Research on Social Work Practice

20(4) 427–434
Testing Group Supervision in Fieldwork © The Author(s) 2010
Reprints and permission:
Training for Social Work Students sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1049731509332882
http://rswp.sagepub.com

Anat Zeira1 and Miriam Schiff1

Abstract
This study monitors group supervision for students’ field training in a Bachelor’s Degree in Social Work (BSW) program
and compares it with the experience of the students receiving the traditional individual supervision. The experimental
group supervision model is implemented in two consecutive years. Students’ experiences are compared at three points in
time: before pilot study began; at the end of the 1st year of the pilot study; and at the end of the 2nd year. Findings indicate
that in most areas, and at all points in time, students receiving group supervision do not differ from their colleagues in
the traditional individual supervision group. However, students receiving group supervision are less satisfied at all points
in time with various aspects of the supervision they receive. These findings generally broaden our understanding of group
supervision in social work field training and provide evidence to support future decisions on the nature of supervision in
fieldwork training in BSW programs.

Keywords
fieldwork, group supervision, supervision, professional development

Fieldwork is a core element of social work education.
Under the supervision of experienced social workers, stu-
dents gain experience in direct practice, develop their
professional identity, and learn how social agencies oper-
ate (Bogo, 2005; Fortune, McCarthy, & Abramson, 2001;
Kadushin, 1992; Ray & Altekruse, 2000). Thus supervision,
or field instruction, is one of the most critical elements in
social work education (Bogo, 1993; Bogo & McKnight,
2005; Orgen, Jonsson, & Sundin, 2005; Valentine; 2004;
Walter & Young 1999).
Most social work supervision is based on one-on-one
meetings of student and supervisor (Bogo, 2005). This has
been thought to be the best way to deliver supervision
through support and guidance in a containing atmosphere
tailored to the student’s specific needs and abilities (Kadushin,
1992). However, there is a growing trend toward group
supervision, partly because of organizational and budgetary
constraints (Bogo, Globerman, & Sussman 2004b; Kadushin
& Harkness, 2002 ) and the assumption that delivering
supervision in groups is less costly (Bernard & Goodyear,
1992; Bogo, 2005; Bogo & McKnight, 2005).
More importantly it is suggested that group supervision
promotes a setting of peer learning in which professional
identity and processing interventions with clients can
be comfortably discussed (Bogo, Globerman, & Sussman,
2004a; Kadushin, 1992; Tebb, Manning, & Klaumann,
1996). In addition, identifying parallel processes between
group supervision and work with clients may expedite
professional growth (Bernard & Goodyear, 1992; Geller,
1994; Kadushin, 1992).
Despite this growing trend toward group supervision,
there is little empirical evidence on its advantages or
disadvantages (Bernard & Goodyear, 1992; Bogo et al.,
2004a, 2004b; Orgen et al., 2005; Ray & Altekruse, 2000).
Most of the literature presents exploratory studies using
small samples and qualitative methods, and mainly examine
students’ experiences and processes in the group (Sussman,
Bogo, & Globerman, 2007). No studies have assessed or
compared the experiences of students receiving group
supervision with those of students receiving individual
supervision. Following Bogo’s (2005) recommendation, we
chose to systematically test the use of group supervision.
We present here findings with Bachelor’s Degree in Social
Work (BSW) students in a university in Israel.
Working with clients is the main vehicle for gaining
practice knowledge in the field. Exposure to real-life situations
allows students to explore and acknowledge their feelings
and abilities and the difficulties involved in carrying out
psychosocial interventions (Kadushin, 1992). For example,
1
Paul Baerwald School of Social Work and Social Welfare, The Hebrew
University of Jerusalem
Corresponding Author:
Anat Zeira, School of Social Work and Social Welfare, The Hebrew
University of Jerusalem, Mt. Scopus, Jerusalem 91905, Israel
Email: msanatz@mscc.huji.ac.il

Downloaded from rsw.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on April 10, 2015
428
a student may discover that she is unable to help a client
because of her judgmental attitude. Processing such
experiences allows students to apply the skills, theories, and
values learned in class. Supervision generally provides an
opportunity for eliciting these feelings and thoughts in a
protective and containing environment. In one-on-one
supervision the student–supervisor dyad parallels the process
between the worker and client in treatment and the supervisor
can focus on specific issues related to each student’s situation
(Walter & Young, 1999). In group supervision, however,
students gain understanding, acquire new skills, and develop
their professional identity by watching and learning from
their peers (Bogo et al., 2004a), sharing the knowledge and
experiences of others in the same situation.
Fieldwork performance and competence are difficult to
assess (Gambrill, 2001). Because of this, the evaluation
methods used by most schools of social work to assess
students’ performance in the field have not been systemati-
cally validated (Bogo, 2005). Therefore, we do not attempt
to compare the achievements of students in the two for-
mats of supervision nor the differences in the process
between the two supervision methods. Rather, we focus on
outcomes of the supervision as reflected in the students’
perceptions of fieldwork. That is, students’ experience with
clients, acquisition of social work norms and values, overall
experience with supervision and supervisors, and general
satisfaction with fieldwork.
Fieldwork Education
in the Hebrew University
The Paul Baerwald School of Social Work and Social Wel-
fare was the first academic school of social work in Israel,
established at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in the
late 1950s (Spiro, 2001). Field instruction in the BSW pro-
gram is based on cognitive learning, taught mainly in
courses, combined with experiential learning in field prac-
tice (Jenkins & Sheafor, 1982; Sherer & Peleg-Oren, 2001).
Fieldwork training occupies 2 and 2.5 days/week in the 2nd
and 3rd years, respectively, of the 3-year BSW program. It
is thus an important component of this program.
Fieldwork studies are organized in 13 learning centers.
Two of these centers focus on community social work and
were excluded from this study. The remaining 11 centers
focus on family services, child welfare, adolescents at risk,
substance abuse, corrective services, health, mental health,
developmental disabilities, and services for the aged. Each
learning center is headed by a field advisor employed by the
university who is in charge of the field instructors as well as
responsible for the students’ educational development.
One of the most significant and costly components of this
training is supervision. All students receive 90 min of weekly
Downloaded from rsw.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on April 10, 2015
Research on Social Work Practice 20(4)
individual supervision from a field instructor (supervisor),
based on verbatim process recording of the students’ meetings
with clients. The supervisors are experienced social workers
with a master’s degree in social work and at least 3 years of
direct field experience. Most supervisors are employed by
the agencies where students conduct their fieldwork and are
also financially compensated by the university for their
field instruction.
The Jerusalem Structure
of Group Supervision
In the academic year 2005-2006, the School initiated an
experimental modality of supervision for 2nd-year students,
offering group supervision as an alternative to individual
supervision. The group supervision aimed to enhance learn-
ing by sharing peer knowledge and experience and by
exposure to a larger number of cases and styles of work.
Budgetary considerations also played a role.
Since the School has a long-standing commitment to
basing practice and organization decisions on solid evidence
(Zeira & Rosen, 2000; Schiff & Katz, 2007), this new mode
was to be pilot-tested for 2 years with a small group of
students. The goal was, first, to assess the effect of the group
supervision on students’ field learning during their course of
study and, second, to inform the decision whether to expand
group supervision to all 2nd-year students.
The learning package of the group supervision had differ-
ent components and rationale from the regular individual
supervision, for example, emphasizing cognitive learning
over experiential learning. However, the main difference
was that students in the group supervision had smaller case-
loads and more time in class dedicated to increasing their
interpersonal and group work skills. Instead of the weekly
90-min individual supervision, the group supervision included
two weekly meetings of 90 min of small group (4-5 mem-
bers) supervision. One unit focuses on discussing students’
work with clients and the other meeting was dedicated to
working on developing the students’ professional identity.
These components aimed to provide trainees in their 1st year
of fieldwork with a more solid basis for their 2nd (and last)
year of field training.
The Research Questions
This study compares students’ evaluations of their experi-
ences in their 1st year of fieldwork between those in group
supervision and those in individual supervision. We asked
whether there are differences between the two groups in
four domains: (a) values and ethics, (b) work with clients,
(c) supervision, and (d) the overall evaluation of their expe-
rience with supervision and satisfaction with fieldwork.
Zeira and Schiff
Methods
Participants
Participants were three cohorts of 2nd-year students in 11
learning centers: 92 students in the prepilot 2004-2005 aca-
demic year, 110 students in 2005-2006, and 102 students in
2006-2007. Eighty-eight percent of the participants were
women, 76.2% were single, and 91.4% were born in Israel;
moreover, 17.4% were Israeli Arabs, and the rest were
Jewish. During the 2 years of the pilot study, all 20 students
each year from the same two learning centers consented to
participate in the experimental group supervision. They
were divided into four groups of 5 students and placed in
four agencies, two in each of the learning centers. The
remaining students, who received individual supervision,
were placed in agencies related to the other nine learning
centers. Each of the four groups in the pilot study was
supervised by a field instructor with extensive experience
in individual supervision and some experience in group
work. These supervisors received initial training in group
supervision during the summer prior to the beginning of the
pilot study. They also participated in a biweekly group of
supervision-on-supervision given by a faculty member, a clin-
ical psychologist with extensive experience in supervising
in both individual and group modalities.
Procedure
This study is part of a self-evaluation process conducted by
the School. The quasi-experimental design compared the
students’ evaluations of the pilot learning centers with
those of the rest of the class at three points in time. The first
time (P0) was at the end of the academic year prior to the
pilot study. This analysis determined whether the percep-
tions of students in the two learning centers chosen for the
pilot study differed from those of students in the other cen-
ters. The second time (P1) was at the end of the 1st year of
the pilot study, and the last time (P2) was at the end of the
2nd and last year of the pilot study. This design enabled
us to monitor the application of the group supervision and
to compare students’ evaluations of fieldwork with group
supervision versus individual supervision for two consecu-
tive years.
In each year all students were approached during one of
their required courses 2 weeks before the end of the aca-
demic year and were asked to complete a self-administered
questionnaire regarding their experience in fieldwork over
the past year. The study was approved by the School’s ethics
committee and all students gave their informed consent to
participate. Completion of the questionnaire was completely
voluntary. Response rates ranged from 83% to 88% as a
result of students’ being absent from class on the day of data
Downloaded from rsw.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on April 10, 2015
429
collection. Only a handful of students in all 3 years refused
to participate.
Measures
We developed a questionnaire to evaluate students’ percep-
tions of their experience with conducting interventions with
clients, their internalization of professional values, their
experience with their supervisors, their learning experience,
and their general satisfaction with the supervision and field-
work. The questionnaire was constructed specifically for
this study in collaboration with the head of the fieldwork in
our school and with a steering committee. It was based on a
questionnaire routinely used each year in the School (Schiff
& Katz, 2007) and on measurements used in different
universities in the United States (e.g., Holden, Anastas,
Meenaghan, & Metrey, 2002; O’Hare & Collins, 1997) that
were translated into Hebrew and adapted for the purposes
of this study. The Likert-type scales in the questionnaire
(except for the two questions on general satisfaction with
the field instructor and field practice) range from 1 (do not
agree at all) to 6 (agree to a great extent). For data reduc-
tion purposes, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis
(principal component with varimax rotation) in each of the
four domains. Items were included in a factor if they loaded
.40 or above on that factor.
Students’ experience with interventions conducted with clients.
Thirteen statements were presented. Factor analysis yielded
three factors, together explaining 53.60% of the variance.
The first factor included six items (eigenvalue = 4.48). For
example: “I feel that my clients improved” and “I’ve
learned to establish good professional relationships with all
or several of the clients.” Items were averaged to comprise
one component: perceptions of the outcomes of the inter-
ventions with clients (Cronbach α = .72). The second factor,
perception of learning the intervention process (Cronbach
α = .71), included four items (eigenvalue = 1.41). For
example, “I worked according to a defined intervention
plan” and “I learned how to differentiate between the cli-
ent’s needs and the agency’s references and policies.” The
third factor (eigenvalue = 1.08), adequacy of the cases,
included only one item: “The tasks I was assigned fitted
well with my level of knowledge and learning needs”. Two
items had loadings lower than .40 on any of the factors and
were therefore excluded from the analyses (“I had difficul-
ties in understanding the aims of the interventions” and
“I had difficulties assessing the clients’ problems”).
Students’ internalization of professional values. Four state-
ments were presented. Factor analysis revealed two factors,
together explaining 71.94% of the variance. The first factor
included three items (eigenvalue = 1.79) which were aver-
aged to include one component: understanding, struggling
430
Table 1. Students’ Perception of Intervention With Clients
P0
Pilot Learning All Other Pilot Group
Centers (n = 26) Students (n = 66) (n = 17)
Students’ perception of the
outcomes of interventions 4.82 (0.48) 4.50 (0.81)
with clients
learning of the intervention 4.61 (0.69) 4.06 (1.00)
process
complexity of the cases 4.35 (1.16) 4.67 (1.28)
Note: Each scale ranges from 1 (do not agree at all) to 6 (agree to a great extent).Values are expressed as mean (standard deviation). P0 = first time, which
was at the end of the academic year prior to the pilot study; P1 = second time, which was at the end of the 1st year of the pilot study; P2 = last time,
which was at the end of the 2nd and last year of the pilot study.
with, and differentiating professional values. For example,
“I had plenty of opportunities to debate with myself about
ethical issues,” “It’s now easier for me to understand how my
personal values may be in conflict with professional values,”
and “I now better understand important professional values
such as the client’s self-determination” (Cronbach α = .64).
The second factor included a single item (eigenvalue = 1.09):
“I can be judgmental toward certain clients.”
Students’ evaluation of their field instructors. Twenty-two
statements were presented. Factor analysis revealed three
factors, together explaining 65.63% of the variance. The
first factor included eight items (eigenvalue = 11.16); for
example, “The field instructor helped me construct a treat-
ment plan for each of my clients” and “The field instructor
helped me organize my thoughts and feelings about the last
meeting.” These eight items were averaged to include one
component: content of supervision (Cronbach α = .92).
The second factor included seven items (eigenvalue =
2.21); for example, “The field instructor provided a lot of
encouragement and support” and “I could have approached
my field instructor about urgent issues even outside working
hours.” These seven items were averaged to include one
component: relationships with the field instructor (Cronbach
α = .93). The third factor included six items (eigenvalue =
1.06); for example, “The field instructor clarified the
expected learning tasks in field practice” and “The field
instructor read the reports I submitted.” These six items
were averaged to include one component: the structure and
setting of the supervision (Cronbach α = .84). One item
(“The expectations of my field instructor did not fit the
professional phase I’m in”) was not loaded on any factor
and was therefore excluded from the analyses.
General satisfaction with field instructor and field practice. A
single item assessed student’s general evaluation of their
experience with their field instructor and another assessed
student’s general evaluation of their field practice experi-
ence. In both items students were asked to respond on a
7-point Likert-type scale (1 = bad experience to 7 = excel-
lent experience).
Downloaded from rsw.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on April 10, 2015
Research on Social Work Practice 20(4)
P1 P2
All Other Pilot Group All Other
Students (n = 93) (n = 16) Students (n = 86)
4.50 (0.60) 4.52 (0.75) 4.41 (0.73) 4.63 (0.51)
4.21 (0.90) 4.21 (0.82) 3.89 (0.47) 4.37 (0.75)
4.76 (0.83) 4.48 (1.19) 4.37 (1.02) 4.71 (1.03)
Data Analysis
We used independent samples t tests and multivariate analy-
ses of variance, whichever was best suited, to test for
differences between the evaluations of students in the pilot
study group and the other students prior to the pilot study
and during the 2 years the group supervision was held.
Results
Students’ Evaluation of Their
Interventions With Clients
Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations of the
evaluations of the pilot group and the other students for the
three dimensions of their experience with clients (outcomes,
process, and adequacy of cases) prior to the beginning of the
pilot study (P0), at the end of the 1st year (P1) and at the end
of the 2nd year of the pilot study (P2). Results of the 3 × 2
multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA; using Wilks’s
criterion) at P0 were significant, F(3, 88) = 3.34, p = .023.
Univariate analysis of variance showed that at P0 students
who were placed in the learning centers of the pilot study
had higher scores for their perception of learning the inter-
vention process than the other students, F(1, 90) = 6.56, p =
.012. Results of the 3 × 2 MANOVA on the students’ evalu-
ations at P1, F(3, 106) = 0.74, p = .79, and P2, F(3, 98) =
2.13, p = .061, showed no significant differences in the eval-
uations of interventions with clients between students in the
pilot study and all other students.
Students’ Internalization of Professional Values
Table 2 presents the means and standard deviations of the
students’ evaluation of their internalization of professional
values. Results of the 2 × 2 MANOVA (using Wilks’s cri-
terion) were not significant: F(2, 89) = 0.09, p = .91, for
P0; F(2, 108) = 0.49, p = .61, for P1; F(2, 100) = 2.30, p =
.105, for P2.
Zeira and Schiff 431

Table 2. Students’ Perception of Their Internalization of Professional Values

P0 P1 P2

Pilot Learning All Other Pilot Group All Other Pilot Group All Other
Centers (n = 26) Students (n = 66) (n = 17) Students (n = 93) (n = 16) Students (n = 86)

Students’ understanding, 4.95 (0.71) 4.95 (0.79) 4.93 (0.85) 4.81 (0.77) 4.65 (0.91) 5.07 (0.73)
struggling with, and
differentiating
professional values
Students’ acknowledgment 3.54 (1.30) 3.67 (1.29) 3.28 (1.36) 3.52 (0.96) 3.25 (1.13) 3.39 (1.32)
of being judgmental toward
certain clients (high scores
indicate disagreement
with the statement)
Note: Each scale ranges from 1 (do not agree at all) to 6 (agree to a great extent).Values are expressed as mean (standard deviation). P0 = first time, which
was at the end of the academic year prior to the pilot study; P1 = second time, which was at the end of the 1st year of the pilot study; P2 = last time,
which was at the end of the 2nd and last year of the pilot study.

Table 3. Students’ Perception of the Content of the Supervision, Relationship With Their Field Instructor, and the Supervision Setting

P0 P1 P2

Pilot Learning All Other Pilot Group All Other Pilot Group All Other
Centers (n = 26) Students (n = 66) (n = 17) Students (n = 93) (n = 16) Students (n = 86)

Students’ perception of the

content of supervision 4.76 (0.87) 4.58 (1.19) 3.99 (1.60) 4.78 (0.87) 4.18 (1.03) 4.90 (1.03)
relationships with their 4.91 (1.12) 4.76 (1.25) 4.05 (1.45) 4.85 (0.99) 4.17 (1.48) 4.92 (1.20)
field instructor
structure and setting 5.44 (0.52) 5.25 (0.78) 5.34 (0.61) 5.27 (0.79) 5.41 (0.50) 5.25 (1.02)
of the supervision
Note: Each scale ranges from 1 (do not agree at all) to 6 (agree to a great extent).Values are expressed as mean (standard deviation). P0 = first time, which
was at the end of the academic year prior to the pilot study; P1 = second time, which was at the end of the 1st year of the pilot study; P2 = last time,
which was at the end of the 2nd and last year of the pilot study.

Students’ Evaluation of Their Field Instructors
Table 3 shows no differences in evaluation of their field
instructors between students in the learning centers that later
participated in the pilot study and all other students at P0, 3 ×
2 MANOVA (using Wilks’s criterion), F(3, 88) = 0.42, p =
.74. There were differences between the pilot group and the
other students in the 2 years of the pilot study. At P1 the pilot
group differs significantly from the other students; 3 × 2
MANOVA (using Wilks’s criterion) was significant F(3, 107)
= 6.40, p = .000. In the univariate analysis of variance, the
students in the pilot group gave a significantly lower evalua-
tion of the content of their supervision, F(1, 109) = 8.94, p =
.003, and of their relationships with their field instructor, F(1,
109) = 8.40, p = .005. There were no significant differences
between the groups in their assessment of the supervision
structure and setting, F(1, 109) = 0.14, p = .71.
Similar results were found at P2. Again, the 3 × 2 mul-
tivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA; using Wilks’s
criterion) gave significant results, F(3, 99) = 4.91, p = .003.
Univariate analysis of variance showed that the students in
the pilot group gave a significantly lower evaluation of the
content of their supervision, F(1, 101) = 6.65, p = .011, and
of their relationships with the field instructor, F(1, 101) =
4.89, p = .029. There were no significant differences
between the groups in their assessment of the supervision
structure and setting, F(1, 101) = 0.384, p = .537.
General Satisfaction With Field Instructor
and Field Practice
At P0 there were no differences in students’ perception of their
general satisfaction with their field instructor, t(89) = –0.95,
p = .343, or field practice, t(89) = –.99, p = .328 (Table 4).
There were no differences between the pilot group and
other students in their evaluation of their perception of
their satisfaction with field practice, t(109) = .51, p = .61
at P1; t(97) = 1.25, p = .215 at P2. Only at P1 did students in

Downloaded from rsw.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on April 10, 2015
432
Table 4. Students’ Evaluation of Their Satisfaction With Supervision and With Field Practice
P0
Pilot Learning All Other
Centers (n = 26) Students (n = 66)
Students’ general 5.65 (1.47) 5.29 (1.69)
satisfaction with
their supervision
Students’ general 5.44 (1.19) 5.12 (1.44)
satisfaction with
their field practice
Note: Each scale ranges from 1 (bad experience) to 7 (excellent experience).Values are expressed as mean (standard deviation). P0 = first time, which was
at the end of the academic year prior to the pilot study; P1 = second time, which was at the end of the 1st year of the pilot study; P2 = last time, which
was at the end of the 2nd and last year of the pilot study.
the pilot group report lower general satisfaction with their
field instructor than did the other students, t(109) = 3.08,
p = .003, at P1; t(98) = 1.45, p = .151 at P2.
Discussion and Applications to Education
This study examined the results of an effort to employ group
supervision for social work students in Israel. Group super-
vision was employed for two consecutive years as a pilot
study with students in two field training learning centers,
while the remaining students (in nine other learning centers)
received the standard individual supervision. Students’ per-
ceptions were compared in four domains of their fieldwork
learning: evaluation of their interventions with clients, inter-
nalization of professional values, evaluation of their field
instructors, and general satisfaction with field instructor and
field practice.
The only significant differences between students
receiving group supervision and those receiving individual
supervision lay in the students’ evaluation of their field
instructors, specifically, in their perception of the content
of the supervision and of the students’ relationships with
their field instructors. We found no significant differences
between the groups in their assessment of the supervision
structure and setting.
The lower evaluations given by students to the content
of group supervision may indicate that students in group
supervision find it harder to reveal their weaknesses and
negative feelings and thoughts (Kadushin, 1992). In contrast,
they may perceive individual supervision as a safe harbor
where they can discuss their difficulties with no risk of
being criticized by their peers (Kadushin, 1992). In addition,
students may view the supervisor as partially responsible for
the intervention with the client. Therefore, when supervision
is addressed to a group of students, students may feel that the
supervisor cannot take this responsibility for all the clients
of the supervisees in the group (Kadushin, 1992).
Downloaded from rsw.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on April 10, 2015
Research on Social Work Practice 20(4)
P1 P2
Pilot Group All Other Pilot Group All Other
(n = 17) Students (n = 93) (n = 16) Students (n = 86)
4.50 (1.98) 5.68 (1.38) 5.00 (1.71) 5.64 (1.61)
5.22 (1.59) 5.40 (1.28) 5.31 (1.40) 5.70 (1.08)
Students gave lower evaluations of their relationships
with the group supervisors than with individual supervisors.
Since most supervision and interventions in social work
and other related professions are based on one-on-one
relationships (Bernard & Goodyear, 1992; Bogo, 2005;
Kadushin, 1992; Ray & Altekruse, 2000), both students and
supervisors may expect that the professional development
and growth of the student only occurs in a similar one-on-
one setting.
Learning through parallel processes is one of the core
components of supervision (Bernard & Goodyear, 1992).
Parallel processes are easier to identify in individual super-
vision, as they occur between two people as in the
intervention. In contrast, in group supervision, the super-
visor must be sensitive to parallel processes and share her
insights with the group. The supervisor must be able to
identify students who dismiss or miss these interpreta-
tions or object to them for other reasons, such as their
limited experience in practice (Kadushin, 1992; Orgen
et al., 2005). Tracking parallel processes in group super-
vision may be difficult (Bogo et al., 2004a) because not
all group members experience or feel processes in the
same way (Orgen et al., 2005). For example, they may
interpret the reaction of the student presenting a case to
the group as related to his or her traits or qualities and not
to that of the client as implied by parallel process. Finally,
the novice students are anxious and preoccupied with
themselves, and are not always open or able to learn from
others (Rosenthal-Gelman, 2004).
Supervision is sometimes compared to child develop-
ment. The novice supervisee needs a significant adult in a
stable dyadic relationship to grow and move on from one
developmental stage to the next. Group supervision may
therefore be more suitable for the more advanced years of
study or a later stage of professional development. Ray and
Altekruse (2000) suggest combing individual and group
supervision so as to benefit from both modalities.
Zeira and Schiff
Overall, there were no significant differences between
the two groups in the students’ experience with intervention
with clients and in their ability to internalize professional
values. This result, like those of Ray and Altekruse (2000),
indicates that despite the lower evaluations of the relationship
with the supervisor and the content of supervision, group
supervision provided an equivalent learning environment
for students to acquire the knowledge, skills, and professional
values necessary for working with clients.
Finally, we note three main limitations in interpreting
our results. First, assignment to group supervision was not
random. Rather, it was based on students’ voluntary partici-
pation in the respective learning centers. In addition, the
groups receiving individual and group supervision differed
in size. To determine whether the specific learning center
affected students’ perceptions of the various aspects of
supervision, we compared the students in the pilot learning
centers with the rest of the class prior to introducing group
supervision (P0). The students in the pilot learning centers
scored higher than the remaining students in their percep-
tion of their learning of the intervention process but there
were no other significant differences at P0. Thus, any influ-
ence of the center on perceptions of the students can be
taken as minimal.
The second limitation regards the lack of protocol to
group supervision. In fact, each of the supervisors had
extensive experience in individual supervision that was the
basis for the group format. However, the purpose of this
study was to test the outcomes of the supervision in terms
of students’ perceptions on their learning, rather than the
process of group versus individual supervision. Because all
supervisors were themselves supervised by the same fac-
ulty member, it probably reduced differences between
supervisors. Finally, it may be that the small number of
students in the pilot study each year made it impossible to
investigate the effect of students’ background characteris-
tics on their perceptions, for example, the effect of cultural
differences between students.
The School discontinued the group supervision after
2 years. The potential benefits of group supervision to both
students and supervisors, on the one hand, and finding no
significant differences between students’ perceptions of
learning experiences in group versus individual supervi-
sion, on the other, were not enough to allow expansion of
group supervision to more learning centers.
The decision was due mainly to administrative and orga-
nizational factors. First, like any organizational changes,
moving to group supervision would have required some
adjustment in the thinking and operation of the organization.
There were some objections from the supervisors and other
figures in the Fieldwork Unit. For example, supervisors with
extensive experience in individual supervision found them-
selves in an inferior position as group supervisors, only
Downloaded from rsw.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on April 10, 2015
433
expressing more comfort with this position in their 2nd year
of group supervision. Even so, most of them refused to con-
tinue working as group supervisors. This too was an obstacle
to continuing and expanding group supervision. We suggest
that any further efforts to implement group supervision
should include a strong component of work with the organi-
zation to reduce possible objections to the change (Coch &
French, 1948; Fernandez & Rainey, 2006).
Second, this group supervision did not prove cost-
effective. The additional costs of training supervisors to
work with a group of students and of providing an inten-
sive supervision-on-supervision workshop to this group
during the 2 years of the pilot study did not reduce the
cost of fieldwork. Instead, expanding group supervision
to additional centers would have required extra funding in
a relatively short period that was not available to the
School.
Group supervision does appear to be an alternative to the
traditional individual modality. However, further research
is needed to fine tune the model and to compare students’
competence and field education outcomes for group versus
individual supervision (Gambrill, 2002). More research is
also required on the perceptions of the field instructors of
group supervision (Sussman et al., 2007). Last, a follow-up
study of our alumni may throw light on the long-term
effects of field education generally and also on the pilot
model of group supervision.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the
authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research and/or
authorship of this article.
References
Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R.K. (1992). Fundamentals of clini-
cal supervision. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Bogo, M. (1993). The student/field instructor relationship: The criti-
cal factor of field education. The Clinical Supervisor, 11, 23-36.
Bogo, M. (2005). Field instruction in social work: A review of the
research literature. The Clinical Supervisor, 24, 163-193.
Bogo, M., Globerman, J., & Sussman, T. (2004a). Field instructor
competence in group supervision: Students’ views. Journal of
Teaching in Social Work, 24, 199-216.
Bogo, M., Globerman, J., & Sussman, T. (2004b). The field
instructor as group worker: Managing trust and competition
in group supervision. Journal of Social Work Education, 40,
13-26.
Bogo, M., & McKnight, K. (2005). Clinical supervision in social
work: A review of the research literature. The Clinical Supervi-
sor, 24, 49-67.
434
Coch, L., & French, J. R. (1948). Overcoming resistance to
change. Human Relations, 4, 512-532.
Fernandez, S., & Rainey, H. G. (2006). Managing successful orga-
nizational change in the public sector. Public Administration
Review, 66, 168-176.
Fortune, A. E., McCarthy, M., & Abramson, J. S. (2001). Student
learning process in field education: Relationship of learning
activities to quality of field instruction, satisfaction, and per-
formance among MSW students. Journal of Social Work Edu-
cation, 37, 111-124.
Geller, C. (1994). Group supervision as a vehicle for teaching
group work to students: Field instruction in a senior center.
The Clinical Supervision, 12, 199-214.
Gambrill, E. (2001). Evaluating the quality of social work educa-
tion: Options galore. Journal of Social Work Education, 37,
418-429.
Holden, G., Anastas, J., Meenaghan, T., & Metrey, G. (2002).
Outcomes of social work education: The case for social work
self-efficacy. Journal of Social Work Education, 38, 115-133.
Jenkins, L. E., & Sheafor, B. W. (1982). An overview of social
work field instruction: Quality field instruction in social work.
In B. W. Sheafor & L. E. Jenkins (Eds.), Quality of field
instruction in social work (pp. 3-20). New York: Longman.
Kadushin, A. (1992). What’s wrong, what’s right with social work
supervision? The Clinical Supervisor, 10, 3-19.
Kadushin, A., & Harkness, D. (2002). Supervision in social work.
NY: Columbia University Press
O’Hare, T., & Collins, P. (1997). Development and validation of
a scale for measuring social work practice skills. Research on
Social Work Practice, 7, 228-238.
Orgen, M. L., Jonsson, C. O., & Sundin, E. C. (2005). Group
supervision in psychotherapy: The relationship between focus,
group climate, and perceived attained skill. Journal of Clinical
Downloaded from rsw.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on April 10, 2015
Research on Social Work Practice 20(4)
Psychology, 61, 373-388.
Ray, D., & Altekruse, M. (2000). Effectiveness of group supervi-
sion versus combined group and individual supervision. Coun-
selor Education and Supervision, 40, 19-30.
Rosenthal-Gelman, C. (2004). Anxiety experienced by founda-
tion-year MSW students entering field placement: Implica-
tions for admissions, curriculum, and field education. Journal
of Social Work Education, 40, 39-54.
Schiff, M., & Katz, K. (2007). The Impact of Ethnicity and
Phase in Training on Israeli Social Work Students’ Satisfac-
tion with the Field Instruction. Social Work Education, 26,
794 -809.
Sherer, M. and N. Peleg-Oren (2001). Analysis of tasks and
activities of Israeli social work students in the field work
training program. Society and Welfare, 21, 443-466.
(Hebrew)
Spiro, S. E. (2001). Social work education in Israel: Trends and
issues. Social Work Education, 20, 89-99.
Sussman, T., Bogo, M., & Globerman, J. (2007). Field instructor
perceptions in group supervision: Establishing trust through
managing group dynamics. The Clinical Supervisor, 26, 61-80.
Tebb, S., Manning, D. W., & Klaumann, T. K. (1996). A renais-
sance of group supervision in practicum. Clinical Supervision,
14, 39-51.
Valentine, D. P. (2004). Field education: Exploring the future,
expanding the vision. Journal of Social Work Education, 40,
3-12.
Walter, C. A., & Young, T. M. (1999). Combining individual and
group supervision in education for the social work profession.
The Clinical Supervisor, 18, 73-89.
Zeira, A., & Rosen, A. (2000). Unraveling “tacit knowledge”:
What social workers do and why they do it. Social Service
Review, 74, 103-123.