Paper, Order, or Assignment Requirements
Design and Facilitation of a Learning Activity
The objective of the learning activity is to engage the group in an experiential exercise, and in critical reflection, related to some aspect of social work practice. There are two sample learning activities that has been uploaded for this work. please have a look at them.
PART A: Options for online learning activities include:
introduced by the student facilitator
simulated group, family or organizational meeting)
The facilitator will post the instructions for the learning activity on Monday of the designated week. The learning activity should present a clearly defined task, for example:
As facilitator, your role is to:
PART B:( Should be done after i send some response from the group of the task i put up which will be few days after this is due.)
Wrap up the learning activity with a summary of the discussion, including your
critical reflections on the process (what you learned from the experience) on Monday of the following week
Unit Readings and Articles
(Please read in the following order after reading the Unit Notes)
Solution Focused Brief Therapy Association
Working with strengths and solutions:Unit 4
A strengths perspective on social work practice is based on the assumption that people and communities inherently possess strengths, abilities and inner resources that can be identified, mobilized and used to create growth and change. This unit will consider examples of direct practice from this perspective in various contexts. The construction of solution-oriented questions will also be explored.
By the end of this unit, you will be able to:
The strengths perspective, whether implemented with individuals, families, groups or communities, maintains a positive focus on resources, abilities, successes and growth. This does not mean that trauma, struggle and oppression are ignored, but neither is their potential to provide opportunities for change.
Choosing to focus on strengths rather than deficits may be preferable to those under the postmodern umbrella, where social constructionism suggests that our assumptions about reality develop through communication – language and discourse – within a social context. Social constructionist practitioners are interested in using language, especially questions, to elicit, amplify and acknowledge client abilities, skills and wisdom that may have been previously unrecognized. This process of collaborative redescription of experience creates new perceptions of reality, including workable solutions for the immediate problem.
Solution-focused or solution-oriented practitioners implement a strengths perspective by shifting the conversation away from problem solving, to engaging clients in the construction of solutions. As the late innovator Insoo Kim Berg explained,
We learned a long time ago that when there is a problem, many professionals spend a great deal of time thinking, talking, and analyzing the problems, while the suffering goes on…We discovered that problems do not happen all the time. Even the most chronic problems have periods or times when the difficulties do not occur or are less intense. By studying these times when problems are less severe or even absent, we discovered that people do many positive things that they are not fully aware of. By bringing these small successes into their awareness and repeating the successful things they do when the problem is less severe, people improve their lives and become more confident about themselves. (Berg, I., n.d., paragraph 1)
While this may seem quite straightforward and simple, it requires a paradigm shift for many social workers and students whose aspirations to help people are bound up with solving problems. “For many, making the shift is like going from doing things right-handed to doing them left-handed,” (De Jong & Berg, 1).
The move from “problem talk” to “solution talk” is accomplished through a process of collaborative inquiry, in which particular kinds of questions are used. De Jong and Berg point out, however, that it is easier to understand the differences theoretically than it is to make the shift in practice. While the technology of questioning may be readily grasped, the art of sustaining a solution-oriented collaborative conversation requires practice – like all arts. Asking the questions in a mechanical way as if ticking them off a list would be like reading a script in a monotone. However, reading the script is the necessary first step in taking on a role.
With this caveat in mind, read and consider the solution-oriented questions below, with specific examples of their use.
Goal Questions – to help people articulate their understanding of problem resolution
Scaling Questions – to elicit continual feedback and assessment, and help people notice changes or gray areas in the problem situation
Difference Questions – to highlight differences and encourage people to compare and evaluate aspects of the problem, exceptions, or solutions
Exception Questions – to elicit descriptions of times when things went differently from the usual problem situation
Description Questions – asking person to describe the situation in observable terms
Smaller Step Questions – to help people focus on process rather than end results
The miracle question:
(Madsen, 2009; O’Hanlon, 2005)
Besides asking direct questions, solution-oriented practitioners utilize other language skills that help to promote solution building. De Jong and Berg suggest the following as lead-in possibilities:
(De Jong & Berg, n.d.)
As you ponder and perhaps experiment with these questions, and explore the readings, websites and video clips, think about the possibilities for using strengths-based and solution-oriented practices as part of your own critical framework. These practices have been heavily critiqued – from a traditional perspective, for being overly optimistic to the point of ignoring serious problems or reframing them as strengths, and from a more critical perspective, for overlooking power relations and issues related to difference. Would the miracle question, for example, be cruelly inappropriate for people living in poverty or with a challenging disability? The insistence on brevity of service and relentless focus on “solution talk” can result in a somewhat mechanical formula (as Insoo Berg warned), while rigid avoidance of discussing problems can leave people feeling that their situations have been minimized or trivialized.
Response-based therapist Allan Wade (2008) critiques the use of this model with victims of violence:
Solution focused folks sometimes don’t like to talk about problems, like violence, but prefer to move straight on to so-called solutions. This is a problem in my view because for many victims, it is important to talk about the violence and experience some acknowledgment…[When they] do talk about the violence, in my view they do not bring a critical analysis to that conversation. Consequently, they do not identify the victim’s resistance as such but tend to stick more with coping, surviving, recovering, resilience – metaphors that do not suggest any resistance by the victim and so leave intact the stereotypical image of the passive victim that is so prominent in legal, therapeutic, and public discourse. (Wade, 2008)
In fact, many solution-oriented practitioners maintain that they are showing respect to the client by addressing the specific issues presented as problems, without reference to the social context except as it provides support for solutions. Politicization of the client is viewed as unnecessary and inappropriate. (Miller, 2007)
Where do you stand on this issue? Are you still under the postmodern umbrella?
Berg, I., (n.d.), What is solution-focused therapy?, retrieved from http://www.sfbta.org/aboutsfbt.html
De Jong, P. & Berg, I. K. (n.d.) Learners’ workbook for: Interviewing for solutions.
Thomson Brooks/Cole, retrieved from http://www.sfbta.org/
Madsen, W. A model of collaborative clinical practice, retrieved from http://www.yaletownfamilytherapy.com/therapeutic/index.php#billmadsenhandouts
Miller, R. (2007). Developing Skills and Knowledge in Family Practice. Course Manual.
O’Hanlon, B. Workshop handouts, retrieved from http://billohanlon.com/, 2005
Wade, A. (2008). Online discussion, SOCW 477, July 2008.
Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.Read more
Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.Read more
Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.Read more
Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.Read more
By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.Read more