The racial injustice of 2020 revealed that the social work profession was not upholding its commitment to antiracist practice (National Association of Social Workers [NASW], 2021). In Undoing Racism Through Social Work: NASW Report to the Profession on Racial Justice Priorities and Action, the NASW apologized for perpetuating racist practices and created a framework by which to promote antiracism and social justice across the country (NASW, 2021). Following a meeting of the North American Network of Field Directors and Educators (NANFED) in 2021, field educators Kimberly Gibson (University of Alabama), Julie Navarre (Michigan State University), Julie Kates (Portland State University), and Carmen Reese Foster (University of Tennessee) responded to this “call to action” by developing the Truth, Liberation, and Justice (TLJ) Project. The TLJ Project promoted ethically grounded, antiracist practice in social work by engaging students residing in urban and rural locations in authentic, transparent, and planned conversations about the reality of racism and the movement towards liberation and justice. This article provides a road map for other social work faculty who are interested in creating a free, accessible, and voluntary program for BSW, MSW, DSW, and PhD students interested in enacting their personal and professional commitments to antiracist social work practice. The authors share the structure of the program, materials used, lessons learned, and implications for social work education and practice.
Episode 3: Service User Perspectives in Social Work Education
Field Talks host, Dr. Katharine Dill of Marist College, interviews Dr. Joe Duffy of Queen’s University, Belfast, Northern Ireland. Their conversation explores the client’s, or “service user’s,” role in social work education. When service users provide immediate feedback to students following an interview it can have a powerful impact on student learning. The podcast highlights how service user feedback promotes student resilience and learning about diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Social work educators have an obligation to ensure inclusive learning environments for students with disabilities, who account for approximately 20% of the undergraduate and graduate population at most postsecondary settings. However, little is known about how MSW and BSW policies direct educators and supervisors to uphold these obligations in the context of field education. This descriptive content analysis employed a mixed-methods approach to analyze a cross-section of 50 field education manuals from social work programs across the United States. Findings suggest that, while most field education manuals articulate policies specific to students with disabilities (e.g., nondiscrimination and antiharassment legalese, disclosure practices, accommodations processes), the depth and breadth of these policies varies significantly. The implications of these findings and emergent best practices for supporting students with visible and invisible disabilities during their internship experiences are described.
Keywords: social work field education; content analysis; disability; accessibility; inclusion
Author’s note: The term COVID-19 as used in this manuscript refers to Coronavirus disease 2019; the term pandemic refers to the disease outbreak caused by COVID-19 as determined by the World Health Organization. These two terms are used interchangeably.
Abstract
Social workers continue to feel the ramifications of COVID-19 on professional and personal development in almost all domains—in the classroom, in field practice, and as future practitioners. In this qualitative study, researchers illuminate undergraduate social work students’ perceptions of how COVID-19 has impacted their field education and social work practice, and in turn sheds light on the implications for future social work education. The study explores students’ unique perspectives through content analysis of personal reflective writing. Results highlight how students continue to experience collective trauma, and how, as newly emerging social worker professionals, they perceive the new landscape of service delivery. Results also highlight the need to integrate new teaching practices, especially around the use of technology.
Keywords: BSW students; COVID-19; field education; collective trauma
* Marion Bogo died in September 2021, during the survey administration. She actively participated in the development of the survey.
Abstract
This mixed-methods study examined the training needs of Canadian field instructors (N = 58), their perceived barriers to training, and their most pressing supervision challenges. Field instructors responded to an online survey sent through placement coordinators at English-language schools of social work across Canada. Participants reported feeling “somewhat confident” in the field instructor role, and almost 40% reported not receiving any training prior to engaging in the role. Time was overwhelmingly cited as a barrier to field instructor training. When training occurred, participants reported it was mainly through their workplace or independent reading. Thematic analysis of an open-ended question regarding participants’ most challenging aspects of providing field instruction elicited the following themes: (a) student challenges, (b) organizational challenges, and (c) field instructor challenges. Implications for field instructor training are offered.
Keywords: field Instructors; training; Canada; online survey
Despite numerous benefits, formal faculty mentorship, particularly within social work, remains underutilized. To assess attitudes towards formal mentorship, a national exploratory survey (N = 187) was conducted of those in social work leadership positions within CSWE-accredited programs. Findings indicate overwhelming support for formal mentorship. Social work deans were least receptive, and field directors expressed the highest level of support. Participants were moderately receptive to adding mentorship requirements to the EPAS. Field directors deliver the signature pedagogy of social work education and should be provided with formal mentorship. Implications for field, social work education, and future research recommendations are presented.
Keywords: formal mentorship; field directors; social work education; CSWE EPAS; attitudes
The national election scene is in high gear. Election concerns are grabbing our attention and occupying premium space in our conversations and activities. I’m reminded of the recent 2020 and 2022 elections, and remembering the impressive voter mobilization drives implemented in social work schools and agencies.
In 2019, professional social workers and schools of social work created the national social work voter mobilization campaign Voting is Social Work. The campaign is based on the concept that voter accessibility and engagement are key to a healthy democracy. Voting is Social Work recognizes the power of integrating educational activities about nonpartisan voter engagement into social work education and practice. The campaign not only offers extensive classroom resources, but also provides resources for students and faculty to use in field placement sites. Resources address the promotion of civic engagement and voter mobilization at community field placements (https://votingissocialwork.org/field-education-toolkit). The Voting is Social Work campaign reminds us that students, field instructors, and field liaisons can take the lead in such initiatives. Furthermore, activities and learning associated with voting are easily linked to macro curriculum and EPAS competencies.
*Author’s Note: Throughout this article, we have intentionally used the language “practicum education” instead of “field education.” This change comes from our awareness of the harmful history of unpaid, oppressive “field work” in the United States. This terminological change is also part of the present article’s ongoing efforts to advance explicitly antiracist approaches to practicum education within social work. We would like to thank our colleagues J.P. Przewoznik, Karon Johnson, Michele Patak-Pietrafesa, and Ronni Zuckerman for their contributions in designing, structuring, and facilitating the book discussion group and JEDI PLC.
Antiracist and antioppressive practice must be at the heart of any social work curriculum that seeks to produce professionals who can dismantle oppressive systems and work with clients and communities to advance social justice (Council on Social Work Education, 2022). Yet numerous scholars have documented the ways in which social work education has failed to center antiracist principles and practices, instead perpetuating white supremacist ideals and in turn harming students, colleagues, and the very communities we seek to serve (Abrams & Detlaff, 2020; Brady et al., 2019; King-Jordan & Gil, 2021; Leotti et al., 2023; Murray-Lichtman & Elkassem, 2021). As social work educators, we must make intentional efforts to identify and revise biased educational practices into practices that better express the social justice mission of our profession. Situated at the intersection of academia and real-world practice settings, practicum education is uniquely positioned to translate classroom knowledge about the mechanisms of oppression and structural racism into a concrete, antiracist practice skill set. This article describes a model developed by one university’s social work program to build social work practicum instructors’ knowledge and skills in providing Masters of Social Work (MSW) students with opportunities for antiracist and antioppressive supervision and practice opportunities in their practicum, and explores the challenges encountered while implementing the model.
This article describes and analyzes a new approach to employment-based field education for Masters of Social Work (MSW) students. In this study, we collected qualitative feedback from multiple perspectives, including students, field educators, and faculty liaisons. We found that students and community organizations mostly benefited from employment-based field placements. Students reported that they could devote more time and attention to coursework, often experienced enhanced professional opportunities, and could more quickly apply course concepts at their field placement. Field educators noted that they modified their approach to supervision to maximize student learning opportunities. Emerging best practices related to employment-based field placements are offered.
Keywords: field education; employment-based; higher education; supervision
The purpose of this quantitative exploratory research study was to determine if field internships influence graduating Master’s in Social Work (MSW) students’ perceptions about their level of cultural competence when working with diverse populations in their field internships. The participants were graduating MSW students enrolled in Historical Black Colleges and Universities and two public Predominantly White Institutions located in the Southeast area of the United States. The Multicultural Counseling Inventory was used to measure participants’ perceived level of cultural competence, and the Questionnaire Subscale was used to measure participants’ field internship experiences. A simple regression analysis revealed a statistically significant relationship between the two variables. The conclusions from this study are preliminary and further research is needed to determine which factors actually predict graduating MSW students’ perceived level of cultural competence in their field internships.
Keywords: field education; cultural competence; social work
Natalie Beck Aguilera, DSW
St. Edward’s University
Warren K. Graham, MSW
Stony Brook University
Tanya Voss, MSW
The University of Texas at Austin
[Editor’s note: Field Finds is a regular feature of Field Educator. These concise literature reviews provide information and guidance to field educators and field instructors. Each review concludes with three discussion questions as inspiration for further thought on the subject matter.]
This edition of Field Finds explores the issue of paid internships. The format for this article differs from that of a traditional literature review, in that it includes a combination of peer-reviewed research and grey literature and information. This novel approach was required because of the limited peer-reviewed research on this subject.
In July, the lead author sent out a query on the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) field directors’ listserv, asking for field directors to contact her to discuss best practices in paid internships. The following review includes the perspectives of and examples from three field directors from across the United States. Critical questions and case studies provide a blueprint for other social work faculty who are interested in generating new ways of engaging in the discussion and implementing paid internships.
As we publish Field Educator for fall 2023, I am struck by how deeply the context for social work education is shaped by an urgent and growing concern about the impact of long-standing societal inequalities on individuals, families, and communities. Increasingly, social work educators are grappling with how to meaningfully educate current and future social work students to fully embrace a commitment to dismantling systems of oppression at the micro and macro levels. Indeed, the CSWE 2022 EPAS is a call to action for all educators to examine and reinvigorate their curriculum to more genuinely teach the skills, knowledge, and values associated with antiracist social work practice. Specifically, Competency 3: Engage Anti-Racism, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (ADEI) in practice, embodies this crucial learning goal. Field education is particularly challenged with effectively teaching Competency 3 because field learning resides not in the classroom but in widely varied agency settings. Within these settings are community social workers who have differing levels of exposure to and experience with ADEI practices, yet who are responsible for creating the learning activities and supervising a student’s work. This model of learning creates a unique set of responsibilities for field education faculty. How do we, as field educators, ensure that a field instructor is prepared to teach the skills needed to practice within an antiracist framework?
Katharine Dill, PhD Marist CollegeEugenia Knight, MSW Simmons University
Episode 2: A Conversation About Incorporating the 2022 EPAS Competency 3 in Field Practicum Learning
Field Talks host, Dr. Katharine Dill of Marist College, interviews Eugenia Knight, MSW, about her work as the Director of MSW Practicum Education at Simmons School of Social Work, including the challenges of incorporating an anti-racist framework into all aspects of practicum learning.
This article shares the results of a study designed to identify the most significant challenges in social work field education from the perspectives of Canadian field educators and students. A web-based survey was conducted with 155 participants, and the findings were analyzed thematically. The most significant challenges included lack of preparation, support, and training; the burden of multiple responsibilities and roles; communication and supervision challenges; administrative challenges; COVID-19–related changes to online learning and practice; equity, inclusion, diversity, and access (EIDA); and competition and unfair placement selection procedures. The findings provide insight to inform change in social work field education.
Keywords: field education; practicum; social work; most significant challenges; Canada
[Editor’s note: Field Finds is a regular feature of Field Educator. These concise literature reviews provide information and guidance to field educators and field instructors. Each review concludes with three discussion questions as inspiration for further thought on the subject matter.]
This edition of Field Finds explores the concept and implementation of gatekeeping within social work programs—and, more specifically, within social work field education. The review provides suggestions for practice and future research.
The concept of gatekeeping in social work education has been written about, discussed, and debated for many years. A seminal text, Gatekeeping in BSW Programs, edited by Gibbs and Blakeley (2000), remains the blueprint for conceptualizing gatekeeping. The term “gatekeeping” itself conjures up a “gate” that is closed when someone ill-suited is not permitted to move forward in a professional program.Two distinct views of gatekeeping exist in social work education (Gibbs, 2000a & 2000b):
Students are screened in: A supportive perspective, where students are provided with developmental opportunities to enhance their knowledge, values, and skills throughout the social work program curriculum (Elpers & Fitzgerald, 2013; Gibbs, 2000a; Gibbs & Macy, 2000; Royse, 2000; Sowbel & Miller, 2015; Street, 2021).
Students are screened out: Students are screened out for entry to a social work program based on stringent admissions criteria, such as GPA or a personal statement (Gibbs, 2000b; Holmstrom, 2014; Homonoff, 2008; Royse, 2000).
With the numerous, rapidly changing obstacles brought to the social work profession by the COVID-19 pandemic, social workers wrestled with how to continue their work remotely as they faced and surmounted technological challenges. We looked to our professional associations—specifically, the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) and the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE)—for new and appropriate ways to provide ethical and effective services while remaining at home, and received real-time guidance. Individual field placement agencies and practitioners sought out remote technologies that would meet the needs of workers, interns, and clients.
These adaptations, through their improvements in accessibility and other accommodations, have contributed to how social work interns who are Deaf, DeafBlind, and Hard of Hearing can perform effectively and efficiently, especially considering that they often have trouble gaining parity with hearing peers. The unique challenge of practicing in a pandemic has brought innovative approaches, new perspectives, and growing opportunities that may, indeed, provide greater professional opportunities for future social workers who are Deaf, DeafBlind, and Hard of Hearing.
Technological adaptations adopted during the pandemic positively impacted field education and direct service provision for Deaf, DeafBlind, and Hard of Hearing social worker interns. This article offers recommendations to employers, supervisors, and general practitioners for retaining these adaptations even after things “return to normal.”
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Council on Social Work Education modified field education delivery methods and reduced the number of required field hours. Consequently, schools of social work and field agencies employed online and other methods of distance learning to fulfill field education requirements. This scoping review synthesizes available literature on social work pedagogical approaches to field education during the COVID-19 pandemic, identifies knowledge gaps in the literature for future studies, and suggests the need for proactive disaster preparation for future field challenges. Eleven peer-reviewed articles are included in this review. We describe the challenges and achievements experienced by schools of social work, students, and field supervisors. Findings indicated five themes: (a) remote field work, (b) alternate activities, (c) communication, (d) technology, and (e) early termination with clients. Suggestions illuminate implications for best-practice scenarios to promote future disaster preparedness.
Keywords: social work; social work pedagogy; field education; COVID-19
Seventy-five to ninety percent of individuals affected by mental illness do not receive the treatment they need, largely due to the shortage of mental health professionals. Common Mental Disorders (CMDs) like depression and anxiety constitute a large part of the disease burden of mental illness and can be treated effectively with low-cost, low-resource psychosocial interventions that can be delivered by trained paraprofessionals. Social work education can contribute to closing the treatment gap for mental illness by training Bachelor’s of Social Work (BSW) students to deliver evidence-based interventions for CMDs during their field education experience, and thereby meet a critical need in their communities.
Keywords: mental health treatment gap; social work education; evidence-based psychosocial interventions; field education; common mental disorders, task-sharing; social work Grand Challenges; CSWE competencies; Problem Management Plus
This study seeks to understand how the COVID-19 outbreak impacted social work students completing field placements during the spring 2020 semester. In May 2020, a national survey was distributed soliciting information from MSW and BSW field students to examine their perspectives on their universities’ and field agencies’ responses to disruption of field education courses. The survey instrument consisted of seven open-ended questions pertaining to the potential impact COVID-19 had on students during their spring 2020–semester field placement, and the final question asked students to voluntarily submit a photo of their work space during the pandemic. Data were analyzed using QDA Miner. Analysis made use of open coding and directed coding using themes derived from the literature and the survey questions. Results revealed that while some field placement students received support, guidance, resources, and communication from their agencies and universities, many did not. Moreover, many students experienced unexpected ethical dilemmas and frustrations associated with the abrupt termination of relationships with clients. These findings are used to formulate policy recommendations for universities and field agencies regarding sudden transition to remote work during a pandemic-related shutdown.
Keywords: field education; ethical dilemmas; COVID-19; university policies; termination
The summer of 2020 was an inflection point for social justice issues in the United States. Widespread protests in response to the murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and other Black Americans were held nationwide, and the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted and intensified the many symptoms of racial, health, and economic disparities prevalent in our society (Salmond & Dorsen, 2022). Calls to defund and/or reform policing were ubiquitous, and many of these calls proposed the use of social workers in place of some or all police responses (Andrew, 2020; Levin, 2020; Lum et al., 2021). At Western Carolina University (WCU), we began examining the ways in which we were preparing our students for working in this complex area of practice. This process led to the development of the Community Care program, a graduate-level internship embedded in the local police department and supported by faculty from both the Department of Social Work and the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice.
The mission of the Community Care program is to support the local community by offering voluntary social work services to anyone in need, especially those who are or might become involved with law enforcement. The program has five identified objectives:
Expand the law enforcement toolbox by increasing officer response options beyond arrents, citations, and warnings
Promote long-term solutions for community members in need through connections with appropriate resources
Promote safety of officers and community members through increased opportunities for de-escalation and proactive, precrisis intervention
Reduce the risk of trauma to all parties involved in potentially negative interactions between law enforcement and community members
Reduce officer workload and streamline officer workflow
While the program is still very new, initial feedback from the community, the police department, and the social work students suggests that these objectives are being met, and all partners involved are experiencing mutual benefit.
Editor’s note: This issue’s Conversation features an interview with Karen Goodenough, PhD. Karen has been executive director of the National Association of Social Workers, Minnesota chapter since 2018. She received her BSW from St. Olaf College, MSW from Augsburg University, and PhD in social work from the University of Minnesota. Previously, Dr. Goodenough worked in direct practice and nonprofit program management, and has been a consultant in evaluation, data utilization, and strategic planning. She has also served as adjunct faculty in numerous BSW and MSW programs throughout Minnesota. Dr. Goodenough is a member of the Minnesota Board of Social Work Advisory Committee and Legislation and Rules Committee, cochairs the NASW Licensure Task Force, and was on the Document Writing Team for the Social Work Interstate Compact.
The interview discusses the recent release of data revealing the pass rates of the ASWB exam, related issues of bias and access, and opportunities for a way forward as a profession.
Amy Skeen: Hi, Karen, and thanks for joining the Conversation. As you are aware, the Association of Social Work Boards (ASWB) released data on licensing exam pass rates for the first time during the summer of 2022. As a result, questions were heightened related to the equity of the exam and how this impacts access to licensing. Your background and research in this area can provide an important framework. Could you start by talking about your role related to licensing issues, and why this topic is relevant to our field?
Karen Goodenough: This is an area of great importance for our field, and has been a significant focus of mine throughout my career. I have served as the executive director of the Minnesota chapter of NASW for five years. Aligning my academic and professional interests, my dissertation focused on the county exemption from social work licensure in Minnesota. I am cochair of the NASW licensure taskforce and was on the document team, the group that wrote the social work interstate compact. The final compact legislation was announced on February 27, 2023, and is now ready for state enactment. Information on the Compact can be found at swcompact.org.
The issue of licensing and regulation is of utmost importance, as it allows social workers to compete in the marketplace. Social workers fought hard for licensure in order to protect the profession as well as the public. However, we take for granted that the current structures and requirements of licensure are necessary and are meeting these goals.
Katharine Dill, PhD Marist CollegeSuzanne Sankar, MSW Simmons University
Episode 1: The Future of Field Education: An Exploration of Emerging Issues
Field Talks host, Dr. Katharine Dill of Marist College, interviews Suzanne Sankar, executive editor of Simmons University’s Field Educator, for the inaugural episode of Field Talks. Katharine and Suzanne discuss current issues in field education, as well as the central role of the Field Educator journal in promoting robust information exchange and engaged scholarship.
This issue marks the launch of Field Educator‘s new podcast, Field Talks. Dr. Katharine Dill, field director at Marist College, will host the podcast and hold in-depth discussions with social work leaders, researchers, and practitioners, focusing on the most pressing issues in field education today. Field Talks will also feature interviews with field directors, field instructors, and social work students, discussing new and innovative approaches to effective field-based learning.
This mixed-methods study examined field instructors’ (N = 58) perspectives on how to prepare social work students for mandatory reporting of child abuse and neglect. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) examined differences in field instructors’ perspectives of their educational roles and responsibilities by program level. Overall, field instructors strongly agreed that schools need to prepare students regarding their role as mandatory reporters (M = 1.61, SD = 0.78), and moderately agreed that schools do a good job in this endeavor (M = 2.57, SD = 0.95). Field instructors thought Master of Social Work (MSW) students had better awareness of mandatory reporting at the start of practicum [(F(2, 41) = 2.95, p = 0.06] compared to Bachelor of Social Work (BSW) or a mixed cohort of BSW/MSW students. Thematic analysis examined students’ expected knowledge and skills before, during, and after field education regarding mandatory reporting. The following themes emerged: 1) knowledge of child abuse and neglect; 2) knowledge of professional roles and boundaries; 3) knowledge of the processes involved in reporting child abuse and neglect; and 4) preparation through experiential learning. Implications for integrating legislative and ethical responsibilities into social work education are offered.
Keywords:field instructors; field education; mandatory reporting; child abuse and neglect; online survey
Field education is the signature pedagogy of social work education, yet there has been criticism by field education scholars regarding its assessment and evaluation. In this qualitative inquiry, I used focus groups to inquire about how field supervisors understood educational competencies as applied to their students. Over half of the themes that emerged were associated with self-reflection, interpersonal challenge, or emotional readiness. Recentering the perspectives of field supervisors may provide new avenues to improve field assessment and evaluation.
Keywords: field education; field supervision; competencies; social work education
In order to be competent social workers, it is necessary for social work students to understand who they are and how their experiences shape their perceptions of the world. Exploring how one’s unique identity characteristics influence or limit access to systems of power and privilege is the essence of intersectionality. This exploratory, qualitative study aimed to examine the degree to which intersectionality was infused into MSW field syllabi. The implications of the findings suggest that intersectionality is not fully integrated into MSW field syllabi. Results of this study summarize opportunities within social work education to increase students’ awareness of intersectionality.
Keywords: intersectionality; MSW field education; syllabi; social location; EPAS
Amy Skeen, DSW Simmons UniversityDaniel Fischer, MSW University of Michigan
Editor’s note: This issue’s Conversation features an interview with Daniel Fischer, MSW. Daniel is a clinical associate professor and assistant dean for field education in the School of Social Work at the University of Michigan. The two discuss the recent focus on paid versus unpaid field placements, student organizing around the issue, and innovative solutions for consideration within social work education.
Amy Skeen: Dan, I want to share my appreciation for your willingness to join me for this conversation. I welcome this opportunity to learn about your experience and perspective related to field placements, and more specifically about the recent increase in students advocating for and seeking change to the longstanding structure of social work field placements being unpaid. In addition, I’m hoping you’ll talk about how your social work program is responding, and share some of the innovative ideas and approaches being implemented. First, can you tell us about your role at the University of Michigan?
Dan Fischer: Thanks, Amy, for reaching out to me. I’m happy to be a part of the conversation. A little about me: I graduated with my MSW from the University of Michigan in 1984, have been an instructor at the School of Social Work since 1993, and am currently a clinical associate professor of social work and serve as the assistant dean for field education.
Social work field education is in a state of change and moving in new directions. What prompts this appraisal?
First, the new, less restrictive 2022 EPAS guidelines for employment-based field placements will allow more students to maintain employment, and thus their financial solvency, while seeking a social work degree. This is a game changer for many current and future students, who will now be able to take advantage of a more equitable path to a social work education. But, as field educators, let’s not underestimate how these guidelines will impact our work. Notably, field departments will have more responsibility in ensuring the integrity of learning in placements that will be fraught with conflicting demands on students, as they strive to meet both educational and employment responsibilities.
Editor’s note: Field Finds is a regular feature of Field Educator. These concise literature reviews provide information and guidance to field educators and field instructors. Each review concludes with three discussion questions as inspiration for further thought on the subject matter.
Introduction
This edition of Field Finds explores the existing literature on student mental health challenges in social work and field education. The following themes are discussed: 1) the prevalence of social work students with mental health concerns; 2) social work students’ attitudes toward others with mental illness; 3) complex issues to consider, and 4) strategies for supporting students.
Reflective supervision scaffolds a stronger supervisor working alliance (SWA), or supervisor–trainee relationship, which is critical to trainees’ skill development. Given supervisory trainings’ positive impact on these dynamics, and the increased need for access to these trainings, an asynchronous online training program for clinical supervisors was assessed to evaluate its impact on the SWA during social work and counseling field placements. Findings revealed supervisors’ satisfaction with the training, and improved SWA from pre- to posttest for both trainees and supervisors, with supervisors’ years of experience playing a unique role. This study supports the establishment and participation of supervisors in an asynchronous training program.
Keywords: clinical fieldwork; reflective supervision; working alliance; social work; counseling
The topic of professional gatekeeping continues to be confusing and contentious for social work education. Social work educators and programs are aware of the need to establish and enforce standards for competency and performance, and recognize the expectation from the profession to do so, but these gatekeeping standards and expectations can be elusive to define. Programs often struggle to articulate and specify standards, especially values-based competencies for attitudes and behaviors often considered to reflect professionalism, as opposed to content-based competencies that focus on knowledge and skills (Paulson & Rinks, 2018). Programs typically must decide not only what standards to emphasize, but how to specifically define them, to communicate them to students, and to do so ethically and legally throughout the educational training process—from admission to performance and behavior while in the social work program and during field placements (Elpers & FitzGerald, 2013; Hylton et al., 2017).
This also challenges field programs to develop processes for identifying and responding to performance and behavioral concerns, especially when such issues jeopardize the student’s placement. While not all performance or behavioral concerns result from mental health issues, students who experience such challenges may end up having problems during field due to the impact of their condition on their functioning.
Unfortunately, such issues are on the rise. Several authors have highlighted the growing prevalence of mental health issues in adolescents and young adults, including mood and anxiety disorders, psychiatric hospitalizations, and suicidality (Lukianoff & Haidt, 2018). This trend has also been observed in college students generally, including social work students (Lynch et al., 2021; Reardon, 2012; Todd et al., 2019). Limited resources and psychosocial stressors, such as employment and family commitments, can also create possible issues for students’ performance in field as they struggle to balance their life circumstances with academic expectations. Sadly, these have been exacerbated in recent years, especially since 2020 and the COVID pandemic, leaving programs to continue to adapt and refine their policies and practices for addressing these concerns (De Fries et al., 2021).
Although there are multiple possible causes for behavioral concerns in field, programs still must find ways to address them. This article is an overview and discussion of strategies adopted and implemented to address these concerns over the past several years in undergraduate and graduate field education at a midsized Midwestern university.
The Council on Social Work Education requires field directors to provide orientation and ongoing training to field instructors. In the authors’ experience, participants at national field director committee meetings and regional field director consortium gatherings regularly propose collaboration on resources for field instructor training materials. This research arose from that expressed need. A national survey of social work field directors collected the essence of what respondents felt field instructors needed to know in order to enhance student competence effectively. Results reinforced the need for a collaborative repository of educational resources, but also revealed a lack of agreement on what field instructors need to know beyond orientation topics, which are often program specific. Development of national field instructor competencies supported by evidence-informed training materials are necessary next steps. Still, they should be considered transitory to a more fundamental system change that does not rely heavily on overloaded agency-based practitioners for intensive teaching.
Keywords: field instructor training; field education; training modalities
In social work, integration of theory and practice primarily occurs within the practicum. For practitioners, enacting the role of field instructor is associated with both personal and professional benefits. The COVID-19 pandemic led to dramatic challenges in this role, given that many student placements transitioned from in-person to remote engagement. This study explores the experience of field instructors in supervising social work students who were engaged in remote learning plans. Their experiences followed a continuum from crisis to developing a “new normal,” with opportunities that augmented and, occasionally, had benefits over traditional approaches to field education.
Keywords: Canada; COVID-19; field education; remote learning; virtual learning
Across the country, individuals are continuing to choose social work as a career. Although this is exciting for the profession, pressures to increase enrollment directly impact the number of field placements needed for students (Ayala et al., 2018; Council on Social Work Education [CSWE], 2015b). This may cause additional stress in finding students a placement. Meade et al. (2015) reported that schools of social work grapple with the increase in student numbers and the decrease of student field placement opportunities due to competition, the practicum needs of online programs, and the operational strains of social service agencies. Additional challenges further complicating the field placement process include students’ needs for flexibility in scheduling, transportation, and, for students with disabilities, accessibility (Meade et al., 2015; McKee et al., 2015).
This article describes the development of an alternative field placement within the social work field office to address current field challenges such as the needs for increased flexibility, virtual work, access to quality placements, and exposure to potential career options in field.
[Editor’s note: As part of Field Educator‘s remembrance of Marion Bogo, we are reprinting an interview with Professor Bogo that appeared in the Fall 2013 issue. The interview was conducted by Trudy Zimmerman, who at the time of the interview was director of field education at Boston University School of Social Work. Notable in the interview is Bogo’s emphatic clarity on the need for students to “see and be seen,” “to practice over and over,” and to be observed by and to frequently observe their role-model field instructors as they also practice. She strongly believed that students need to see practice in action and to receive reflective supervisory feedback to become effective social work practitioners. Her work continues to be foundational to how we understand student learning and the challenges to providing optimal field learning environments.]
Social work department mission and vision statements are replete with commitments to human rights as central to social work aims. However, a gap exists in the literature regarding field students’ transfer of human rights comprehension into human rights practice in field practicum. This paper takes conversations about human rights from the peripheral and brings them into focus by providing clarity to the implementation of human rights theories, concepts, and competencies in field education. Authors outline an eight-module curriculum that assists field supervisors, field educators, and field students to sustainably integrate social work practice and human rights practice into field education.
Keywords: field education; field practicum; human rights; seminars
This issue is dedicated to noted field education scholar Marion Bogo, who, sadly, died last fall. We remember Marion for her groundbreaking contributions to social work education, especially in the area of assessment of student competence. In this issue, we reprint a 2013 interview of Marion by Trudy Zimmerman. (Trudy is the former director of field education at Boston University.) Although the interview occurred nearly 10 years ago, the editorial team was struck by its profound relevance for today’s learning environment. We also honor Marion’s scholarship by dedicating this issue’s “What We’re Reading” section exclusively to Marion’s publications.
This issue’s “What We’re Reading” section is dedicated to the writings of Marion Bogo. The editors selected some of their favorite articles for summarization. All are co-authored by Bogo, as collaboration has always been a hallmark of her work. Written over the course of the last decade, these articles reflect the richness of her innovative thinking in the area of social work field education pedagogy, especially on the use of simulation as a methodology.
The Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) requires social work education programs to assess both the implicit curriculum and the explicit curriculum. There is a divergence in the literature regarding these types of curricula; research on explicit curriculum is prevalent, while research on implicit curriculum is nominal. The implicit curriculum for social work education provides a powerful mechanism for assessing the atmosphere and culture of the learning environment for students. The field program is a natural, if challenging, venue for social work programs’ assessment of their implicit curriculum. As such, the role of the faculty field liaison becomes a critical piece in understanding the implicit nature of the field education experience. This research project explored for purposes of program evaluation the role and responsibilities of faculty field liaisons over five years, using exit surveys completed by graduate-level social work students (N = 168) and their assigned field instructors (N = 244). The findings suggest that the role and responsibilities of the faculty field liaison—especially when staffed by a full-time tenure-track faculty member—for both groups of respondents contributed to higher rates of satisfaction with the overall field experience, a desire for more site visits, and more effective relationships.
Keywords: faculty field liaison; implicit curriculum; field experience; social work
The Council on Social Work Education ([CSWE] 2015) requires social work education programs to assess both the implicit and the explicit curriculum. There is a divergence in the literature regarding these types of curricula; research on explicit curriculum is prevalent, while research on implicit curriculum is nominal. The implicit curriculum for social work education provides a powerful mechanism for assessing the atmosphere and culture of the learning environment for social work students—especially given that the field education experience is viewed as the profession’s signature pedagogy (Shulman, 2005) and is governed by stringent standards (Grady et al., 2018).
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many university institutions across the globe have moved to online learning platforms and remote practicums, to reduce in-person contact in compliance with local public health requirements. While this has meant significant changes to teaching and learning, schools of social work have maintained their ethical obligation to prepare students to support the individuals, families, and communities they work for and with (Morris et al., 2020). Both the stay-at-home orders and the significant reduction of in-person interactions impacted those with whom social workers and students work, as well as social workers, educators, and the students themselves. In response, our MSW field practicum team developed flexible strategies to support students through the pandemic, while continuing to ensure a rigorous field placement learning experience that prepares them to enter the field. In this article, we use the lens of transformational learning theory to explore macro strategies that help MSW students grow into competent professionals, and micro considerations that support student success. This exploration is based on our experience as a social work field team.
The world of social work education lost an icon this fall when Marion Bogo died on September 28, 2021. For Field Educator, the loss is deeply felt. In the early days of the journal, Marion helped to guide discussions about how best to position the journal to have the greatest impact on field education. She was superbly strategic in her thinking, and, as was characteristic for Marion, she shared her insights generously, and was always warm and enthusiastic with her encouragement.
In the broader community of social work educators, Marion played a leadership role, nationally and internationally, in challenging us to investigate our assumptions about learning and the assessment of learning. Questions she kept on the front burner included:
Why isn’t there more direct observation of students?
Why do we rely on process recordings and student self-reporting to inform field instruction?
How do we account for field instructor bias in the assessment of student learning?
What is the evidence that the current model for student attainment of competency is the most effective?
How do we create authentic and substantive learning and assessment structures?
Marion was dedicated to a new way of delivering social work education, grounded in a moral imperative to use the most effective means possible to educate the next generation. We will remember Marion not only for her extensive and groundbreaking scholarship on simulation-based teaching and learning, the use of OSCES, and the concept of a holistic approach to assessment, but also for her warmth, sagacity, and unwavering commitment to improving social work education. No matter her fame and acclaim, Marion was accessible, welcoming, humble, engaged, and full of spirit, and she valued the opinions of others—always listening so intently to ideas. Field education has lost its rudder, and we, her admiring colleagues, have indeed lost a friend.
Compassion fatigue and vicarious traumatization can result from continual exposure to trauma, violence, and marginalization, as experienced by both clients and social workers. The pervasiveness of these issues and their consequences throughout the social work field makes discussion among students, faculty, and field instructors essential with students entering the profession. Field seminar courses, which examine real-world social work practice through the lens of the student field practicum, offer a key venue for these crucial discussions of compassion fatigue and vicarious traumatization. Further, the traditional view that self-care provides a sufficient antidote for burnout may oversimplify the experiences of social work students and may miss opportunities to encourage students to reflect critically on the individual, community, and systemic factors that contribute to compassion fatigue and secondary trauma in social work practice. Discussing experiences of moral injury in practice and adopting a pedagogical model that enhances social work students’ resilience in challenging practice landscapes may also encourage more honest, inclusive, and equitable conversations in the classroom. This article examines the pivotal role that field seminar courses can play in advancing discussions beyond self-care by prompting students to reflect critically on their experiences and build strategies for resilience as emerging social workers.
COVID-19 has introduced mental health professionals to unprecedented levels of distress. Mental health trainees have also experienced considerable transitions in their work, school, and personal lives; however, few studies have investigated the impacts on their wellbeing. This brief, qualitative study surveyed two focus groups consisting of mental health trainees to elicit their perceptions and experiences of adjusting during the onset of COVID-19. Two key themes emerged: “Striving and Surviving,” and “Not Thriving.” These themes represent the spectrum of adjustment profiles the trainees reported. Implications for the training of mental health professionals and support of their wellbeing are discussed.
Keywords: mental health trainees; COVID-19; practica; social work students
by Henrika McCoy, MSW, PhD
Jane Addams College of Social Work
Following graduation from the University of Chicago with a social work degree in 1975, Barbara Coats began her career in social work, which included positions in medical and psychiatric social work. In 1993, her love of students, community, teaching, and learning brought her to the Jane Addams College of Social Work (JACSW), where she remained for 28 years until her retirement on June 30, 2021. Prior to becoming the director of field education and community partnerships, Barbara served in the College as a field liaison and the director of the BSW program. As field director, Barbara focused on engagement within communities of color in Chicago, and made it a priority to cultivate field sites where students could have opportunities for learning the skills and knowledge needed for organization and community macro practice.
Barbara’s commitment to the mission of Jane Addams, and to ensuring that students truly understood the importance of social work and their role as social work students, is legendary. Upon her retirement there were numerous accolades, with the following two comments capturing them all. “Barbara is amazing! She stands out in my memory as such a wonderful source of support and insight” and “Barbara is a compassionate, strong, and bold leader—inspiring my own career into field education! The ripple effect she has had on generations of social workers and the impact on social justice is immeasurable.” Barbara has left large shoes to fill and a huge hole in our hearts. Our loss is a gain for the communities and projects to which she will now have more time to devote herself. Congratulations Barbara! We wish you well, and you will truly be missed!
Editor’s note: This issue’s Conversation features an interview by Diane Zipoli, MSW, with Leah K. Lazzaro, DSW, and Ralph G. Cuseglio, DSW, about the partnership between their school and their local library. Leah K. Lazzaro is the assistant dean of the School of Social Work at Monmouth University, and from 2015 to 2020 was the school’s director of field and professional education. Ralph G. Cuseglio is an assistant professor at Monmouth University. Diane Zipoli is an assistant director for field education at Simmons University.
In a profession that emphasizes the importance of setting boundaries and avoiding dual relationships, it is typically not advised for a faculty member to also serve as a student’s internship supervisor. The mere mention of dual relationships in social work practice often invokes thoughts of crossing boundaries and unethical behavior. However, in this article we present a model in which such relationships are encouraged, and argue that it may enhance student learning experiences. Now more than ever, schools of social work are managing a scarcity of resources, where cutbacks and budgetary constraints are an unfortunate reality. Additionally, demands on students’ lives are often overwhelming, and the need to find flexible options for student learning, specifically field internships, is critical. The purpose of this paper is to present a model in which faculty at a school of social work also serve as supervisors to MSW interns. The article provides case examples and important components to consider when creating this type of internship experience.
The primary method of providing field education in social work practice is through the field instructor–student relationship (Bogo, 2005). In most cases, this occurs between a supervisor and a student at the agency at which the internship takes place. In 2012, we developed a program that aims to address barriers that prevent students from persisting in college. Drawing on the literature that suggests the importance of one supportive individual in a college student’s life, and the relationship of this support to college persistence, we developed a program that pairs students with peer mentors to help provide the emotional and social support and referrals needed. Given the vast number of students seeking support through this program, the program partnered with the school of social work to provide BSW and foundation-year MSW students internship opportunities to work with college students. These interns receive supervision from a MSW faculty member who is also one of the founders of the program. Over the years, this role of faculty-as-supervisor has presented students with incredible learning opportunities, and also with particular challenges. Before establishing this dual relationship, it is important to consider these challenges.
Fall 2021 marks a decade of publication for Field Educator. In 2011, the journal’s first editorial focused on common challenges for social work field educators: economic pressures, tensions between the service needs of agencies and the learning needs of students, and the newly added CSWE requirement for competency assessment. Field Educator, the first journal fully devoted to social work field education, pledged to tackle these challenges. Have we carried out our pledge?
Staying current with scholarship enriches the work of field educators: it teaches us innovative ways to solve perennial field problems, suggests new readings for field seminars, keeps us abreast of current debates in social work education, and even inspires us in our own writing on theory and research. “What We’re Reading” presents our brief summaries of the findings of recent publications in field education. Our emphasis is on implications for practice. Readers are encouraged to suggest articles or books for future review.
A key challenge for schools of social work is developing an evaluation system that meaningfully assesses student professional competencies, is user friendly, and cohesively integrates the educational contract and evaluations. In this article, we describe the process undertaken within our school of social work to overhaul our Master of Social Work (MSW) program field evaluation system. The timing of this overhaul coincided with our school’s implementation of the new Council on Social Work Education’s (CSWE) Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (EPAS), which were first introduced in 2015 (CSWE, 2015). Because aligning our field education materials and processes with the new EPAS standards would take considerable effort, we used this as an opportunity to improve the field evaluation system as a whole. This two-year, iterative process engaged a field advisory committee of field instructors, MSW students, field staff, and faculty members in conceptualizing the materials, refining the content, and guiding the functionality of the new online and integrated system that was built by the faculty members. This article describes the triumphs and travails of building the new system. This case study will be useful to other MSW programs looking for innovative ways to update their field protocols to comply with CSWE requirements and upgrade their evaluation systems in a resource-constrained environment.
Field education is a signature pedagogy of social work education (Wayne et al., 2010). Within the field component of their curricula, social work programs accredited through CSWE are required to assess nine competencies based on specific student behaviors. Students engage in field assignments and activities that are used to assess student performance on these behaviors. In the overall MSW curriculum, each competency must be assessed in two different ways, with one assessment based on “demonstration of the competency in real or simulated practice situations” (CSWE, 2015, p.18). This requirement is often met by assessing the competencies in field education using end-of-semester field evaluations.
As Hitchcock and colleagues (2019) note, a vital responsibility of field education departments is to manage data effectively. These data include agency information, student placements, timesheets, performance evaluations, and other aspects of field education. Field education departments must decide on a practical and efficient way to manage these data. One option is to purchase a commercially available platform. There are many platforms to choose from that vary in functionality as well as cost (for a more detailed discussion, see Samuels et al., 2020). In this article, we focus specifically on student performance evaluation rather than other functions (e.g., student/agency placements).
The main advantages to using a commercial platform are usability and integration. These platforms offer a single hub to collect and manage information that is available to multiple stakeholders (e.g., students, faculty, field instructors), and offer options to customize features to the school’s data needs. The drawbacks of these systems are the amount of time and expertise needed to select a platform and the costs associated with acquiring and maintaining the system. Making a good software decision involves researching different products and considering IT capacity and legal issues with the school (Samuels et al., 2020). Software platforms, especially ones that have more desirable features and allow greater flexibility, can be prohibitively expensive. Many platforms charge fees per student or per user (e.g., student, field supervisor, advisor), and some companies also charge annual maintenance fees. These extra fees can be financially burdensome for students and for schools that have budget constraints.
A second option for schools of social work is to develop their own field education evaluation system in-house. To do so, schools typically work with their IT department to develop and maintain the system. Two major advantages of this innovative approach are customizability and cost. The evaluation system can be built from the ground up to fit the specific needs and requests of the field department. Even if the school has to cover the cost of IT staff’s time to develop and maintain the system, this is usually much cheaper than the per-user fees and annual fees that schools of social work are subject to when purchasing commercial platforms. There are some drawbacks that come with these advantages. For instance, schools need to have access to the technical expertise to develop the system, and capacity within the field education department to manage it effectively.
Research demonstrates a chasm between the instruction of practice-informed research and research-informed practice in field education. Drawing on surveys, this study explores the perceived benefits of and barriers to student-led field-based research projects among social work field instructors at a private university in southern California. Key benefits identified included improved service delivery and professional connections between research and practice, while key barriers included lack of time and limited employer reward for supporting student research. Field instructor training, field visits, and student preparedness were noted as beneficial supports to enhance research–practice collaborations between community agencies and social work programs.
Keywords: field-based student research projects; field instructor perceptions; benefits and barriers to field-based research
Author’s Note: This article is based on doctoral dissertation research completed by the author on a stakeholder analysis of a baccalaureate social work program. Results of the full stakeholder analysis were published in the winter 2019 issue of the Journal of Social Work Education. A second article, published in the spring 2019 issue of Field Educator, presented new findings on field instructors’ experiences supervising practicum students with challenging behaviors. This article offers additional findings specific to field instructors and their perspectives on professional gatekeeping. Only data pertaining to gatekeeping in field education were included in the analysis reported here. No results or data are duplicated in the three manuscripts.
Abstract
Field instructors play a significant role in students’ social work education. Professional gatekeeping is an ongoing process of evaluating students’ competence and professional suitability. Gatekeeping responsibility often falls to field instructors during practicum. In this exploratory qualitative study, 13 social work field instructors acknowledged an obligation to be professional gatekeepers when they supervised practicum students. Field instructors described four primary considerations influencing their performance of gatekeeping activities: identification with multiple field instructor roles, ethical obligations as a professional social worker, commitment to their students, and support from the university. Findings may be used for training and supporting field instructors.
Keywords: field education; professional gatekeeping; student supervision; social work practicum; field instructors
Drawing on field evaluation surveys, this qualitative case study explored one BSW senior cohort’s (N = 29) perceived characteristics for successful completion of field, experience with field supervisor, and positive aspects of and concerns related to internship placement. Using thematic analysis, findings revealed that students emphasized initiative and flexibility as two characteristics that were important to being successful in practice settings. Learning opportunities and work environment were identified as positive aspects of internship sites, while lack of placement support and poor supervision emerged as two key concerns. Results will inform professionals and educators of strategies to support students’ professional development through field education.
Keywords: field internship; social work education; BSW student experience
Staying current with scholarship enriches the work of field educators: it teaches us innovative ways to solve perennial field problems, suggests new readings for field seminars, keeps us abreast of current debates in social work education, and even inspires us in our own writing on theory and research. “What We’re Reading” presents our brief summaries of the findings of recent publications in field education. Our emphasis is on implications for practice. Readers are encouraged to suggest articles or books for future review.
Melissa Reitmeier, PhD University of South Carolina
[Editor’s Note: This issue’s Conversation features an interview with Melissa Reitmeier, PhD. Dr. Reitmeier is chair of the Council on Social Work Education’s Council on Field Education. She is also director of field education and an associate clinical professor at the College of Social Work, University of South Carolina.]
It is time to take a breath—albeit a cautious one—in hopes that we can begin to think of the future once again. For all of us, the year behind has shaped all the years ahead. We’ve watched the devastation of a global pandemic and the pulling back of the curtain on the injustices that plague us at so many levels. We are reminded, more than ever, of our commitment to social justice. And we are reminded of the power and productivity of joining together in crisis. Field educators everywhere have been a global team in a way we may never have thought possible.
Field education faces unique and daunting challenges as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Partner organizations have been forced to upend their service-delivery models, students are facing new levels of stress and isolation, and field faculty have been forced to rethink the nature and form of field education. Through field education, students should develop their professional identity, learn how to work as part of a team, and learn how to interact and communicate with clients and stakeholders. With social distancing and the challenges associated with moving traditional in-person social work to remote models, field faculty must develop new and innovative models that allow students to gain those skills. Additionally, the pandemic has dramatically altered the context in which students and agencies operate. Students and agencies are facing higher levels of stress and insecurity; these factors must be taken into consideration, and models of field education should adapt to better suit the new context.
From 1996 until his retirement in 2020, Dr. William “Bill” Fisher served as a member of the faculty of Springfield College in Springfield, Massachusetts. He held leadership roles as the assistant dean of field education and as chair of the Department of Graduate Social Work. As the assistant dean for field education, he is known by his faculty and community colleagues for his excellence in teaching, advising, and educational administration. Most significant has been his contribution to the Springfield College Field Education Department, where he successfully led a busy program, managing field placements for over 250 MSW students and developing approximately 500 field agency partnerships, while also advising students and teaching the yearly seminar in field instruction.
Over a two-year period, Master of Social Work (MSW) field education students were asked to complete measures on their trauma histories and trauma symptoms to assess their risk for secondary traumatic stress (STS) and vicarious trauma (VT) when in field placements. Results of the study found that a significant number of students had trauma histories, that they developed symptoms of STS while in their field experience, and that some developed symptoms of VT. Results indicate the necessity for trauma training, including self-care, for all faculty members, supervising field instructors, and student interns to support the field experience.
Keywords: field education; secondary traumatic stress; vicarious trauma; social work; master’s students
COVID-19 shifted social work field education into an existential crisis when field placements were required to fully transition to a virtual service delivery model in early March 2020. This launched students, agencies, and field education programs into uncharted territory. The timing of a return to in-person, agency-based training remained unknown during the peak of the pandemic, and continues to be unpredictable. With no preparation for a catastrophe of this extent and duration, social work field education curricula and infrastructure required immediate redesign, using unprecedented practices, such as agency-supported, fully remote practice, and school of social work–supported alternative trainings and learning activities. In this article, the authors describe the strategies employed and lessons learned by two urban social work field education programs in the Pacific Northwest. Both programs returned to historic social work values, informed by social justice, through deepening engagement with community partners, students, and school of social work–based research centers to create innovative remote field placements designed to respond to community and student needs.
Field education is considered the signature pedagogy of the social work profession (Council on Social Work Education [CSWE], 2008). “Signature pedagogy is a central form of instruction and learning to socialize students to perform the role of a practitioner” (CSWE, 2008, p. 8). Although the primary delivery mechanism for field education is the internship and its accompanying professional social work supervision, field seminars are an important component. The practicum seminar has been noted to serve a wide range of educational purposes for the development of social work professionals by integrating classroom and field learning and socializing students to the process of peer consultation (Fortune et al., 2018). It can be used to prepare students for employment (Deck et al., 2017) and help students critically reflect on their development (Bowers, 2017; Bowlin & Cress, 2015). The field seminar also provides an opportunity to share experiences, reinforce values and ethics, examine agency policies and procedures, explore personal reactions and feelings to situations, discuss personal and professional challenges, and network with other students in a safe environment. (Dill & Bowers, 2020; Harris & Myers, 2013).
In 2008, the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) identified field education as the signature pedagogy for preparing future social workers to be competent, ethical, and professional (CSWE, 2015b). Historically, social work education segregated curriculum into micro, mezzo, and macro practice skills and theory. Over the past decade, the CSWE has revised the Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (EPAS) as a curricular roadmap emphasizing integrating academic standards and practice skills into a cohesive, dynamic, and comprehensive curriculum (CSWE, 2015a).
Social work field education is considered a key element of social work education. While many field education placements traditionally have focused on teaching practice-based skills and integrating theory into practice, it is also critical to incorporate research into social work practice and field education. This article discusses how practice research can be integrated into social work field education by drawing upon a training module designed for this purpose by the Transforming the Field Education Landscape (TFEL) partnership. Implications and recommendations for practice research and field educators are provided.
Keywords: field education; practice research; social work; practicum/internship
Staying current with scholarship enriches the work of field educators: it teaches us innovative ways to solve perennial field problems, suggests new readings for field seminars, keeps us abreast of current debates in social work education, and even inspires us in our own writing on theory and research. “What We’re Reading” presents our brief summaries of the findings of recent publications in field education. Our emphasis is on implications for practice. Readers are encouraged to suggest articles or books for future review.
[Editor’s Note: This issue’s Conversation features an interview by Nancy Blumberg, MSW, with Anthony Serio, MSW, and Sharon Gunda, MSW. Anthony Serio is the Assistant Director of Youth and Family Services for the Town of Lexington, Mass. Sharon Gunda is the Outreach Coordinator for the Town of Lexington Human Services Department.]
In the grips of a global health crisis, and amidst all the chaos and uncertainty, field educators near and far have come together in the most remarkable of ways. In a world that feels (and is) so divided, the sense of community between us has been balm for these anxiety-filled times. It is in that spirit that we offer kudos to field educators everywhere: for the commitment to students even while distracted by the disruption and loss in our own lives; for the endless days of decision making; for the sleepless nights burdened with worries of life and death for our students; and for the exhaustion of our spirits as students looked to us to make it all whole. Who knew that PPE and CDC would be added to our library of field acronyms, or that we would suddenly feel so closely connected to our institutions’ uncertain financial futures?
by Julie L. Drolet, PhD
University of Calgary
Mohammad Idris Alemi, MSW Student
University of Calgary
Marion Bogo, OC
University of Toronto
Emmanuel Chilanga, MSW Student
McGill University
Natalie Clark, PhD
Thompson Rivers University
Sally St. George, PhD
University of Calgary
Grant Charles, PhD
The University of British Columbia
Jill Hanley, PhD
McGill University
Sheri M. McConnell, PhD
Memorial University of Newfoundland
Eileen McKee, MSW
University of Toronto
Christine A. Walsh, PhD
University of Calgary
Daniel Wulff, PhD
University of Calgary
Transition from In-Person to Online: A Virtual Partnership Project
The COVID-19 pandemic has affected all spheres of life—social, economic, educational, political, cultural, spiritual, and environmental. Internationally, adjustments have had to be made in service provision in adherence to public health guidelines, and post-secondary institutions have developed strategies to mitigate the impacts of COVID-19 on student learners (Reimers & Schleicher, 2020). In order to ensure safety for students, staff, and faculty, and in response to local public health guidelines on physical distancing, Canadian post-secondary institutions rapidly shifted to virtual platforms and operations for teaching, student learning, and research (Bazinet et al., 2020; Wall, 2020). This transition affected all aspects of social work education programs, including student field placements and related field education activities (Canadian Association of Social Work Education [CASWE], 2020).
by Christine V. Rogerson, MSW
University of New England
Rebecca Diggins, MSW
University of New England
Wanda L. Anderson, MSW
University of New England
Jennifer O’Neil, PhD
University of New England
Autumn A. V. Straw, MSW
University of New England
Since the cautious move towards online social work education began in the early 2000s, we have seen the growth, change, and expansion of opportunities for individuals living in isolated rural areas, especially those working full-time, those serving or having served in our military, and those with caretaking obligations. Being at the forefront of creating and offering a fully asynchronous online Master of Social Work (MSW) program in 2009, the University of New England’s School of Social Work initially witnessed wariness and suspicion around online social work education. Over a decade later there is now some form of online programming at nearly every school of social work. Most have come to accept and appreciate the online delivery method of social work courses, social work training, and even social work networking.
In 2008, the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) described field education as the signature pedagogy of social work education. Field work provides the opportunity for students to integrate social work theory into practice, and is the optimal opportunity for problem-based learning. Because the majority of an MSW (Master’s in Social Work) student’s time is spent in field, it reinforces the importance CSWE (2008) places on a student’s ability to demonstrate skills learned in order to meet the competencies of social work education. Due to this emphasis on real-world learning in social work education, the knowledge and skills of the student’s internship supervisor, or field instructor (FI), are also very important. Given the potential impact of the role of the FI, it is required that students be supervised by a master’s level social work professional who is not only a good social worker and well qualified, but ideally also familiar with best practices for adult learning, instruction, and supervision. A critical component of a social work program’s quality assurance for the FI role (outside of requiring a social work degree) is providing a required FI training. Unfortunately, this vital training often has low completion rates, leaving social work programs struggling to incentivize field instructors to complete the training. Possible reasons for low completion rates include disinterest in content covered, FI’s assumption that they can perform the role without training, limited time availability, and/or lack of agency administrative support. This article will provide an overview of FI training, discuss the importance of FI training, and examine ways social work programs could increase completion rates. The authors end with a discussion and call to action for social work programs to consider the student impact and importance of encouraging their FIs to participate and complete training, ideally prior to working with their MSW students.
by Jedediah E. Bragg, PhD
University of Oklahoma
Tiffany Adamson, MSW
University of Oklahoma
Rachel McBride, MSW
University of Oklahoma
Julie Miller-Cribbs, PhD
University of Oklahoma
Eden D.E. Nay, MSW
University of Oklahoma
Ricky T. Munoz, JD
University of Oklahoma
Daniel Howell, MSW
University of Oklahoma
Field education is considered the signature pedagogy of social work education and the fundamental location for the implementation of learning into practice. Preparing students for the field is paramount to their success. This paper explores the use of field labs in combination with simulation conducted in a controlled environment outside of the classroom to prepare social work students for their first field placement. Students participating in the program (N = 22) completed both a pre- and post-assessment of their knowledge of safety as measured on an objective exam and self-estimate of counseling skills as measured on the Clinical Self Estimate Inventory. Results of a series of paired-samples t-tests with a Bonferroni correction indicated that knowledge and self-estimate of these skills had statistically significant increases (p < .007), supporting the concept of field labs in conjunction with simulation as valuable tools in preparing social work students for entrance into field education.
Keywords: field education; simulation; field seminar; social work education
The connection between our profession and the protection of children from harm is historic and represents the heart of social work as a discipline (Zlotnik, 2008). Social workers in child welfare practice pursue the essential charge of protecting children from acts of physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, and the various forms of neglect including (but not limited to) medical neglect, truancy, and inattention to physical and developmental needs (Hamilton & Bundy-Fazioli, 2013; Shireman, 2015). In the academy of social work education, student placements in public child welfare agencies are often considered among the most challenging, while at the same time mainstays for many field education programs. While the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) specifies that social work students must demonstrate competence with regard to ethical and professional behavior (CSWE, 2015), this generalist standard does not address ethical challenges and dilemmas that are unique to the practice of child welfare. Hence, common ethical dilemmas in child welfare practice, such as negotiating the practice obligation to keep families together while also keeping children safe, may prove challenging for field education students contemplating a career in public child welfare (Shireman, 2015).
by Quincy Dinnerson, DSW
Norfolk State University
Tiffany Lane, PhD
University of North Carolina Wilmington
Shebby Neely-Goodwin, PhD
Norfolk State University
Sandra Williamson-Ashe, EdD
Norfolk State University
Breshell Jackson-Nevels, PhD
Norfolk State University
Field education is the signature pedagogy at accredited social work education programs. The purpose of field education is for students to integrate the theoretical and conceptual knowledge, values, and skills learned in their courses into practice (CSWE EPAS, 2015). In addition, field education serves as the liaison between the school or department of social work and the surrounding community. The role of the field education office is to build partnerships with agencies and encourage students to be a part of that process to strengthen their skills and ensure that community partnerships are sustained. The purpose of this article is to describe how one Historically Black College or University (HBCU) prepares students for field education by engaging them in professional development experiences, community engagement, and intentional supports. The culminating professional development experience for social work students at this university is a social work agency fair where students engage with social service organizations and demonstrate soft skills. In order to support students’ demonstration of professionalism, the school of social work provides intentional supports and mock interviews, and engages them in interprofessional education activities.
In this small-scale study of 130 respondents from the CSWE Field Directors listserv, the research explores the pedagogical challenges and opportunities of teaching social work field seminars. Adult learning theory and the integration and implementation of self-directed learning become the genesis for a better understanding of how to teach a seminar in a way that engages students in active and reflective learning. This analysis provides a platform for understanding the fundamental pedagogical requirements of teaching field seminars in social work education.
Keywords: field education; field seminar; adult learning theory; student-led
by Dana J. Sullivan, PhD
Western Kentucky University
Kristin Danhoff, PhD
Metropolitan State University of Denver
Brian Christenson, PhD
Capella University
Ruth Gerritsen-McKane, PhD
Regis College
Tobi DeLong-Hamilton, PhD
Brandman University
Kathryn Krase, PhD
Yeshiva University
Tameca Harris-Jackson, PhD
Regis College
The SWEAP 2015 Field Placement/Practicum Assessment Instrument is a standardized measure of student attainment in field practicum/placement, designed to align with the 2015 Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards of the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE, 2015). The tool is used by field instructors in undergraduate social work programs and in the generalist year of graduate programs to assess student competency across the nine CSWE Core Competencies. Analysis of data on 4,209 students from 66 undergraduate social work programs and 795 generalist-year master’s-level social work students from 10 graduate programs supports the reliability, validity, and utility of the instrument.
by Heather Sloane, PhD
University of Toledo
Courtney Rice, MSW
National Alliance on Mental Illness, Bowling Green, Ohio
Ciara Cuthbert, MSW
Dorchester Alcohol and Drug Commission
Health care professions are emphasizing the importance of well-functioning teams to improve health outcomes. Educating students in professional silos has been the tradition in higher education, but this separate approach has come under scrutiny for creating barriers to addressing the complexity of today’s health care system in the United States. Collaborative problem solving is necessary to end health disparities and medical error. The authors discuss an interprofessional internship using multiple approaches to interprofessional education that embrace interactive learning, and explore educational opportunities from the students’ point of view. The authors highlight observations about reluctance within the student interprofessional teams to make mistakes or to explain miscommunication supporting research evidence, suggesting that students harbor fears of disrupting hierarchy and the status quo.
Keywords: error; social work; interprofessional; SDOH
Field directors are challenged to accommodate competing demands from students, administration, and placement agencies (Buck, Bradley, Robb, & Kirzner, 2012). Logistics of commuting, cost, caregiving needs, and needs for flexible scheduling are all common limitations that field directors consider (Bradley & Buck, 2014). As the broker and main point of contact for placements, field directors are also responsible for developing and maintaining strong relationships with agencies in their community (Bradley & Buck, 2014). With an increase of students entering field and competition from other local colleges, options can be scarce.
Additionally, it is a time-consuming process for field directors to develop new placements, recruit and orient field instructors, and negotiate affiliation agreements (Buck et al., 2012). Maintaining relationships long term reduces field director workload in searching for new placements. The positive effect of student contributions through well-structured field assignments on these working relationships can be easily overlooked.
by Ashley Roberge, MSW Candidate
Simmons University
Staying current with scholarship enriches the work of field educators: it teaches us innovative ways to solve perennial field problems, suggests new readings for field seminars, keeps us abreast of current debates in social work education, and even inspires us in our own writing on theory and research. “What We’re Reading” presents our brief summaries of the findings of recent publications in field education. Our emphasis is on implications for practice. Readers are encouraged to suggest articles or books for future review. Read more »
Over the past 40 years, Trudy Zimmerman has offered her educational and administrative knowledge to Boston University’s School of Social Work. From the start of her career at Boston University in 1980, Trudy made her mark in the School of Social Work. She was known by colleagues as someone with “exquisitely good judgement” who shared her wisdom and kindness to all. Trudy was viewed as an “invaluable source of help” and a “beacon of light” for many students. Her devotion to social work was so palpable that one colleague shared, “Trudy’s insights, experiences, and commitment to the signature pedagogy of social work education is an extraordinary strength and great light in BUSSW.”
The field practicum is social work’s signature pedagogy, but no empirical research has established how many hours students need to develop professional competence. Extensive hours pose hardships for working students, so research should determine minimum and optimal numbers of practicum hours. This quasi-experimental study evaluated changes to field hours for BSW, Foundation MSW, and Advanced MSW students. Reduced hours did not harm BSW and Advanced MSW students’ preparedness. However, increased hours may have aided Foundation MSW students’ skill development. Social work programs should consider students’ professional development and their school, work, and family obligations when setting field practicum hours requirements.
Keywords: field practicum; field hours; practice readiness; social work internship; evaluation
This qualitative study explored the advice of graduating BSW students (N=180) to upper-level students about to embark on their practicum field experience. Using a content analysis methodology, students’ field experience reflections on preparing for the practicum centered on three major themes: practical tips for picking a practicum, being teachable, and finding value in the practicum experience. The desired goal for this inquiry was to provide information that would prove useful to students entering their practicum experience, the field instructors providing on-site supervision, and the BSW field directors conducting orientation to both of these groups.
Keywords: practicum; BSW students; content analysis; field experiences
[Authors’ Note: This paper was supported by grants from the Health Resources and Services Administration: G02HP279900201 and M01HP31370.]
Introduction
A 2018 Annual Report from the Center for Collegiate Mental Health on college and university campuses reported a steady increase in the number of college students seeking mental health services (Center for Collegiate Mental Health, 2019). Yet, nationally and locally, universities are grappling with how to provide needed services despite limited resources (Blake, 2019; Xiao et al., 2017). Given this, an innovative pilot was created for the dual benefit of expanding integrated behavioral health field placements at one School of Social Work (SSW) while also providing more comprehensive integrated services at Campus Health (CH), the health care center for the student population at the flagship campus of a public university located in the southeastern United States.
Field education is the signature pedagogy of social work programs, serving to develop the skills and competencies required for this professional designation. This qualitative study explores the experiences of social workers supervising students in the current millennial and Z generations in their social work field placements. Field supervisors indicated challenges particular to the current generation of social work students as coming in the form of a lack of confidence, initiative, and work ethic, and difficulty accepting feedback and engaging in critical self-reflection. The findings highlight the need for social work educators to revisit traditional approaches to teaching and evaluation.
Keywords: social work; field education; generation; qualitative
In 2018, field faculty at the University of Southern California Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work launched a pilot project called Trauma-Informed Interview Coaching (TIIC). The project’s goals were to support justice-involved MSW students during the field placement process, to decrease failed agency interviews, and to reduce agency replacements. This project is ongoing and data on its outcomes are being collected and evaluated.
Practicum, also known as field education, is the signature pedagogy for a wide range of professional education programs, especially social work (Ralph, Walker, & Wimmer, 2007; Wayne, Bogo, & Raskin, 2010). Social work is a profession concerned with helping individuals, families, groups, and communities to enhance their individual and collective well-being (Canadian Association of Social Workers, n.d.). With approximately 50,000 social workers in Canada, the profession plays a critical role in the delivery of social services in the labor market (Stephenson, Rondeau, Michaud, & Fiddler, 2001). The social work profession and the accrediting and regulatory bodies for social work education recognize the critical importance of practicum in preparing the future social service workforce (Bogo, 2015). Field placements provide real-world practice experience in which knowledge, skills, and values that students learn in the classroom are applied within practice settings under the supervision of a qualified professional (Ralph et al., 2007). Many schools of social work offer a traditional agency-based model of field education in which unpaid, voluntary, one-on-one “tutoring” is provided by professional social workers, or field instructors (Bogo, 2006). Field instructors serve as mentors, teachers, and role models for practicum students by demonstrating the necessary knowledge, skills, attitudes, values, and ethics required to be a practicing professional through supervised application of practice in the field (Ayala et al., 2018; Barretti, 2007; Bogo, 2006).
[Editor’s Note: This issue’s Conversation features an interview by Kim Harriman, MSW, Editor-in-Chief of the Field Educator with Julie Drolet, PhD, Professor in the Faculty of Social Work at the University of Calgary and Project Director of the Transforming the Field Education Landscape partnership. Her research in the field of international social work focuses on disaster social work, immigrant settlement and integration, social protection, social development, and social work field education. She is a registered social worker with the Alberta College of Social Workers (ACSW). She collaborates with several interdisciplinary teams of scholars on various research initiatives, and employs numerous students as research assistants. We invite readers to learn more by reading Dr. Drolet’s article in the Practice Digest section of this issue, entitled “A New Partnership: Transforming the Field Education Landscape – Intersections of Research and Practice in Canadian Social Work Field Education.”]
[Editor’s Note: Estella C. Williamson is the Social Work Field Director at Seattle University. Dr. Williamson also teaches advanced practice and human behavior coursework in the MSW program. She currently serves as chair of the CSWE Council on Field Education. Dr. Williamson earned her DSW from the University of Pennsylvania and her MSW from the University at Albany, State University of New York. Her research interests are in field education, mental health, and HIV prevention among Black women. Dr. Williamson has professional social work practice experience in child welfare, outpatient mental health and addictions, prenatal services, and HIV clinical and preventive care. She has instructional and curriculum development experience. Dr. Williamson has also maintained a private clinical practice in New York State for many years.]
According to Noble and Irwin (2009), social work supervision balances ethically-informed, competent, and accountable practice with a focus on a learner-centered partnership. As a distinct form of supervision, field instruction focuses on the educational outcomes for students. This focus distinguishes field instruction from staff supervision. While staff supervision focuses heavily on managerial responsibilities such as task coverage, equitable caseloads, and client outcomes, field supervisors are also educators who must balance agency needs with student learning needs. Bogo and McKnight (2006) identify three essential functions of field supervision: 1) the educational function, 2) the supportive function, and 3) the administrative function. The administrative function of field supervision focuses on task assignments and monitoring student performance according to the agency’s practices and policies. By contrast, the educational function emphasizes professional growth, including skill development, and awareness. Finally, the supportive function ensures that the supervisor assists the supervisee in handling stress while gaining appropriate autonomy through encouragement and reassurance. Quality field supervision involves the incorporation of all three functions.
by Kim Kelly Harriman, MSW
Field Educator Editor-in-Chief
We would be hard-pressed to release an issue of this journal without acknowledging the global pandemic that has all but stopped the world in its tracks, and taken thousands of lives along the way. One day we were all going about our business, and the next (or so it seemed), our work worlds became virtual, our personal stories complicated and pained, and the future uncertain.
Ronnie Glassman was presented her award by members of the NANFED Board of Directors Pictured from left to right: Angela Savage, Michele Sienkiewicz, Ronnie Glassman, Theresia Johnson-Ratliff, Julie Kates, Froylana Heredia-Miller, and Kimberly Gibson
Dr. Ronnie Glassman was honored with the Dean Schneck Memorial Award for Distinction in Social Work Field Education at NANFED’s annual reception at the 2019 CSWE APM in Denver. At the presentation of the award, Dr. Glassman was acknowledged as, “one of the early leaders of field education as we know it today; an advocate, organizer, and role model for hundreds of field directors over her long career.”
As the signature pedagogy of social work education, field education is a critical and complicated aspect of program development. Effectively managing this complex process is a priority and requires a significant amount of administrative activity to maintain compliance and manage experiences for all stakeholders. While countless field placement software platforms are available to streamline processes and improve efficiencies, little guidance is available to support programs to strategically evaluate, select, and implement a software platform. In this article, the authors provide a model for vetting field placement software using a case study. The article concludes with implications for other universities considering adopting software to manage placements within their social work field education departments.
Keywords: social work; field education; placement software; technology; case study
by Ashley Roberge, MSW Candidate
Simmons University
Staying current with scholarship enriches the work of field educators: it teaches us innovative ways to solve perennial field problems, suggests new readings for field seminars, keeps us abreast of current debates in social work education, and even inspires us in our own writing on theory and research. “What We’re Reading” presents our brief summaries of the findings of recent publications in field education. Our emphasis is on implications for practice. Readers are encouraged to suggest articles or books for future review. Read more »
by Kim Kelly Harriman, MSW
Field Educator Editor-in-Chief
Show me a social work field department that is not engaged daily in huddles: making complicated decisions, brokering tailored plans, toiling over ethical quandaries, or determining the readiness of students for placement (a humbling responsibility), and I will assure you that the academic year has not yet begun.
Such is the life and the energy of field education: preparing diverse groups of students to bring their own humanity to the table – all in the name of impacting the humanity of others. I think we call that the “professional use of self.” We know that the process goes better sometimes than it does others.
According to data from the National Association of Social Workers (2015), the social work profession is still predominantly female and white, though recent data from the Council on Social Work Education (2018) suggest the social work student body is more racially and ethnically diverse, particularly among part-time students. Part-time students in both BSW and MSW programs are also older—ages 25 to 34—than their full-time counterparts (Council on Social Work Education [CSWE], 2018). As urban, suburban, and rural communities around the U.S. continue to become more diverse, social work programs aim to graduate students competent to practice in a variety of contexts.
Over the past decade, the social work literature has increasingly acknowledged that the field requires not only effective practice with diverse populations, but a social work student body and workforce reflective of this diversity as well (Doyle & George, 2008; McCormack, 2008). According to the George Washington University Health Workforce Institute (2018) the field is on its way. Researchers found that recent graduates from social work programs were diverse in age, race/ethnicity, and sexual orientation. Most also entered the field with previous work experience.
Few studies have empirically examined training approaches aimed at improving self-care among field supervisors. This brief documents the assessment of The Self-Care Wellshop™, a training that was delivered to field supervisors (N=40) in one southeastern state. Evaluators employed a retrospective pre-post design to examine variables of interest. Overall, findings indicate that participants were satisfied with the training. As well, analyses reveal significant increases in self-care knowledge and value associated with self-care. Data from this study suggest that specific attention to proffering self-care trainings to field supervisors can be beneficial and may have implications for socializing students matriculating into the profession.
Keywords: Self-Care; Training Model; Field Supervisors Read more »
[Editor’s Note: This issue’s Conversation features an interview by Elizabeth Whitney, MSW, Assistant Director of Field Education-Curriculum and Training for Simmons University’s online program SocialWork@Simmons, with Sharyn DeZelar, PhD, MSW, Assistant Professor and Lisa R. Kiesel, PhD, MSW, Associate Professor, both at St. Catherine University. They explore themes from their recent article (written with Elizabeth Lightfoot, Professor at University of Minnesota School of Social Work) Challenges, Barriers, and Opportunities: Social Workers With Disabilities and Experiences in Field Education published in the Journal of Social Work Education in 2018 available at https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2018.1507365]
[Editor’s Note: Riva Zeff, MSW is retiring after 50 years in foster care, adoptions, and social work field education. To celebrate her contributions during 11 years (3 as co-chair) on the Baccalaureate Program Directors Field Education Committee, three current and former field directors recently interviewed her. Our Kudos for this issue are compiled excerpts from that interview. The full interview is available through StoryCorps at https://archive.storycorps.org/interviews/reflections-of-a-social-work-field-educator.]
Field education has long been an important part of professional social work education (Abbott, 1942). The Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) 2015 Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards states that social work field education is the signature pedagogy of BSW and MSW programs (CSWE, 2015).
Developing high quality field education programs must be a high priority for social work educational programs. However, internal and external barriers often exist to achieving this goal. Externally there is often competition between schools in close proximity to one another for quality field placements and field instructors. Internally, increased emphasis on research and publication placed on faculty members can limit time available for full and active investment in the field supervision process (Bogo, 2010; Dalton, Stevens, & Maas-Brady, 2009).
Voting is social work. Voting is a fundamental right of citizenship, hard-won by people of color, women, and immigrants over the course of United States history. The extent to which voting is woven into our individual and collective identities as U.S. citizens is shown by the many benefits voting provides. Voting can improve personal wellbeing by lessening mental health consequences related to marginalization and oppression (Sanders, 2001), and by providing a personal sense of empowerment (Davis, 2010). Increased voting can benefit communities by resulting in increased community resources (Martin, 2003; Martin & Claibourn, 2013). Voting is one of the most direct levers affecting social work policy. Simply put, social welfare policy reflects the views of those who vote. For example, an increase in participation by low-income voters leads to policies that reduce income inequality (Avery, 2015), and result in greater spending on healthcare for low-income children, higher minimum wages, and more regulations of predatory lending (Franko, 2013). Addressing these issues, at the personal, community, and national levels, lies at the heart of social work as a profession. Read more »
Social media use is growing rapidly among the general public. This study examined social media use patterns among field instructors and explored the benefits and barriers of using social media in field education. Data were collected through a cross-sectional survey with close- and open-ended questions. A total of 153 field instructors participated. The results showed that the majority of field instructors have not used social media in field education. They also identified advantages and challenges of social media use in field education. Future research should further explore how social media can be used to strengthen the field education effort.
Keywords: social media; social networking; field education; social work education; student supervision Read more »
Individuals in rural communities are in need of social workers who are prepared to address their needs. Field education helps prepare students for professional practice, and should be structured to address the needs of rural communities. This literature review examines the social work literature for best practices in rural field education and provides recommendations to improve field education in rural settings.
Keywords: rural; literature review; field education Read more »
This review examines the application of a trauma-informed perspective to field education programs and models of supervision. There are many dimensions to this topic. While there is emerging literature on trauma-informed social work supervision and field instruction (Berger & Quiros, 2016; Knight, 2018) there remains minimal exploration of how a trauma-informed model of care can be applied to a social work field education model.
