical experts accept full responsibility for easing access and acceptance, user motivation is sustained and learning takes place. ReferencesBarclay Report, (1982).
Social Workers: their role and tasks, London, Bedford Square Press |
![]() |
|
Last
updated: 17 December 1999 |
The journal has now ceased publication (2003) |