<Currents Vol 3 No 2 Csiernik & Karley>

Printable (PDF file) version

©Copyright Currents: New Scholarship in the Human Services, 2004

Experience of Social Work Practicum Activities in the Field

Rick Csiernik and Mary Lou Karley

Abstract
There has been limited exploration of the activities social work interns engage in during their fieldwork
experiences and their assessments of this integral component of social work education. Third- and fourth-year
Index BSW students attending the King’s University College School of Social Work, London, Ontario, between 1997-
1998 and 2001-2002, were surveyed to learn more about their practicum experiences. Using a questionnaire
Abstract developed in conjunction with the practicum committee, 361 (86.8%) interns returned information on their
areas of practice, the client populations they worked with, their caseloads, and the field supervision they
Introduction
received. The majority of fieldwork activity was direct service oriented with under 13% of time devoted to
The King's College community development, policy development, and research. As anticipated, fourth-year students had, on
Practicum average, more long-term and short-term clients and co-facilitated and facilitated more groups. The majority of
supervisors were evaluated as exceptional although, surprisingly, nearly one third of third-year supervisors
Methodology
and one quarter of fourth-year supervisors did not provide regular weekly supervision, despite this being a
Results stipulation of the role. The process of examining and monitoring the practicum has led to changes in
Discussion curriculum and to the support given to both social work interns and field instructors, suggesting that this is a
process that would be beneficial to all schools and faculties of social work.
References

Before starting my placement I was extremely apprehensive. However, the experience turned into
more than I envisioned. After finishing at the agency I would encourage other students who feel the
same way I did to try it. I feel placement is the best way for students to test the water. The staff was
extremely welcoming to me as a student and was willing to help me in any way that they could.

— Third year intern 1997-1998

Introduction

http://fsw.ucalgary.ca/currents_prod_v1/articles/csiernik_v3_n2.htm (1 of 15)2/7/2006 7:38:13 AM

<Currents Vol 3 No 2 Csiernik & Karley>

The preparation of BSW generalist social workers requires an integrated curriculum of academic theory,
current practice theory, and field practice opportunities. The principle role of the field practice experience is to
provide an opportunity for the student to integrate theory and practice (Brown, Karley, & Vitali, 2002).
Gitterman (1989) noted that a major task of the social work profession was "to transform knowledge and
understanding into practice, principles and behaviors" (p. 78).

The practicum experience is an integral aspect of social work education. Few professions, particularly at the
undergraduate level, devote the time and energy to field practice education that social work does. However,
the experience of fieldwork, what actually occurs within the practicum, and the assessment of social work
interns of this process, remains a relatively unexplored area. What are the activities in which interns
participate? Who are the clients and client groups that new social work practitioners engage as they become
introduced to the profession? What is the nature and extent of supervision provided? What makes up the
social work practicum experience?

The literature on social work field education contains extensive information on supervision (Abott & Lyter,
1998; Arkin, 1999; Brill, 1990; Ganzer & Ornstein, 1999; Itzhaky & Eliahu, 1999; Walter & Young, 1999),
evaluation of student performance in the field (Alperin, 1996; Burke, 1996; Kaye & Fortune, 2001; Kilpatrick,
Turner, & Holland, 1994; Regehr, Regehr, Leeson, & Fusco, 2002), and teaching methods used by field
instructors (Marshack, Hendricks, & Gladstein, 1994; Rogers & McDonald, 1995; Walther & Mason, 1994).
However, research on the student activities that constitute a practicum are scarce. Reid, Bailey-Dempsey, and
Viggiani (1996) compared field supervisors’ ratings of 13 social work and psychology interns’ practice ability
with an independent content analysis of tape recordings. A significant correlation between the supervisors’ and
the independent evaluators’ assessments was found, validating the supervisors’ evaluations but they did not
directly describe the nature of the interns’ clinical experiences.

Tolson and Kopp (1988) conducted a study involving 85 first-year M.S.W. direct practice students to examine
the transfer of knowledge from the classroom to the field. They provide a summary of the types of problems
dealt with by direct practice students and the types of interventions employed. However, the question being
investigated by the authors did not include an overview of the entire range of practice experiences of the
groups. Knight (1997) was interested in discovering the amount of group work experience BSW and MSW
students from the Mid-Atlantic Consortium of Schools of Social Work received. She discovered that while
nearly 71% of agencies provided group work services to clients less than one half of interns had supervisors
who, themselves, facilitated any type of group. As a result, less than one third of the students in the study
observed, co-facilitated, or led, a group during their practicum experience. Their practicum experience was
focused primarily on individual counselling rather than providing a broader range of practice opportunities.

Fortune and Abramson (1993) found that multiple factors are associated with the success of a field
experience. The relevance of the students' learning goals to the setting, the quality of field instruction,
connection of theory to case material, the students' input regarding practicum sites, and preparation of and
support to field instructors, were all found to be predictors of student satisfaction while in practicum. Abbot
(1996), Fortune et al. (1985), Kissman (1990), and Showers (1992), likewise examined intern satisfaction with
practicum while Sinicrope and Cournoyer (1990) discussed the validity of student ratings of field instructors.
However, none of these studies fully explored the range of activities that occur within the practicum.

The most detailed examination of practicum was a qualitative study conducted by Long and Heydt (2000) of
one BSW intern’s experience in a residential managed-care nursing facility, examining the student’s activities
from the perspective of the intern, field instructor, facility administrator, and residents. On a micro-level, the
student’s activities included social work assessment and psychosocial intervention with seven residents, active
participation in staff and resident activities, relationship building with residents, family members and staff, as
well as attending and participating in rounds. Providing a linkage between residents, the family, staff, and
administration, and explaining problems to residents and family members in non-medical, lay terminology, was
seen as an important part of the field work experience by the social work intern. The intern also provided
supportive counseling and education concerning relevant issues such as hospice care, death and dying
concerns, and also on practical issues such as feeding tubes and medication to residents and their family
members. Activities at the macro-level included promoting the dignity of residents individually, and as a group,
and serving as an advocate on behalf of residents and families with the medical staff, administration, and other
social workers. As well, the intern discussed her activities in creating networks and forming alliances with staff
to facilitate organizational change within the institution and attending community meetings and meetings of the
facility advisory board. The intern also deemed it important to note that she had developed a professional
working relationship with the physician in this for-profit setting.

Other examinations of actual field experiences of social work interns include Jivanjee’s (1999) report on the
development of a practicum working with the homeless in Portland, Oregon and studies by Cuzzi and
colleagues (Cuzzi, Holden, Rutter, Rosenberg, & Chernack, 1996; Cuzzi, Holden, Chernack, Rutter, &
Rosenberg, 1997) comparing fieldwork rotations for social work students in public hospitals with the more

http://fsw.ucalgary.ca/currents_prod_v1/articles/csiernik_v3_n2.htm (2 of 15)2/7/2006 7:38:13 AM

<Currents Vol 3 No 2 Csiernik & Karley>

traditional linear placement experience. Csiernik (2001) reviewed the activities social work students engaged
in during the course of a practicum, however, his analysis was restricted to one year. This study expands on
that initial investigation with the goal of examining broader trends and patterns regarding what occurs during a
social work intern’s field experience and how this is perceived by the student.

The King's University College School of Social Work Practicum

Located in London, Ontario, the School of Social Work at King's University College offers a two-year BSW with
admission based upon both academic and non-academic criteria. The program requires completion of ten full-
course equivalents and three electives. In addition, two practica, to be undertaken in two different practice
areas, are required. The first practicum is 245 hours in length while the second requires a minimum of 570
hours.

The practicum experience is structured as a continuum of learning and provides students with an opportunity
to gain experience in a social work setting, receive regular professional supervision, and engage in a dynamic
process towards development as a beginning professional generalist practitioner. While each experience is
unique, the goal of each practicum is to provide students with experiences that allow for learning in the
following areas
1. knowledge acquisition,
2. generic skill development through contact with diverse clients and client groups,
3. development of values and attitudes consistent with the profession of social work,
4. professional conduct and personal development (Viatli, 1998; Csiernik, 2001).

The practicum is also a partnership between community stakeholders, students, and the School of Social
Work, to provide social work education. As such, a letter of understanding between King's University College
and the practicum agency, and a learning contract outlining the student's learning goals and objectives, are
completed to ensure the practicum meets the following objectives:
1. To provide an opportunity for the student to test the knowledge, values, and skills encountered
throughout his/her academic studies in order to integrate theory and practice.
2. To reinforce the knowledge, values, and skills acquired by the student in the classroom, laboratory,
and the community.
3. To enable the student to acquire, develop, and test his/her skills as a change agent in direct social
work practice.
4. To encourage the student to develop a critical perspective on social work theory, practice, and the
social service delivery system.
5. To develop the student's understanding of social work as an integrated process encompassing a range
of approaches to meet human needs.
6. To develop the student's identification with professional social work, in the context within which it is
practiced and with contemporary issues relevant to practice (Vitali, 1998).

At King's University College the process to match students and practicum placements begins early in the
academic cycle. A request is made to all agencies included on the computerized database to provide updated
agency information regarding the availability of placement opportunities. Agencies are also invited to an
agency forum where representatives and students can interact in a more informal manner. Students then
complete a practicum application that asks them to outline the skills and knowledge they bring to an agency
and the skills and knowledge they are hoping to develop. Students are also asked to identify practice
opportunities and a desired client population. The application is submitted to the practicum office with a copy
of their resume and a signed consent form allowing the school to forward their resume to a potential agency.
An individual interview is conducted with the Coordinator of Field Instruction at which time learning needs,
strengths, areas requiring specific attention, desired supervisory style, and agency choices are identified.

Once all students are interviewed, an initial match is completed. Agency representatives are then contacted by
telephone in order to verify their willingness to interview the student. Subsequently, written confirmation and a
copy of the student's resume are forwarded. The student is requested to contact the agency representative in
writing for an interview, and once completed, feedback is sought from both parties. Once positive verbal
feedback is received from both the student and the agency, verbal confirmation is provided to the agency,
written confirmation is provided to both agency and student, and a faculty consultant is assigned. In the event
that feedback is not positive a second interview option is selected and the process begins anew. In some
situations special opportunities are sought to meet an individual student's learning needs. While at times the
process can be onerous, the fit between the students' needs, agency resources and opportunities, field
instructor availability, and the nature and quality of the relationship with the faculty consultant, are essential
components for a successful experience (Bennett & Coe, 1998; Brown et al., 2002).

http://fsw.ucalgary.ca/currents_prod_v1/articles/csiernik_v3_n2.htm (3 of 15)2/7/2006 7:38:13 AM

<Currents Vol 3 No 2 Csiernik & Karley>

Methodology
Over the course of two years the field coordinator at the King's University College School of Social Work, in
conjunction with the practicum committee, worked to develop a questionnaire to monitor what third- and fourth-
year social work undergraduate students were doing during their field placement. This survey was intended to
be one component of the evaluation process that is routinely conducted at the end of both the third year and
fourth year practicum experience. The questionnaire became one component of the practicum manual
distributed to all students and their field instructors at the beginning of each placement and was completed by
each student at the conclusion of both their placements.

A four-page questionnaire was developed that asked interns to provide a profile of the agency's client base
along with a description of the student’s experience and the amount of time spent on various types of
activities. Questions regarding the intern’s workload, how learning needs were met, the frequency of
supervisory meetings, and the nature of the supervision experience, comprised the next section. The
instrument concluded with two open-ended questions asking students to highlight the strengths and limitations
of their practicum experience.

The initial intention of the instrument was to provide feedback to the practicum committee on the nature of
each intern’s practicum experience and to provide future social work interns with relevant information as part
of the matching process. A second goal was to use the data as a component of the school's re-accreditation
process. An unintended outcome was the opportunity for presentation of field experiences of social work
students to a broader audience. Between 1997-1998 and 2001-2002, 207 third-year and 209 fourth-year
placements were completed. A total of 361 of the 416 (86.8%) field practicum questionnaires were returned,
175 (84.5%) by third-year students and 186 (89.0%) by fourth-year students.

Results
Third- and fourth-year students worked with families most often, followed by clients with mental health issues
and adolescents for third-year students, and adolescents and children for fourth-year students. Approximately
the same percentage of third- and fourth-year students worked with correction populations, acute and chronic
medical populations. Fourth-year students were much more likely to work with clients in a child welfare setting,
immigrant groups and First Nation clients while third-year students had more contact with seniors populations.
Interns did not have extensive contact with several oppressed and marginalized groups including gay, lesbian
and trans-gendered clients, homeless persons, street-engaged youth, unemployed adults, and those with
addiction issues (Tables 1 and 2).

http://fsw.ucalgary.ca/currents_prod_v1/articles/csiernik_v3_n2.htm (4 of 15)2/7/2006 7:38:13 AM

<Currents Vol 3 No 2 Csiernik & Karley>

http://fsw.ucalgary.ca/currents_prod_v1/articles/csiernik_v3_n2.htm (5 of 15)2/7/2006 7:38:13 AM

<Currents Vol 3 No 2 Csiernik & Karley>

The most common areas of practice for King's University College Social Work students between 1997 and
2002 were individual counseling, assessment, report writing, advocacy, family counseling, and group work.
Social work research activities were undertaken by 100 (27.7%) students, community development by 76
(21.0%), and policy work by 71 (19.7%). Greater numbers of third-year students participated in all three
practice areas, a pattern consistent across all five years of the study (Table 3 and 4).

http://fsw.ucalgary.ca/currents_prod_v1/articles/csiernik_v3_n2.htm (6 of 15)2/7/2006 7:38:13 AM

<Currents Vol 3 No 2 Csiernik & Karley>

http://fsw.ucalgary.ca/currents_prod_v1/articles/csiernik_v3_n2.htm (7 of 15)2/7/2006 7:38:13 AM

<Currents Vol 3 No 2 Csiernik & Karley>

When examining the time engaged in various activities, individual counseling dominated all other areas, with
three times more time being devoted to this practice area than group work, the next closest activity.
Combined, community development, research, and policy development, accounted for 12.7% of practicum
time, behind family counseling (12.9%) and only cumulatively ahead of administrative tasks (11.3%) (Table 5).

http://fsw.ucalgary.ca/currents_prod_v1/articles/csiernik_v3_n2.htm (8 of 15)2/7/2006 7:38:13 AM

<Currents Vol 3 No 2 Csiernik & Karley>

Third-year students averaged seven short-term clients (six visits or less) during their four months in the field
while fourth-year students averaged nine short-term clients during their two term placement, with 29 (16.5%)
of third-year and 76 (40.9%) of fourth-year students carrying more than ten short-term clients. Third-year
students averaged three long-term clients while fourth-year students averaged eight. Over one-quarter of
fourth-year students had a caseload of more than ten long-term clients, far exceeding the expectations of the
school. More than half the field placements provided the opportunity for students to co-facilitate a group while
nearly a third of students were able to lead a group independently during their field work experience. Third-
year students were more likely to observe a group while fourth-year students had more opportunities to co-
facilitate and independently facilitate groups (Table 6).

Overall, students expressed satisfaction with the amount of work provided in the field setting, with only 39
(10.8%) respondents stating they had “too little” to do and nine (2.5%) stating that they were overloaded
(Table 7). Similarly, a vast majority of interns rated the orientation they received from the agency as “just
right”, indicating that the orientation met their learning needs. Of those who reported receiving “too little”
orientation, the majority were fourth-year students (Table 7).

http://fsw.ucalgary.ca/currents_prod_v1/articles/csiernik_v3_n2.htm (9 of 15)2/7/2006 7:38:13 AM

<Currents Vol 3 No 2 Csiernik & Karley>

Supervision also received an extremely positive evaluation with 315 (87.3%) interns replying that the
supervision they received met their learning needs “very well” or “exceptionally well”. The supervision provided
fell into four distinct categories. Supportive supervision was most frequently provided to third-year students
while supervisors of fourth-year students spent more time focused on clinical supervision (Table 8a). Regular
weekly supervision, a stated requirement for all field supervisors, was provided by 111 (63.4%) third-year
supervisors and 144 (77.4%) fourth-year supervisors over the course of the five year study period; over one-
half of students participated in peer supervision while 152 (42.1%) participated in team supervision. Just under
one-third had access to an alternative field supervisor if theirs was unavailable, although the frequency of this
need was unclear. As well a majority reported being able to have access to their supervisor on an ad-hoc
basis outside of regular supervision hours (Table 8).

http://fsw.ucalgary.ca/currents_prod_v1/articles/csiernik_v3_n2.htm (10 of 15)2/7/2006 7:38:13 AM

<Currents Vol 3 No 2 Csiernik & Karley>

The first of the two open-ended questions in the survey asked students to describe the best aspect of the
placement experience, while the second asked for suggestions to improve the placement experience. Twice
as many comments were received about what students found favorable about their placement (n=567)
compared with what they would change to improve it (n=281). The best aspects of placements were the
supervision 114 responses (31.6%), the new skills and knowledge obtained 89 (24.7%), the clients 80
(22.2%), and the staff with whom the interns worked 73 (20.2%). As well, 30 (8.3%) interns reported that the
best aspect of their practicum was the group work. The second open-ended question asked for suggestions to
improve the field experience. The most common response was to have more client contact 65 (18.0%). Other
suggestions were for more supervision 33 (9.1%), a better orientation to the agency 29 (8.0%), having a
private work area 13 (3.6%), and having the opportunity to do more group work 12 (3.3%).

This placement was an awesome experience in my opinion, however, I think it had a lot to do with my
field instructor. She had a lot of great ideas and initiatives to make the agency more accessible and to
improve service delivery. This meant that there were a lot of activities and projects available for me to
participate in. I don’t think the placement would have been anywhere near as valuable if my field
instructor wasn’t so dedicated to improving the agency and providing me with a great learning
opportunity.

— Fourth year intern, 1999-2000.

http://fsw.ucalgary.ca/currents_prod_v1/articles/csiernik_v3_n2.htm (11 of 15)2/7/2006 7:38:13 AM

<Currents Vol 3 No 2 Csiernik & Karley>

Discussion

What I liked best (about the practicum experience) was realizing that a social worker can improve the
community.

— Fourth year intern, 1998-1999.

As a prescribed generalist program, the King's University College School of Social Work’s mandate is to
prepare students for a range of social work practice situations and for graduate education. While there are
courses in policy and community development the majority of the curriculum focuses upon casework skills and
this is likewise reflected in the field experience. Thus, it was not surprising, to learn that fewer than one quarter
of field practice settings allow for social work practice in the areas of research, policy, program planning, or
community development despite attempts to bolster these areas over the course of the study period. This
finding presents us with the classic dilemma. Social work students need access to mezzo- and macro-practice
during their initial professional degree to develop skills and abilities in these areas of practice. However,
without the practicum opportunities these skills cannot be cultivated. If not cultivated, there is less chance
social workers will work in these areas, or pursue MSW studies in these fields, thereby minimizing future
practicum opportunities. As well, the minority of students who do practice in the community and policy areas
often feel hindered in preparing their learning contracts, and in conducting evaluations with their faculty
consultant as the format remains more applicable to casework practice. Thus, the study’s findings raise the
question of how generalist should a generalist program be? What is the responsibility to prepare students for a
range of social work opportunities versus what is available in the marketplace? It also speaks to the need for a
contracting and learning goals process that is adequately flexible to address the diverse range of practice
experiences in social work.

Distinct differences were found between the shorter third-year practicum and the more comprehensive senior
practice course. While the initial practicum experience was more generic, exposing interns to a greater variety
of populations, the fourth-year practicum provided for more specialized direct-practice work in preparing
students to become beginning practitioners. Interns were more likely to have exposure to family and couple
work in fourth-year while community development, research and policy exposure was more likely in their initial
practicum. Third-year interns were more likely to observe and co-facilitate groups while fourth-year interns
were more likely to have the responsibility of running their own group. Thus, having two distinct practice
opportunities in two different practice settings did allow for the opportunity to expose social work interns to
different client populations and practice skills, which in turn supports the development of generalist
practitioners.

The study also indicated that, despite the goal of working with oppressed and marginalized populations there
remain several groups with whom a majority of interns did not work, despite having two distinct practicum
experiences. These groups included the homeless, street-engaged youth, gay, lesbian and trans-gendered
clients, and those with an alcohol or drug dependency. This finding, in turn, was used in the curriculum review
process to bolster the introduction of a required course in anti-oppressive social work and supports the
implementation of similar practice reviews for other faculties and schools of social work.

The research found that the field supervision provided to interns was considered, by the students, to be of
excellent quality. Over 86% of respondents reported that the workload provided was appropriate, as was the
amount of orientation provided. Over one-half of the supervisors were deemed exceptional, with another third
being evaluated as above average in meeting interns’ learning needs. Field instructors were found to
emphasize different areas between third and fourth year, with third-year interns receiving more supportive
supervision while fourth-year interns received more direct practice supervision. As well, a significant number of
interns are introduced to team supervision, peer supervision, and supervision by professionals from other
disciplines, which enrich their learning and supervision experience. However, an area of significant concern
was the lack of regular, weekly supervision by all field instructors. Despite ongoing introductory and advanced
professional development seminars, annual orientation events, and ongoing feedback from faculty
consultants, one third of third-year interns and just under one-quarter of fourth-year interns did not receive
regularly scheduled supervision from their field instructors. This lack of supervision was the second most
common area that interns identified for improvement, following only the desire for more client contact, which in
and of itself is a supervision issue. However, it was positive to learn that the vast majority (82.5%) of field
instructors do have an open-door policy that allows the new social work practitioner to access them on an ad-
hoc basis. The lack of regular formal supervisory contact may be a result of workload issues, lack of support

http://fsw.ucalgary.ca/currents_prod_v1/articles/csiernik_v3_n2.htm (12 of 15)2/7/2006 7:38:13 AM

<Currents Vol 3 No 2 Csiernik & Karley>

from the agency for the role of filed instructor, or conflicts due to the time interns are at the agency.
Nonetheless, with interns spending more time in the field than in the classroom, this lack of time allocated by
supervisors appointed and sanctioned by the School of Social Work was the most problematic issue to arise
from the study.

Another aspect of this work that needs to be discussed is the original intent of the process: program evaluation
and improvement. By obtaining regular annual feedback from interns on the nature and content of their field
experience, the fieldwork experience can be continually improved. When it was first learned in 1997-1998 that
16 (37.2%) third-year and 15(34.9%) fourth-year students had not received weekly supervision, increased
emphasis was immediately placed on this by the field coordinator, practicum committee, and faculty
consultants. The following academic year, 1998-1999, witnessed a modest increase among third-year
supervisors providing regular supervision (65.5%) and a major increase among fourth-year field instructors
(81.6%). While there has never been total compliance, there is more regular supervision now than in the
study’s first year, and field supervisors who are not able to meet this expectation are reviewed and their status
as supervisors is reconsidered.

Another example where regular monitoring has led to program improvement is with orientation. In 2000-2001,
nearly one-fifth of interns reported unsatisfactory orientation experiences. That issue was addressed during
annual meetings with field instructors and the following academic year only five interns (9.1%) reported that
they had received too little orientation, the lowest level of dissatisfaction reported during the five years.
Ironically, in the same year the greatest number (n=3) of concerns regarding too much orientation were
reported.

The implications of this work initiated by the practicum committee have been significant for the King’s
University School of Social Work and indicate the importance of schools and faculties of social work including
field instructors, community representatives, and interns, in committees that oversee and monitor educational
functions. Since this initiative was inaugurated additional hours have been added to the third-year practicum,
as have a series of orientation seminars prior to the third-year practicum and integration seminar beginning.
The coordinator of field meets monthly with students in first term and faculty consultants hold their first
integration seminar a month prior to interns beginning their initial practicum. As well, changes to the field
instructor orientation, and additional training for field instructors, have resulted, as have curriculum revisions.

What distinguishes and sets social work education apart is the emphasis placed upon the field experience.
This five-year study has indicated that there are differences that occur between third- and fourth-year field
experiences, and raises questions about how generalist, generalist programs actually are or should be. It
indicates that students of the King’s University College School of Social Work typically received a firm
grounding in fundamental social work practice, individual counseling, group work, work with children,
adolescents and families, report writing, and assessment, although there are important areas of practice that
the school needs to actively address. It also highlights the importance of field supervisors and the value for all
schools and faculties of social work to ensure that their interns are receiving adequate and appropriate support
and supervision from their field-work instructors. The study illustrates the value of monitoring interns’ field
experiences in order to respond to their educational needs and maximize their learning opportunities in what is
arguably the most important aspect of their social work education and training: for we would like all our interns
to be able to state that “This placement was the most incredible learning experience I have had” (fourth-year
intern, 1997-1998).

Every faculty and school of social work endeavors to provide the best education and practice experience for its
students. However, social work field instructors are like social work professors, in that much of their work is
unsupervised, the recipients of their service are in a “one-down” position, their performance is primarily
monitored through self-report data, and there are limited feedback mechanisms to assess if their prescribed
goals and objectives are being met. This study, while limited due to its focus on only one school of social work,
has utility in demonstrating the congruence and incongruence between what faculty members in the school
believed was occurring and what was actually occurring, and how the faculty attempted to resolve the
differences that were identified. It behooves us to ask if similar situations exist at other faculties and schools
of social work and what processes have been put into place to address these situations elsewhere, if
necessary.

References

http://fsw.ucalgary.ca/currents_prod_v1/articles/csiernik_v3_n2.htm (13 of 15)2/7/2006 7:38:13 AM

<Currents Vol 3 No 2 Csiernik & Karley>

Abbot, A. (1986). The field placement contract: Its use in maintaining comparability between employment-
related and traditional field placements. Journal of Social Work Education, 22, 57-66.

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

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

Arkin, N. (1999). Culturally sensitive student supervision: Difficulties and challenges. Clinical Supervisor, 18,
1-16.

Bennett, L. & Coe, S. (1998). Social work field instructor satisfaction with faculty liaisons. Journal of Social
Work Education, 35, 275-288.

Brill, M. (1990). Unsent letters: A technique and exercise in social work supervision. Clinical Supervisor, 8,
153-162.

Brown, J., Karley, M.L., & Vitali, S. (2002). Building bridges: Perspectives from the field. Canadian Social
Work, 4, 55-66.

Burke, P. (1996). Competencies and the practicum: Experiences on one social work course. Social Work
Education, 15, 60-78.

Csiernik, R. (2001). The practice of field work: What students actually do in the field. Canadian Social Work,
3, 9-20.

Cuzzi, L., Holden, G., Rutter, S., Rosenberg, G., & Chernack, P. (1996). A pilot study of fieldwork rotations
vs. year long placements for social work students in a public hospital. Social Work in Health Care, 24, 73-91.

Cuzzi, L., Holden, G., Chernack, P., Rutter, S., & Rosenberg, G. (1997). Evaluating social work field
instruction: Rotations versus year-long placements. Research on Social Work Practice, 7, 402-414.

Fortune, A.E., & Abramson, J.S. (1993). Predictors of satisfaction with field practicum among social work
students. Clinical Supervisor, 2, 95-110.

Fortune, A., Feathers, C., Rook, S., Scrimenti, R., Smollen, P., Stemerman, B., & Tucker, E. (1985). Student
satisfaction with field placement. Journal of Social Work Education, 21, 92-104.

Ganzer, C. & Ornstein, E. (1999). Beyond parallel process: Relational perspectives on field instruction.
Clinical Social Work Journal, 27, 231-246.

Gitterman, A.L. (1989). Field instruction in social work education: Issues, tasks and skills. Clinical
Supervisor, 7, 77-91.

Itzhaky, H. & Eliahu, A. (1999). Do students reflect their field instructors? The relationship between
supervisory and learning styles in social work field instruction. Clinical Supervisor, 18, 75-84.

Jivanjee, P. (1999). Social work field education to serve vulnerable populations: A case study. Journal of
Teaching in Social Work, 18, 185-207.

Kaye, L. & Fortune, A. (2001). Coping skills and learning in social work education. Clinical Supervisor, 20,
31-42.

Kilpatrick, A, Turner, J., & Holland, T. (1994). Quality control in field education: Monitoring students’
performance. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 9, 107-120.

Kissman, K. (1990). Perceived quality of field placement education among graduate social work students.
Journal of Continuing Social Work Education, 5, 27-31.

http://fsw.ucalgary.ca/currents_prod_v1/articles/csiernik_v3_n2.htm (14 of 15)2/7/2006 7:38:13 AM

<Currents Vol 3 No 2 Csiernik & Karley>

Knight, C. (1997). A study of MSW and BSW students' involvement with group work in the field practicum.
Social Work with Groups, 20, 31-49.

Long, D. & Heydt, M. (2000). Qualitative analysis of a BSW field placement with a hospital-owned physician
practice in a skilled nursing facility. Health and Social Work, 25, 210-218.

Marshack, E., Hendricks, C., & Gladstein, M. (1994). The commonality of difference: Teaching about
diversity in field instruction. Journal of Multicultural Social Work, 3, 77-89.

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

Reid, W., Bailey-Dempsey, C. & Viggiani, P. (1996). Evaluating student field education: An empirical study.
Journal of Social Work Education, 32, 45-52.

Rogers, G. & McDonald, P. L. (1995). Expedience over education: Teaching methods used by field
instructors. Clinical Supervisor, 13, 41-65.

Showers, N. (1992) How satisfaction with hospital field work affects social work students' willingness to
accept employment in hospital settings. Social Work in Health Care, 16, 19-35.

Sinicrope, R. & Cournoyer, D. (1990). Validity of student ratings of field instruction. Journal of Social Work
Education, 26, 266-272.

Tolson, E. and Kopp, J. (1988). The practicum: Clients, problems, interventions and influences on student
practice. Journal of Social Work Education, 24, 123-134.

Vitali, S. (1998). King's College School of Social Work practicum manual. London, Ontario.

Walter, C. & Young, T. (1999). Combining individual and group supervision in educating for social work
profession. Clinical Supervisor, 18, 73-89.

Walther, V. & Mason, J. (1994). Social work field instruction in a perinatal AIDS setting. Clinical Supervisor,
12, 33-52.

© Currents: New Scholarship in the Human Services ISSN 1499-6073

Faculty of Social Work, University of Calgary

http://fsw.ucalgary.ca/currents_prod_v1/articles/csiernik_v3_n2.htm (15 of 15)2/7/2006 7:38:13 AM