Seminar in Field Instruction

Syllabus

Section I: Beginnings and Contracting

Goals:
  • To build a supervisory relationship and educational foundation with the student.
  • To develop a comprehensive learning contract between the student, the school, and the agency.
  • To pay particular attention to the multicultural dimensions of social work practice in considering the agency mission, the programs within the agency, the staff and the community served.
Readings:

Fortune, A. E., McCarthy, M., & Abramson, J.S. (2001). Student learning processes in field education:  Relationship of learning activities to quality of field instruction satisfaction and performance among MSW students.  Journal of Social Work Education, 37(1), Winter, 111-124.

Friedman, B.D., & Neuman, K.M. (2001). Learning plans:  A tool for forging allegiances in social work education. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 21(3-4), 123-138.

Giddings, M.M., Thompson, K.H., & Holland, T.P. (1997). The relationship between student assessment of agency work climate and satisfaction with practicum. Arete, 21, Winter, 25-35.

Harejsi, C.R., & Garthwait, C.L. (2002). The social work practicum.  Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Raschick, M., Maypole, D.E., & Day, P.A. (1998). Improving field education training through Kolb learning theory.  Journal of Social Work Education, 34(1), 31-42.

Regehr, C., Regehr, G., Leeson, J., & Fusco, L. (2002). Setting priorities for learning in the Field Practicum:  A comparative study of students and field instructors.  Journal of Social Work Education, 38(1), Winter, 55-65.

Section II: Student Development and Learning Assessment

Goals:

To assist field instructors/supervisors in assessing interns’ learning needs and styles.  To provide a forum where field instructors/supervisors may develop instruction techniques and opportunities that meet interns’ learning needs and styles.  These instruction techniques should extend and expand interns’ social work practice skills.

Readings:

Belenky, M., Clinch, B., Goldberger, N. & Tarule, J. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind.  New York: Basic Books.

Coulshed, V. (1993). Adult learning: Implications for teaching in social work education.  The British Journal of Social Work, 23, 1-13.

Curry, D.H., Caplan, P., & Knuppel, J. (1994).  Transfer of training and adult learning (TOTAL).  Journal of Continuing Social Work Education, 6(1), 8-14.

Dore, M.M. (1994).  Feminist pedagogy and the teaching of social work practice.  Journal of Social Work Education, 30(1), 97-106.

Fortune, A., McCarthy, M. & Abramson, J.S. (2001).  Student learning processes in field education: Relationship of learning activities to quality of field instruction, satisfaction, and performance among MSW students. Journal of Social Work Education, 37(1), 111-124.

Horejsi & Garthwait, (2002). The Social Work Practicum (2nd ed).  Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Knowles, M.S. (1968). Andragogy, not pedagogy! Adult Leadership, 16(10), 350-352 and 386.

Knowles, M. S. (1970). The modern practice of adult education: Andragogy versus pedagogy. New York, NY: Association Press.

KoIb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Also See Listed Websites: http://www.cyg.net/~jblackmo/diglib/

http://www.learningfromexperience.com/html/assessment_tools.html

Raschick, M., Maypole, D., and Day, P. (1998). Improving field education through Kolb learning theory. Journal of Social Work Education, 34(1), 31-42.

Regehr, C., Regehr, G., Leeson, J. & Fusco, L. (2002). Setting priorities for learning in the field practicum: A comparative study of students and field instructors. Journal of Social Work Education, 38(1), 55-64.

Royse, D., Dhooper, S.S., & Rompf, E.L. (2003). Field instruction: A guide for social work students (4th ed). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Saari, C. (1989). The process of learning in clinical social work. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 60, 35-49.

Teigiser, K.S. & Chambon, A. (1989). From concepts to practice. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 3(1), 117-130.

Tourse, R.W.C., McInnis-Dittrich, K., and Platt, S. (1999). The road to autonomous practice: A practice competency teaching approach for supervision. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 19(1/2), 3-19.

Section III: The Supervisory Relationship

Goal:

To understand the role and functions of the supervisory relationship.

Readings:

Black, J., Maki, M., Nunn, J. (1997). Does race affect the social work student-field instructor relationship? Clinical Supervisor, 16(1) 39-55.

Dean, Ruth. (1984). The role of empathy in supervision. The Clinical Social Work Journal, 12.

Fox, Raymond. (1989). Relationship: The cornerstone of clinical supervision. The Journal of Contemporary Social Work, 146-152.

Freeman, Edith. (1985). The importance of feedback in clinical supervision: Implications for direct practice. The Clinical Supervisor,3(1), 5-26.

Kadushin, A.E. (1992). Supervision in Social Work. New York: Columbia University Press.

McRoy, Freeman et al. Cross-Cultural Field Supervision: Implications for Social Work Education.

Peterson, F.K. (1991). Issues of race and ethnicity in supervision: Emphasizing who you are, not what you know. The Clinical Supervisor, 9(1), 15-31.

Soest, D.V. and Kruzich, J. (1994). The influence of learning styles on student and field instructor perceptions of field placement success. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 49-69.

Williams, Abi B. (Winter 1997). On parallel process in social work supervision. Clinical Social Work Journal, 25(4), 425-434.

Section IV: The Use of Process Recordings

Goal:

Field instructors will develop skills to use process and other reflective recordings effectively in supervision

Readings:

Graybeal, C. & Ruff, E. (1995). Process recordings: It’s more than you think. Journal of Social Work Education, 31(2), 169-181.

Hawthorne, L. (1987). Teaching from recordings in field instruction. The Clinical Supervisor, 5(2), 7-21.

Neuman, K. & Friedman, B. (1997). Process recordings: fine-tuning an old instrument. Journal of Social Work Education, 33(2), 237-243.

Urdang, E. (1979). In defense of process recordings. Smith Studies in Social Work I, 1-15.

Section V: The Faculty Field Advisor

Goal:

To understand and make use of the Faculty Advisor/Liaison (in the school agency-student triad).

Readings:

Bogo, M., & Globerman, J. (1999). Interorganizational relationships between schools of social work and field agencies. The Journal of Social Work Education, 35(2), 265-275.

Burke, S.G., Condon, S., & Wickell, B. (1999). The field liaison role in schools of social work: A break with the past. The Clinical Supervisor, 18(1), 203-210.

Hanna, E.A. (1992). The demise of the field advising role in social work education. The Clinical Supervisor, 10, 149-164.

McInnis-Dittrick, K. & Coe, J. (1997). Triangular relationships in field education: Implications for faculty liaison role. The Clinical Supervisor, 15(2), 91-104.

Rosenblum, A.F. & Raphael, F.B. (1983). An operational guide to faculty field liaison role, 68, 156-163.

Rosenblum, A.F. & Raphael, F.B. (1983). The role and function of the faculty field liaison. Journal of Education for Social Work, 19, 67-73.

Urdang, E. (1991). The discipline of faculty advising. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 5(1), 117-137.

Section VI: Addressing Learning Problems in the Field

Goal:

To learn how to identify and address student learning problems in the field.

Readings:

Abbott, A., & Lyter. (1998). The use of constructive criticism in field supervision. The Clinical Supervisor, 17(2), 43-57.

Freeman, E. (1985). The importance of feedback in clinical supervision: Implications for direct practice. The Clinical Supervisor, 3(1), 5-26.

Koerin, B. and Miller, J. Gate-keeping policies: Terminating students for nonacademic reasons.

Rosenblaum, A. F. and Raphael, F. B. (1987). Students at risk in the field practicum and implications for field teaching. The Clinical Supervisor, 5(3), 53-63.

Section VII: Ethical and Legal Issues

Goal:

To understand the critical ethical and legal issues inherent in the supervisory role and relationship.

Readings:

Bonosky, N. (1985). Boundary violations in social work supervision: Clinical, educational and legal implications. The Clinical Supervisor, 13(2), 79-95.

Bridges, N.A. (1998). Teaching psychiatric trainees to respond to sexual and loving feelings: The supervisory challenge. Journal of Psychotherapy Practice and Research, 7(3), 217-226.

Cole, B.S., Christ, C.C., & Light, T.R. (1985). Social work education and students with disabilities: Implications of Section 504 and the ADA. Journal of Social Work Education, 31(2), 261-268.

Cole, B.S. and Cane, M.W. (1997). Social work students with disabilities: A proactive approach to accommodation.  Journal of Social Work Education, 33(2), 341-349.

Jacobs, C. (1991). Violation of the supervisory relationship: An ethical and educational blind spot.  Social Work, 36(2), 130-135.

NASW Code of Ethics.

Reamer, F.G. (2000). The social work ethics audit: A risk-management strategy.  Social Work, 45(4), 355-366.

Reeser, L.C., & Wertkin, R.A. (1997).  Sharing Sensitive Student Information with Field Instructors: Responses of Students, Liaisons, and Field Instructors. Journal of Social Work Education, 33(2), 347-362.

Reeser, L.C. (1992). Students with disabilities in practicum: What is reasonable accommodation?  Journal of Social Work Education, 28(1), 98-109.

Rosenblum & Raphael.  Balancing students’ right to privacy with the need for self disclosure in field education.  Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 5(1), 7-19.

Section VIII: Multiculturalism and Oppression

Goal:

Field instructors will ensure that multiculturalism and anti-oppression practice are a consistent focus of the students’ field experiences.

Readings:

Batts, Valerie. (1998). Modern racism: New melody for the same old tunes.

Beckett, J. & Dungee-Anderson, D. (1996). A framework for agency-based multicultural training and supervision. Journal of Multicultural Social Work, 4(4), 27-48.

Black, J., Maki, M., & Nunn, J. (1997). Does race affect the social work student-field instructor relationship? The Clinical Supervisor, 16(1), 39-54.

Cashwell, C., Looby, E.J., & Housley, W. (1997). Appreciating cultural diversity through clinical supervision. The Clinical Supervisor, 15(1), 75-85.

Fong, L. & Gibbs, J. (1995). Facilitating services to multicultural communities in a dominant culture setting: An organizational perspective. Administration in Social Work, 19(2), 1-24.

Gladstein, M. & Mailick, M. (1986, Winter). An affirmative approach to ethnic diversity in field work. Journal of Social Work Education, 22(1), 41-49.

Longres, J.F. & Seltzer, G.B. (1994). Racism: Its implication for the education of minority social work students. The Journal of Multicultural Social Work, 3(1), 59-77.

McGoldrick, M., Almeida, R., Garcia Preto, N., Bibb, A., Sutton, C., Houdak, J., & Moore Hines, P. (1999). Efforts to incorporate social justice perspectives into a family training program. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 25(2), 191-209.

McIntosh, P. (1989). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. Peace and Freedom, July-August, 10-12.

Peterson, F. (1991). Issues of race and ethnicity in supervision: emphasizing who you are, not what you know. The Clinical Supervisor, 9(1), 15-31.

Ridley, C., Chih, M.S., Olivera, M.S. (2000). Training in cultural schemas: An antidote to unintentional racism in clinical practice. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 70(1), 65-72.

Section IX: Evaluation

Goals:
  • To understand how to provide student interns with a fair, accurate and constructive performance evaluation of their field work.
  • To understand the professional gate-keeping role.
  • To pay particular attention to the multicultural dimensions in the evaluation of the student’s social work practice.
Readings:

Alperin, D. E. (1996). Empirical research on student assessment in field education: What have we learned. The Clinical Supervisor,14(1), 149-161.

*Bogo, M., Power, R., Regehr, C., Globerman, J., & Hughes, J. (2002). Evaluating a measure of student field performance in direct service: Testing reliability and validity of explicit criteria. Journal of Social Work Education, 38(3), 385-401.

Bronstein, L. & Kelly, T.B. (2001). Qualitative methods for evaluating field education: Discovering how and what interns learn. Arete, 25(2), Fall, 25-34.

*Cowburn, M., Nelson, P., & Williams, J. (2000). Assessment of social work students: Standpoint and strong objectivity. Social Work Education, 19(6), 627-637.

Deacon, L. (2000). Ethical issues in the assessment of value base in social work students. Journal of Practice in Health and Social Work, 3(1), 55-61.

*Gitterman, A., & Gitterman, N.P. (1979). Social work student evaluation: Format and method. Journal of Education in Social Work, 15(3), 103-109.

*Harejsi, C.R., & Garthwait, C.L. (2002). The social work practicum. Boston: Allyn and Bacon

*Reid, W.J. & Baily-Demsey, C. (1996). Evaluating student field education: An empirical study. Journal of Social Work Education, 32(1), winter, 45-53.

Vourkelis, B., Bently, J., Hall, G., & Rosenblum, P. (1996). Testing reliability and validity of an interviewing skills evaluation tool for use in practicum. Research in Social Work Practice, 6(4), 492-503.

Section X: Termination

Goals:

To assist field instructors in preparing themselves, students, agencies, and clients for termination of the field placement. This includes factors related to termination instructive for professional practice in general, as well as the unique termination needs that student roles may bring.

Readings:

Brill, M. & Nahmani, N. (1993). Clients’ responses to separation from social work trainees. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 7(2), 97-111.

Fortune, A.E. (1987). Grief only? Client and social worker reactions to terminations. Clinical Social Work Journal, 15(2), 159-171.

Harrigan, M.P., Fauri, D.P. & Netting, F.E. (1998). Termination: Extending the concept for macro social work practice. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 25(4), 61-80.

Keiley, M.K. & Piercy, F.P. (1999). The “consulting-your-consultants interview”: A final narrative conversation with graduating family therapy masters’ students. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 25(4), 461-468.

McRoy, R.G., Freeman, E.M., Logan, S. (1986). Strategies for teaching students about termination. The Clinical Supervisor, 4(4), 45-56.

Morse, B.A., Bartolotta, C.N, Cushman, L.G., & Rubin, P.T. (1982). ‘End-of-term blues’: An annual dilemma. Social Work in Education, 5(1), 26-40.

Wall, J.C. (1994). Teaching termination to trainees through parallel processes in supervision. Clinical Supervisor, 12(2), 27-37.