Paper One: Use of social media in direct practice: Implications for Training and Policy
Melanie Sage, Andrew Quinn, Dale Fitch
Overview: Social workers are using social
media as an augment to direct service provision, often with little
guidance. This paper reports on
students’ professional use of social media, and on policy that specifically
addresses social media use in agency settings. Implications for training and
policy development are discussed.
Learning objectives:
- Be able to identify areas in the NASW ethical codes relevant to the use of social media in direct practice
- Be able to identify training needs of social workers related to the professional use of social media in direct practice
- 3 Be able to identify practices to guide policy making in social service settings
Proposal text:
Social workers and other professionals are
increasingly using social media in their professional lives to serve clients. They use social media to seek information
about clients (DiLillo & Gale, 2011; Tunick, Mednick, and Conroy, 2011), as
a way to communicate with clients (Hawn, 2009), through the use of social-media
supported interventions (Bull, Levine, Black, Schmiege, and Santelli, 2012;
Cavelo et al., 2012), or as a way of reflecting, debriefing, and advocacy (Hickson,
2012; Baker, 2012). Social workers and
employers alike must understand social media for its potential risks and
benefits in providing direct services to clients. They may also have obligations to educate
clients about privacy on social media sites (Fitch, 2012; Hinjuda and Patchin,
2008; Kolmes, 2010). Social workers and agencies should also understand the potential
benefits to clients who use social media, such as enhancing social connections
(Baumgartner and Morris, 2010; Wolf-Branigin, 2009). Although the ethical
dilemmas encountered in online settings mirror those that are experienced in
face-to-face settings, the ease of access to personal client information raises
new questions about how and when to use social media as an adjunct to practice,
and the role of the agency in supporting, limiting, or creating policy around
its use.
Although NASW maintains presence on Twitter,
Facebook, Linkedin, Youtube, and its Social Work Blog, the professional
organization offers no policy guidance on individual or agency use of social
media, and has not adopted specific guidelines around its use, regardless of
the trend in other professional practice organizations (e.g., ASHP, AMA). The American Society of Health-System
Pharmacists (ASHP) has a statement on Use of Social Media by Pharmacy
Professionals which offers recommendations for healthcare agencies about
balancing the benefits with the liabilities of professional social media use. The
American Medical Association offers similar guidelines, but includes a
statement on maintaining appropriate patient-physician boundaries. Despite the location of organizational level
policies, it appears that no policies exist related to the use of social media
in the nonprofit settings (Joselyn & Panepento, 2010). Once policies are
developed, it is imperative that future social workers have the competencies in
using social media so that the client is best served.
As a result, this study purpose was threefold: first,
to offer a case study of one agency’s attempt to develop policies about social
media use, and second, to present the results of a survey with students
currently involved in field practicum concerning their current practices,
knowledge, and beliefs about accessing information about clients on the Internet. Thirdly, this study also surveys social
service administrators about their current explicit and implicit
policies for practitioners related to social media.
Results: Largely in line with the previously cited studies, no agencies had explicit policy guidelines related to the direct practice use of social media with clients. The students displayed a broad range of personal use of social media, and some had ventured to use it related to agency work. Very few students had considered the use of multiple social media profiles, largely not considering the possibility of having a professional profile AND a personal profile. The students’ use of social media in regards to working with clients was largely mirrored by agency administrators (i.e., it was not encouraged nor was there training provided on how to do so). However, students were even more restrictive in their views of possible uses for practice. In both populations, they tended to frame the use of social media from their own perspective, and did not acknowledge a client’s volitional choice to use social media as a mode of communication, thus perhaps disempowering the client in the process. Relatedly, neither population noted the need to train agency clients on how to use social media.
Ultimately, social workers are obligated to develop
competency in the use of technology and the ways that it benefits service
delivery or augments treatment for clients. Therefore, our results will be used
to identify competencies to guide best practices of social media use. Furthermore, the results will be used to
present suggestions that can be used by agencies in developing social media
guidelines.
References
American
Medical Association (2011). Opinion 9-124 - Professionalism in the use of
social media. Retrieved from http://www.ama-assn.org.
American
Society of Health-System Pharmacists (2012). ASHP statement on use of social
media by pharmacy professionals. American
Journal of Health-System Pharmacists, 69, 2095-2097.
Baker,
L.A. (2012). Social media for housing and community development agencies. Journal of Housing & Community
Development, July/August, 19-23.
Baumgartner,
J.C., & Morris, J.S. (2010). MyFaceTube politics: Social networking web
sites and political engagement of young adults. Social Science Computer Review, 28, 24-44.
Bull,
S.S., Levine, D.K., Black, S.R., Schmiege, S.J., & Santelli, J.(2011).
Social media-delivered sexual health intervention: A cluster randomized
controlled trial. American Journal of
Preventitive Medicine, 43(5), 467-474.
Cavelo,
D.N., Tate, D.F., Ries, A.V., Brown, J.D., DeVellis, R.F., & Ammerman, A.S.
(2012). A social media-based physical activity intervention: A randomized
controlled trial. American Journal of
Preventative Medicine, 43(5), 527-532.
DiLillo,
D.K., & Gale, E.B. (2011). To Google or not to Google: Graduate students’
use of the internet to access personal information about clients. Training and Education in Professional
Psychology, 5(3), 160-166.
Fitch,
D. (2012). Youth in foster care and social media: A framework for developing
privacy guidelines. Journal of Technology
in Human Services, 30(2), 94-108.
Hawn,
C. (2009). Take two aspirin and tweet me in the morning: How Twitter, Facebook,
and other social media are reshaping health care. Health Affairs, 28(2), 361-368.
Hickson,
H. (2012). Reflective practice online- Exploring the ways social workers used an
online blog for reflection. Journal of
Technology in Human Services, 30(1), 32-48.
Hinjuda,
S., & Patchin, J.W. (2008). Personal information of adolescents on the
Internet: A quantitative content analysis of MySpace. Journal of Adolescence, 31, 125-146.
Joselyn,
H., & Panepento, P. (2010, Jan 6). Few charities have social-media
policies, survey finds. The Chronicle of Philanthropy. Retrieved February 15,
2013, from http://philanthropy.com/article/Few-Charities-Have/63591/.
Kolmes,
K. (2010). Social media in the future of professional psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 43(6), 606-612.
Tunick,
R.A., Mednick, L., & Conroy, C. (2011). A snapshot of child psychologists’
social media activity: Professional and ethical practice implications and
recommendations. Professional Psychology:
Research and Practice, 42(6), 440-447.
Wolf-Branigin,
M. (2009). New media and social networks: Considerations from clients in
addictions treatement. Journal of
Technology in Human Services, 27, 339-345.
Paper Two: Reading Reflections as a “Flipped
Classroom” Technique in Social Work Curriculum
Melanie Sage, Patti Sele
Overview: Flipped Classroom techniques are activities in which “events that
have traditionally taken place inside the classroom now take place outside the
classroom and vice versa.” This research explores the use of Reading Reflection
Journals as a Flipped Classroom technique. Social work students using this
technique report improved reading and engagement.
Learning
objectives:
- Participants will understand the definitions and emerging practices related to Flipped Classroom techniques.
- Participants will learn an overview of the evidence-supported benefits of using Flipped Classroom techniques.
- Participants will learn the procedures of using Reading Reflections as a Flipped Classroom technique, and be able to name themes related to student feedback of a pilot study that utilized this approach.
Proposal text:
Students in
social work practice courses come to class with varying levels of educational,
life, and practice experience. Reading
adherence varies widely between students, which makes it difficult to progress
toward discussion without some class review of the assigned reading. Bloom’s Taxonomy identifies six levels of
learning, ranging from “lower-order goals” like memorization (defining, naming,
stating) to “higher-order goals” such as evaluation (rating, defending,
predicting) (Houston and Lin, 2012). Critical thinking and problem solving are
higher-order goals that are most applicable to the work lives of social
workers. Review of the reading material
in class limits the amount of time for critical discussion and application,
especially if it is the student’s first exposure to the concepts. Using a Flipped Classroom technique allows
instructors to spend more time modeling, watching, and correcting as students
apply concepts in the classroom.
Flipped
Classroom techniques, sometimes also called inverted classroom (Gardner, 2012;
Lage, Platt, & Treglia, 2000; Talbert, 2012), upside-down or backward
classroom techniques (Houston & Linn, 2012), are described as activities in
which “events that have traditionally taken place inside the classroom now take
place outside the classroom and vice versa” (Lage, Platt, & Treglia, 2000).
Talbert (2012) notes that using a Flipped Classroom method shows promise for
making the university classroom experience more interactive, inclusive, and
effective. In the Flipped Classroom,
students focus on concepts, definitions, and traditional knowledge as
“homework” so that classroom activities can be spent on applied learning,
problem solving, and discussion (Gardner, 2012). Websites such as TEDtalks and Kahn Academy
have popularized this model by designing teaching components that allow
instructors to assign homework based on brief video segments where students
learn the basic instructions on their own by watching the videos, and then get
the opportunity to practice the techniques in a teacher-facilitated class. In higher education, instructors create their
own media or homework assignments such as videos or PowerPoints so that
classroom time can be spent on deeper discussion and practice application. Instructors are then able to see whether
students understand material by watching them attempt to apply it in practice
during group work and interaction (Houston and Lin, 2012).
Reflective
journals can be used as a Flipped Classroom technique if the journal assignment
requires students to explain key concepts and reflect on application of them.
Reflective journals have empirical support for their ability to
foster clinical judgment (Lasater,2009),
encourage students to articulate their thinking (Fogarty & McTighe, 1993),
and to enhance self-reflection to foster personal growth (Blake, 2005). Through
the in-class sharing of student journals, students further have the opportunity
to gain the perspective of others and guide the direction of the class
discussion toward what they most need to know.
This research
explores a Flipped Classroom technique designed to help move lower-order goals
out of the classroom so that class time can focus on reflective exercises which
contribute to life-long learning (Brandsford, 2000). By requiring a structured reflective journaling
homework assignment in which students were asked to reflect upon the reading
and consider application of the material, it was hypothesized that students
would have higher reading adherence, think more critically about what they had
read, and be more prepared to practice once they arrive in class. Additionally, by incorporating their Reading
Reflections in a PowerPoint to guide class discussion, we hypothesized students
would be more engaged, feel like their questions about the context were better
answered, and that it would be possible to engage students who might not
normally talk in class. Each week, students were asked to journal about three
questions relative to the reading: (1) What did you learn; (2) What do you still
have questions about, and (3) what personal or professional connection can you
make to this topic?
Using a
Likert-type scale and open-ended questions, students reported on their
experiences about how Reading Reflections contributed to their learning and
classroom preparedness. Participants included 28 students in two courses. Ninety-two percent of students said that Reading
Reflections helped stimulate class discussion and 85% reported that their
reading adherence improved. They report they were more engaged and better
prepared because of the Reading Reflections, and were more likely to ask
questions about the material. The instructors noted more representative student
participation, preparation, and engagement. However, the work was more time
consuming for students and instructors. Other findings and implications are
explored in this presentation. Techniques for using Reading Reflections and
examples of student work are shared. Student and professor perspectives on the
strengths and weaknesses of the technique are discussed.
References
Blake, T.K. (2005). Journaling: An active
learning technique. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship,
2(1), 1-10.
Bransford, J. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience,
and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Fogarty, R., &
McTighe, J. (1993). Educating teachers for higher order thinking: The
three-story intellect. Theory into Practice, 32(3), 161-169.
Houston, M. & Lin, L. (2012). Humanizing the Classroom by Flipping
the Homework versus Lecture Equation. In P. Resta (Ed.), Proceedings of Society for
Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2012 (pp. 1177-1182). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Lage, M. J., Platt, G. J., & Treglia, M. (2000).
Inverting the classroom: A gateway to creating an inclusive learning
environment. The Journal of Economic Education, 31(1), 30-43.
Lasater, K., &
Nielsen, A. (2009). Reflective journaling for clinical judgment development and
evaluation. The Journal of Nursing Education, 48(1), 40.
Talbert, R. (2012). Inverted
classroom. Colleagues, 9(1), 1-2.
Session three: Think tank (note: there is no ppt for this presentation, but we are preparing some ways to disseminate the info we collected- stay tuned!)
Title: Strategies for Integration of
Social Media in Social Work Education
Jonathan Singer, Ph.D., LCSW, Temple University,
Philadelphia, PA, Melanie Sage, PhD, LICSW, University of North Dakota, Grand
Forks, ND, Jimmy Young, PhD, MSW, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Kearney,
NE and Karen Zgoda, MSW, Boston College, Boston, MA
Social work educators face a curious dilemma when it
comes to technology. Students, administrators, and the social work profession
have an expectation that educators will use technology in the classroom to both
enhance learning as well as to prepare students to use technology in their
social work practice (Coe Regan & Freddolino, 2008; NASW, 2005; Perron,
Taylor, Glass, & Margerum-Leys, 2010). Students expect educators to use
social media to augment learning (Roblyer et al., 2010). University
administrators, in an effort to increase revenue via increased enrollment, are
putting increased pressure on schools of social work to offer online or hybrid
courses. And the social work profession has established guidelines for the use
of technology in practice (NASW, 2005). Yet, these same constituents have an
expectation that social work educators will use technology thoughtfully. Straub
(2009) points out that thoughtful integration of technology considers how and
why faculty members adopt new tools, as well as the benefits these tools
potentially offer to learners. Given the speed with which computer technologies,
particularly social media/networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and
Pinterest, emerge and evolve, even the most tech savvy social work educator can
feel overwhelmed keeping up with today’s technologies, let alone thoughtfully
incorporating them into his or her teaching. It comes as no surprise, then that,
with the exception of online social work education programs, technology is
integrated into social work education sporadically (Gorder, 2008).
How can the profession of social work education be
more intentional and planful about integrating technology into social work
education? The critical pedagogist, Stephen Brookfield (1995), suggested that
educators can look to four sources for critical feedback on their teaching: the
scholarly literature, their students, themselves, and their colleagues. The
scholarly literature on integrating technology in social work education is in
its infancy. Educators who turn to the literature find articles that include
the qualifiers, “exploratory,” “new approach,” and “emerging trends.” When
educators look to their students, they are often bewildered at the mixed
message of “I want more access to online resources” and “I don’t know how to
use computer technologies” (Allwardt, 2011). When educators do honest
self-assessments of their comfort with and interest in technology, they take an
important step in addressing this dilemma (Coe Regan & Freddolino, 2008).
Many educators would love to turn to their peers, but anecdotal evidence
suggests that most schools of social work have only one or two educator(s) who
are the “tech experts.” With the exception of the Technology Special Interest
Group at APM, educators have had almost no formal opportunity to come together
and develop strategies for integrating technology into social work education.
We believe that this area is a promising, yet mostly untapped, resource.
The purpose of this Think Tank is to provide
educators with the opportunity to discuss and strategize ways of incorporating
social media/networking technologies into social work education. The final
product will be recommendations and practical steps that will help educators of
varying comfort levels with technology, and whose schools provide varying
levels of support and resources, integrate social media/networking technologies
into their teaching. This discussion is led by four social work educators who
have integrated technology (including social media/networking) into their
teaching, have conducted research on the use of technology in social work
education or practice, and have provided trainings to practitioners, educators,
and students on the use of technology.
Participants will be asked to consider social work
education at the BSW, MSW, or doctoral level. The specific questions are:
What are the benefits to using social media in
social work education, and what successful strategies are professors already using to harness these benefits?
What are the barriers to using social media,
including individual, school, and professional-level barriers?
What are the responsibilities of faculty to educate
students in the use of social media for practice?
How can social work educators use social media to
model ethical use of technology for their students?
In the next 5 to 10 years, what social media skills
will social workers need to practice competently and
ethically?
Learning Objectives:
- Describe how social media applications can be used in social work education.
- Identify three strategies for implementing social media into social work education.
- Discuss barriers and facilitators to using social media technology in social work education.
Overview: Educators have used APM to
present innovations in the use of technology in education. This Think Tank
offers educators an opportunity for structured discussion and debate around
strategies for integrating commonly used social media platforms into every day
social work education. Everyone, from social media beginner to expert, is
welcome.
References:
Allwardt,
D. E. (2011). Writing with wikis: A cautionary tale of technology in the
classroom. Journal of Social Work Education, 47(3), 597–605.
doi:10.5175/JSWE.2011.200900126
Brookfield,
S. (1995) Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass
Coe
Regan, J. A., & Freddolino, P. P. (2008). Integrating technology in the
social work curriculum. Alexandria,
Va: Council on Social Work Education.
Gorder,
L. (2008). A Study of Teacher Perceptions of Instructional
Technology Integration in the Classroom. Delta Pi
Epsilon Journal, 50(2), 63–76. Retrieved from http://www.questa.com/library/1P3‐1625090161/a‐study‐of‐teacher‐perceptions‐of‐instructional‐technology
Perron,
B. E., Taylor, H. O., Glass, J. E., & Margerum-Leys, J. (2010). Information
and communication technologies
in social work. Advances in Social Work, 11(1), 67-81.
Roblyer,
M. D., McDaniel, M., Webb, M., Herman, J., & Wiy,
J. V. (2010). Findings on Facebook in higher education: A comparison of college
faculty and student uses and perceptions of social networking sites. The
Internet and Higher Education, 13(3), 134–140.
doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.03.002
Straub,
E. T. (2009). Understanding Technology Adoption: Theory and Future Directions
for Informal Learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 625–649.
doi:10.3102/0034654308325896
Gorder,
L. (2008). A Study of Teacher Perceptions of Instructional
Technology Integration in the
Classroom.
Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 50(2), 63–76. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com/library/1P3‐1625090161/a‐study‐of‐teacher‐perceptons‐of‐instructional‐technology
