Developing trends in social work field education.

Maidment, Jane

INTRODUCTION

A search of the literature on practicum education bears testimony to the dedication, creativity and resourcefulness that many social work practitioners have brought to their work with students on placement. Field educators in Australia and New Zealand have traditionally been unpaid and unrecognised in their workplace for the contribution they make to social work education (Slocombe 1993). However, we have been warned, that for far too long field education has been overly reliant on personal and professional motivation, commitment and goodwill (Globerman and Bogo 2002, 13). Longstanding debates in the literature have centred on how educators might effectively integrate theory with practice (Barbour 1984; Marsh and Triseliotis 1996); what factors constitute effective practice teaching (Fortune and Abramson 1993; Fernandez 1998); and just how social work as a discipline might be defined (Etizioni 1969; Crouch 1979; Gibelman 1999).

A recent examination of the literature has identified that while these debates continue to be of enduring interest, new themes are emerging for consideration in twenty first century social work education. These include examination of the rapidly changing and uncertain socio-political context in which social work is delivered; debates about the role of technology in social service delivery and education; raised awareness of public liability and legal responsibility during practicum education; a developing culture of research on practicum education. Each of these emerging areas of interest will be discussed in more detail.

PRACTICUM EDUCATION IN THE CURRENT CONTEXT

A range of features make up the current context in which social work field education is delivered. Several of these are related to the socio-economic factors impacting on practicum education. Firstly, the number of hours Australian tertiary students spend in the paid workforce while also endeavouring to study is increasing (McInnis, James, and Hartley 2000). Since practicum education requires students to spend large blocks of time in the field, paid employment is frequently sacrificed, leading students to report considerable financial stress while on placement (Maidment 2003).

Secondly, the social service agencies that host students are themselves suffering from financial constraints, and have few resources to devote to staff, let alone student education (Beddoe and Worrell 1997). Lack of resources and work overload have resulted in increased vulnerability to stress and burnout by workers in the social service sector (Storey and Billingham 2001). In addition, several studies have identified that human service workers are being subjected to significant levels of physical and verbal abuse in the workplace (Beddoe, Appleton and Maher 1998; Denton, Zeytinoglu and Webb 2000). Together these factors suggest that social service workers are operating under conditions of significant hardship. In the following article, 'Danger and disdain, truth and dare in social work education', Beddoe examines more closely the relationship between social work identity, media image, and safety. She suggests ways that students might be helped to understand, critique and manage their work and themselves within the current climate in which social work operates.

This theme is further expanded upon in the next article by Rogers, which reports on cross-disciplinary practicum research conducted in Canada, where the incidence of conflict in the practicum is examined. These authors consider that partial explanation for the extent of conflict in the practicum lies with the deleterious impact economic rationalism and restructuring has had on the social, health and education sectors in that country. In addition they identify the increasingly diverse nature of the student population as being fertile ground for differences to occur between field educators and students in the supervisory relationship. This discussion is linked with the following article by Tam, which examines the principles and difficulties associated with gate-keeping in social work.

Constraints in providing quality supervision within the current economic context are further addressed in Studdy's article. Studdy explains the use of a well-tested model for providing student professional supervision in agencies where there is no qualified social worker on site. The 'Back up Supervision Group' model, provides an example of the creative use of scarce resources, while being firmly embedded within principles of collaborative peer learning. Documenting the use of models such as this is fundamental to expanding the knowledge base and supervision options for the practicum. Finding creative ways to sustain quality student supervision within the current economic climate is critical to uphold standards in education. In this regard programs are increasingly considering how technology might be used to provide additional input to students on placement.

TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICE DELIVERY

During the last five years rising numbers of publications have debated the role of technology in social work education and service delivery. These articles can be divided into three main subject areas. They include publications which discuss the use of differing hyper-technologies in delivering social work education (Van Soest, Canon and Grant 2000; Cauble and Thurston 2000); document the hotly contested debate on the efficacy of online teaching and learning (Burton and Scabury 1999; Hick 1999; Sandell and Hayes 2002; Kreuger and Stretch 2000); and consider how hyper-technology has impacted on the way practitioners work with clients (Sapey 1997; Finn 1999).

The exponential growth in the development of the world wide web along with the surge of interest in additional methods for telecommunication has significant implications for how students are taught in the practicum, and social services are delivered in the field. In this current journal Mensinga's article on using videoconferencing during the practicum, she explains the benefits and drawbacks of this technology for assisting students with integration, peer learning and addressing isolation in the practicum. In addition, the following article by Waugh and Hart present their research findings on using online asynchronistic conferencing with students in the field. Each of these investigations examines the fledging use of technology in field education, and as such represent history makers for the practicum in Australia.

Not surprisingly, greater use of hyper technology is one of the most significant developments in the delivery of contemporary social work education. This shift in the way education is delivered reflects global changes in the way people communicate, conduct their business (Rafferty 1997, 960) access entertainment, recreation and shop. These developments also require social work programs to more actively examine the legal and ethical issues in using teleconferencing and video conferencing to support students in the field (Panos, Panos, Cox, Roby and Matheson 2002). To date little research, and even less policy formulation has focused on the ethical issues of using telecommunication in practicum education in either Australia or New Zealand.

Recent research on the extent to which information and computer technology is actually embedded within current social work education in Australia has uncovered some worrying results (Hayhoe and Dollard 2000). These authors found that Australia was "lagging approximately eight to ten years behind schools of social work internationally in relation to including information and computer technology in its course curriculum" where "computer technology is not taught within degree programs to a level that meets most employing agencies" (Hayhoe and Dollard 2000, 26). Given that the core business of social work programs is to educate future practitioners with relevant skills and attributes to compete in the employment marketplace, it appears that as educators we are falling down on the job. It is therefore heartening to see research contributions, such as those cited above in the two articles in this current journal, beginning to appear in relation to Australian social work field education.

PRACTICUM RESEARCH

A review of both Australian Social Work and Social Work Review (New Zealand's Social Work Association journal) since their inception in 1940 and 1965 respectively, shows that very little has been published in the professional journals on field education in either country. Moreover a notable absence of research into practicum education is apparent. This is hardly surprising given that until very recently social work as a discipline, and the practicum in particular have hovered in the margins of the academy (Parton 2001). However, due to the current emphasis placed on industry based learning in tertiary education (Billet 2001), the practicum is beginning to emerge as pedagogy now 'worthy' of investigation. In this current journal edition alone four of the contributions report on practicum research. For field education, this increased research interest is a welcome and much needed development. For example, the final article in this collection documents Fernandez' research on how practitioners make the transition from social worker to field educator. This material is further supplemented with a curriculum design for field educator training that most programs would find helpful to inform student supervision course development.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

The articles that follow foreshadow a range of future challenges for social work. These issues will serve to shape the future directions and initiatives in practicum learning, and as such provide a focus for developmental, strategic planning for field education. The second part of this article summarises these contemporary challenges and makes suggestions for how each issue may be tackled by providers of social work programs, and individual educators.

How to strengthen practicum education

In the absence of alternative models for facilitating placement learning, the continuation of practicum education appears dependent upon agencies continuing to host students on placement. Given the current economic context outlined above, where organisations are often reluctant to take students due to other workload pressures, it would seem timely to investigate agency benefits in hosting practicum learning, from both qualitative and quantitative perspectives. In addition, the development of alternative models for facilitating practicum education need to be considered.

Substantial anecdotal evidence has been published on the intrinsic rewards that field educators and agencies experience in hosting and supervising students (James, Morrissey and Wilson 1990; Rohrer, Smith and Peterson 1992). However, research has not been conducted into the area of measuring student contribution to agency work outcomes. Schools of social work may have been reluctant in the past to conduct this type of investigation, fearing that quantification of agency costs in hosting students on placement may jeopardize future practicum opportunities. Nevertheless, without any meaningful data on costs, productivity and outcomes, the impact of student placements on agencies, good or otherwise, remain open to speculation. Clearly research of this kind would need to account for the intrinsic benefits students on placement offer organizations, such as the development of learning cultures, fostering expertise in supervision and contributing to the future staffing recruitment. To have credibility an investigation of this nature would need to be conducted by a party independent from either schools of social work or the placement agencies.

Schools currently have an unhealthy reliance on the field to provide all praclicum learning. While this has been the traditional model for delivering field education, there is ample evidence to suggest that many students experience poor learning outcomes in agencies subjected to constant change through restructuring, cutbacks and staff workload pressure (Hughes 1998; Maidment 2000). Given that both schools of social work and agencies are operating in an increasing litigious climate, at some point poor quality supervision and compromised learning outcomes are likely to be tested in the courts (Shardlow 2000). There are several ways in which schools may address issues of quality in practicum teaching and learning. One option would be to develop clinical, community development, research and consultancy services from within the school base, where multi-disciplinary academic support and practice expertise may be utilised.

While current models for tertiary funding within Australia and New Zealand do not support this type of enterprise, the status of practicum education in University is changing. Institutions are quickly becoming aware of the need to develop protocols and procedures to safeguard both students and the learning institution during the practicum. Having an appreciation of potential risk factors and risk management is critical to this process. Within this highly contested and litigious context, the development of alternative models for delivering practicum education is not out of the question, where the tertiary institution may exert increased influence over the learning environment, process and outcomes.

A second option to address issues of quality would be for educational institutions to introduce more rigorous ways of monitoring process and outcomes in practicum learning. Once again this is not an easy task due to the 'voluntary' nature of agency involvement in practicum learning. Nevertheless educational institutions do have a responsibility to uphold a 'duty of care' towards students in the field, and as such must tackle the issue of quality learning in a systematic way.

Improving quality in field education, while managing potential risk in a climate of scarce resources, remains one of the most vexing contemporary challenges for field education. Increasingly, differing types of technology are being used to provide additional support to students in the field, yet these developments in themselves raise particularly complex questions in regard to ethics, equity and equivalence.

Learning and Working Online

This is an area that requires urgent attention by both social work professional associations, and education providers. To date professional Codes of Ethics and Standards of Practice do not adequately address the use of technology for student and worker supervision and practice. Legislation promoting the protection of privacy online has not kept apace with the exponential growth in use of this technology for communication, storage and retrieval of information in both education and practice. (Agger-Gupta 2002). This anomaly poses a further challenge that needs to be addressed somewhat urgently in social service delivery and education sectors.

There is no doubt that providing online support of students during the practicum is an exciting contemporary development for social work education. Although none of the articles in this edition specifically addresses the topic of using online practicum supervision, this development is a natural, yet contentious extension of facilitating education online. To date, very little appears in the literature that addresses the topic of online student supervision, and even less attention has been devoted to grappling with the ethical issues raised by this mode of supervision. Questions of privacy, confidentiality, security of information and safeguards against the electronic sharing of information are yet to be considered.

With growing numbers of students engaged in international field placements, video conferencing and online supervision provide a means of creating a student learning community between those in widely dispersed geographic areas. While the provision of online input does appear to be a pragmatic solution to supporting students and practitioners who work afar, the equivalence and adequacy of this mode of delivery, compared with face to face supervision has yet to be tested in any substantive way. These concerns have also been raised in relation to the increasing use of video conferencing to support student placements. (Panos, Panos, Cox, Roby and Matheson 2002).

It is clear that online input and video conferencing offer students who may otherwise be isolated from peers, the opportunity to discuss their work and gain collaborative support and guidance while on placement. However, the quality of communication in these forums will be influenced by factors beyond the student's control, such as the sophistication of computer and video conferencing equipment being used, and having access to a reliable internet connection. In addition the question has been raised as to whether these technologies interfere with relationship building (McCarty and Clancy 2002), which is deemed to be an integral component of the supervision and learning process (Beddoe 2000). Establishing just how new technologies can facilitate effective learning outcomes for the practicum, and addressing questions of ethics, such as ownership of material, privacy and security in using these technologies, must be a priority for educators and professional associations. Apart from the challenges involved in using technology in the supervision of students and field teachers during practicum,the impact of blurring professional boundaries in the provision of client services is a further contentious area that schools of social work need to tackle in their practicum curriculum design.

Interdisciplinary practicum learning

With the exception of Rogers' et al article, all of the contributions in this edition have focused specifically on practicum learning for social work students. Increasingly however, the title social worker encompasses a range of generic roles, which involve working closely with staff qualified from diverse specialty areas. As a result of having a deregulated and highly competitive labour market in the human services it is not uncommon for service co-ordinators, youth workers, case managers, and community development workers to originate from a range of disciplines other than social work, such as nursing, disability studies, psychology, and teaching. The increasing emergence of generic worker roles and the broad application of differing perspectives have emerged out of the current workplace context where managerialism and increased routinisation of practice prevail (Jones 2000). These changes have been felt most keenly in health and hospital settings where the elimination of discipline specific functions have led to the development of service teams made up of personnel from a variety of occupational backgrounds. Within this structure discipline specific directors, supervisors, and education co-ordinators no longer exist (Globerman and Bogo 2002). Not surprisingly, in this highly contested competitive environment professional groups feel threatened by the permeable boundaries between occupational groups, and the climate is ripe for territorial interdisciplinary disputes (Shapiro 2000).

Although learning to work with multi-disciplinary teams has always been a focus of social work education (Wilson 1981; Compton and Galaway 1999) this approach has entailed understanding the unique contribution that social work as a discipline might contribute to client assessment and intervention. However, as noted above much of the focus for service delivery is no longer on the unique contribution of discipline specific knowledge and skills, but more on how to facilitate best client outcomes using the generic tasks such as service co-ordinaton, or case management. This marked shift in emphasis requires students and workers to negotiate differences of approach within a context that greatly favours the standardisation of service delivery, and the demonstration of explicit measurable outcomes. While this milieu seeks to blur discipline specific input and generate a 'one size fits all' model for client intervention, it is even more imperative that students gain an informed yet critical appreciation of the strengths a social work perspective can bring to generic worker roles.

One practical way to facilitate this understanding is for practicum students from a range of disciplines to work and learn together during their field placements. To date, little has been documented about student or educator experiences in cross-disciplinary practicum education. Nevertheless, the growing generic nature of contemporary service delivery lends itself to promoting opportunities for this type of learning. Facilitating cross-disciplinary practica not only provides opportunities for students to learn about negotiating the complexities of working with practitioners who adhere to differing perspectives, but also enables students to develop the advanced communication and diplomacy skills necessary for such work.

The second part of this article has focused on discussing themes that have been canvassed in the following contributions. While these commentaries have together provided a comprehensive overview of the contemporary context in which the social work practicum is delivered there are two further matters of significance that impact on future developments in Australian field education. The first of these is the need for curriculum development in rural social work practice, and the second is to build and sustain a research culture in relation to practicum education.

Rural Social Work. Despite increasing numbers of social workers being employed in rural and remote areas (Lome and Cheers 2000) the problem of attracting and retaining trained professionals to work in rural and remote communities remains (Hodgkin 2002). Recent research has identified the need for social work programs to better prepare students for working in the rural context by providing rural subjects, rural content in other subjects, and rural field education opportunities (Lome and Cheers 2000, 27). This is a particular challenge for those schools of social work located in large metropolitan cities where a proactive approach to networking and supporting rural field educators and agencies is necessary. Nevertheless, some institutions have already demonstrated a commitment to this ideal and created rural social work electives within their curriculum (Crawford 1999).

When students are placed in rural or remote locations, where few qualified workers may be employed, finding ways to provide educational input and support is a challenge. In this edition of W1WE you can read about strategies schools have used to supplement students learning at a distance, such as Waugh and Hart's article on facilitating online discussions and Mensinga's on accessing video conferencing. Each of these methods is still in an experimental phase of development, but do offer possibilities for providing additional input to students placed in rural and remote localities. This type of back up is particularly important given that isolation and lack of peer support have been cited by rural workers as reasons for not continuing to practice in these locations (Wolfenden, Blanchard and Probst 1996).

The final matter to flag in this commentary is the need for further research and theoretical development in practicum delivery.

Development of Practicum Research and Theory

Although there has been a long tradition of practicum education in social work little research activity or theoretical development has occurred in this area within Australia. Without research it is difficult to address current and future challenges in field education in a meaningful, systematised way. Both quantitative and qualitative investigations are needed to capture different types of information. In this way, research can be utilised for a range of purposes such as, pedagogical and theoretical development, budget justification, risk identification, and monitoring for quality learning. This type of development calls for an extension of investigations, to venture beyond conducting and documenting program evaluation, to tackle some of the more controversial and ambiguous issues currently encountered in social work field education.

CONCLUSION

Given the unique Australian geography further development and investigation into rural field education is warranted. In addition, further expansion in terms of research and theoretical development would strengthen the current basis from which practicum education is currently delivered. Nevertheless, at the beginning of this new millennium it has not been difficult to identify numerous exciting developments and contentious issues to be addressed in Australian social work field education. This diversity is reflected in the scope of articles offered to this first special edition of the WIWE journal, dedicated solely to field education. Incorporating emerging technologies into practicum learning, understanding ways to use and interpret media responses to social work, gate-keeping on programs, and managing conflict during the practicum have all been canvassed, along with considering different ways to enhance student supervision. The material within this edition creates a compelling agenda for change in the coming years ahead for Australian social work field education.

REFERENCES

Agger-Gupta, D. (2002) Uncertain Frontiers. Exploring Ethical Dimensions of Online Learning Environments. In K. Rudestam and J. Schocnholtz-Read (eds), Handbook of Online Learning, Innovations in Higher Education and Corporate Training, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.

Barbour, R. (1984) 'Social Work Education: Tackling The Theory-Practice Dilemma', British Journal of Social Work, 14, 557-577.

Beddoe, L. (2000) The supervisory relationship. In L. Cooper and L. Briggs (eds), Fieldwork in the Human Services, Allen and Unwin, Sydney.

Beddoe, L., Appleton, C. and Maher, B. (1998) 'Social Work's Experience of Violence', Social Work Review, 10(1), 4-11.

Beddoe, L. and Worrall, J. (1997) 'The Future of Fieldwork in a Market Economy', Asia Pacific Journal of Social Work, 7(1), 19-32.

Billet, S. (2001) Learning in the Workplace. Strategies by effective practice, Allen and Unwin, Crows Nest, NSW.

Burton, D and Seabury, B. (1999) 'The "virtual" social work course: Promises and Pitfalls', New Technology in the Human Services, 12(3/4), 55-64.

Cauble, A. and Thurston, L. (2000) 'Effects of Interactive Multimedia Training on Knowledge, Attitudes, and Self-Efficacy of Social Work Students', Research on Social Work Practice, 10(4), 428-437.

Compton, B. and Galaway, B. (1999) Social Work Processes, Pacific Grove, Brooks/Cole Publishing, CA.

Crawford, F. (1999) Rural Social Work Education: Connecting Professional, Personal and Place. In L. Briskman and M. Lynn with H. Nauze (eds), Challenging Rural Practice, Deakin University Press, Geelong, 116-127.

Crouch, R. (1979) 'Social Work Defined', Social Work, 24, 46-48.

Denton, M., Zeytinoglu, I. and Webb, S. (2000) 'Work-related violence and the OHS of home health care workers', Journal of Occupational Health and Safety, Australia and New Zealand, 16(5), 419-27.

Etizioni, A. (1969) The semi-professions and their organization, Free Press, New York.

Finn, J. (1999) 'An Exploration of helping processes in an online self-help group focusing on issues of disability', Health and Social Work, v24,13, 220.

Fernandez, E. (1998) 'Student Perceptions of Satisfaction with Practicum Learning', Social Work Education, 17(2), 173-201.

Fortune, A. and Abramson, J. (1993) 'Predictors of Satisfaction with Field Practicum Among Social Work Students', The Clinical Supervisor, 11(1), 95-110.

Gibelman, M. (1999) 'The Search for Identity: Defining Social Work- Past, Present, Future', Social Work, 44(4), 298-310.

Globerman, J. and Bogo, M. (2002) 'The impact of hospital restructuring on social work field eduation', Health and Social Work, 27(1), 7-16.

Hayhoe, S. and Dollard, M. (2000) 'Information and computer technology use in Australian social work education', Australian Social Work, 53(3), 22-28.

Hick, S. (1999) 'Rethinking the debate: social work education on the internet', New Technology in Human Services, 12(3/4), 65-74.

Hodgkin, S. (2002) 'Competing demands, competing solutions, differing constructions of the problem of recruitment and retention of frontline rural child protection staff', Australian Social Work, 55(3), 193-203.

Hughes, C. (1998) 'Practicum Learning: Perils of the Authentic Workplace', Higher Education Research and Development, 17(3), 207-227.

James, A., Morrissey, M. and Wilson, K. (1990) 'The resource implications of practice placements', Issues in Social Work Education, 10(1 and 2).

Jones, A. (2000) Social Work: An Enterprising Profession in a Competitive Environment? In I. O'Connor, P. Smyth and J. Warburton (eds), Contemporary Perspectives on Social Work and the Human Services, Longman, Sydney, 150-163.

Kreuger, L. and Stretch, J. (2000) 'How hypermodern technology in social work bites back', Journal of Social Work Education, 36(1), 103-114.

Lome, B. and Cheers, B. (2000) 'Rural social workers and their jobs: An empirical study', Australian Social Work, 53(1), 21-28.

Maidment, J. (2000) Social Work Field Education in New Zealand. An unpublished PhD. thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of Doctor of Philosophy, Canterbury University, New Zealand.

Maidment, J. (2003) 'Problems Experienced by Students on Field Placement: Using research findings to inform curriculum design and content', Australian Social Work, 56(1), 50-60.

Marsh, P. and Triseliotis, J. (1996) Social Workers and Probation Officers: Their Training and First Year in Work, Avebury, Adershot.

McCarty, D. and Clancy, C. (2002) 'Telehealth: Implications for social work practice', Social Work, 47(2).

McInnis, C., James, R. and Hartley, R. (2000) Trends in the first year experience, DETYA Higher Education Division, Canberra.

Panos, P., Panos, A., Cox, S., Roby, J. and Matheson, K. (2002) 'Ethical issues concerning the use of videoconferencing to supervise international social work field practicum students', Journal of Social Work Education, 38(3), 421-437.

Parton, N. (2001) 'The current state of social work in UK Universities: Some personal reflections', Social Work Education, 20(2), 167-174.

Raffcrty, J. (1997) 'Shifting Paradigms of Information Technology in Social Work Education and Practice', British Journal of Social Work, 21, 259-274.

Rohrcr, G., Smith, W. and Pctcrson, V. (1992) 'Field instructor benefits in education. A national survey', Journal of Social Work Education, 28(3), 363-369.

Sandell, K. and Hayes, S. (2002) 'The Web's Impact on Social Work Education: Opportunities, Challenges, and Future Directions', Journal of Social Work Education, 28(1), 85-99.

Sapey, B. (1997) 'Social Work Tomorrow: Towards a Critical Understanding of Technology in Social Work', British Journal of Social Work, 27, 803-814.

Shardlow, S. (2000) Legal responsibility and liability in field work. In L. Cooper and L. Briggs (eds), Fieldwork in the Human Services, Allen and Unwin, Sydney.

Shapiro, M. (2000) Professions in the Post-Industrial Labour Market. In I. O'Connor, P. Smyth and J. Warburton (eds), Contemporary Perspectives on Social Work and the Human Services, Longman, Sydney, 102-115.

Slocombe, G. (1993) 'If Field Education is so Vital Why Isn't Everyone Doing It?', Australian Social Work, 46(2), 43-49.

Storey, J. and Billingham, J. (2001) 'Occupational Stress and Social Work', Social Work Education, 20(6), 659-670.

Van Soest, D., Canon, R., Grant, D. (2000) 'Using an Interactive Website to Educate about Cultural Diversity', Journal of Social Work Education, 36(3), 463.

Wolfenden, K., Blanchard, P. and Probst, S. (1996) 'Recruitment and retention of rural mental health workers', Australian Journal of Mental Health, 4(2), 89-95.

Wilson, S. (1981) Field Instruction Techniques for Supervisors, The Free Press, New York.

Jane Maidment *

* Author: Jane Maidment: School of Social and International Inquiry, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, 3217, Australia. Phone: (03) 5277 2892. Email: jmmaidme@deakin.edu.au