Refine Search

New Search

Results: 3

(searched for: 10.29328/journal.hbse.1001002)
Save to Scifeed
Page of 1
Articles per Page
by
Show export options
  Select all
Valerie D. Decker, Philip D. Suman, Barb J. Burge, Ankita Deka, Melanie Harris, Dwight J. Hymans, Michael Marcussen, Donna Pittman, David Wilkerson, James G. Daley
Published: 30 April 2007
Advances in Social Work, Volume 8, pp 81-103; https://doi.org/10.18060/133

Abstract:
The authors reviewed 67 articles that discussed and/or tested human behavior theories from social work journals published in 2004 in order to assess the level and quality of theory progression. The articles were further sorted into Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (EPAS) Foundation Curriculum content areas of HBSE, practice, policy, field education, values & ethics, diversity, populations-at-risk/social and economic justice, and research for purposes of categorization. Results indicated that HBSE and practice were by far the largest group of articles reviewed.Also found was that social work has a limited amount of theory discussion in the content areas of field, values and ethics, diversity, and populations-at-risk/social and economic justice. Thirty-three articles were found to demonstrate theory progression, eight articles presented new/emerging theories, and 26 articles discussed or critiqued theories without presenting evidence of theory progression.
Published: 3 June 2014
Abstract:
This is a narrative —a part of my life story —about the use of student journals as a vehicle for teaching and learning in the course on “ Human Behavior and the Social Environment’’ (HBSE). Over many years of teaching the first-year graduate HBSE course I hadrelied at different times on three traditional modes of evaluating student progress: mid/term and final papers, later replacing them with objective tests that were themselves replaced by take-home examinations. I came to realize that papers and objective tests are poor evaluative instruments. More important, I found that their con­ tributions to student learning were limited. Papers had the effect of restricting student reading to a particular topic at the expense of integrating the rest of the course content. Objective tests did en­ courage student coverage of assigned readings but also encouraged rote learning, thereby stifling creativity and critical thinking. The tests were easy to grade and seemed to assure objectivity and relia­ bility in grading. However, they required relinquishing one class time at midterm and one at term’s end, a serious disadvantage in the face of so much material to cover.
Page of 1
Articles per Page
by
Show export options
  Select all
Back to Top Top