(Re) forming field education: creating opportunities to maximise students' learning on placement.

Irwin, Jude ; Napier, Lindsey

THE BACKGROUND

From the late 1970s the field education program at the University of Sydney had at its centre adult education principles (Manis 1978; Petruchenia 1981). Students were constituted as active learners, involved in decision making about their own learning, negotiating with other students for placements, working in partnership with their field educators to identify what and how they learned on placement and to evaluate their performance. At this time there were three field education placements: two were concurrent (two days a week) and the third was a full time placement at the end of the program.

In the 1980s and first half of the 1990s there was a determined effort to reposition field education from the margin to the centre of the Bachelor of Social Work degree. Rather than collude with any tendency for field education to be the 'practice' part of the program and separate it from the classroom based, 'academic' aspect, the intention was to mainstream it. When positioned as the 'practice' component, where students developed and honed their practice skills, field education was in danger of being marginalised and under-resourced. One strategy put in place to ensure the integration of field education was the decision that all social work academic staff at the University of Sydney would be involved in field placement planning, co-ordination, agency liaison, and evaluation of student performance. Coupled with the introduction of fortnightly placement classes, this aimed to address any sidelining and splitting (theory from practice, classroom from field, academic from practical); and to position field education as integral to the degree, of equal intellectual worth. Reflection, and progressively, critical reflection, on issues and experiences of placement were systematically introduced (see for example Napier and Fook 2000). A third strategy was the development and implementation of a field education curriculum, signposting that field education was as central to social work education as other campus based components of the program (Koonin 1987).

In 1996 there was a further change in social work education with the introduction of a new classroom program in the final two years of the Bachelor of Social Work Davis et al. 1996; Napier and George 2001). Moving to an issue based learning approach, this change reinforced the view of students as active participants in their own learning. The new program aimed to move the curriculum from a subject and methods based structure to an integrated issue based structure where theory, values and research underpinned the contextually based units of study. As the aim was to integrate learning in social work practice and social policy, the program, previously structured around methods, now focussed on levels of intervention (for example, interpersonal, organisational, institutional). A primary emphasis was placed on learning rather than teaching (Davis et al. 1996; Everingham and Irwin 2001; Napier and George 2001). Other than a reduction in the number of placements from three to two, the field education program was not part of this change process. There was an assumption that the proposed changes would bring the philosophical and pedagogical bases of each aspect of the program into alignment.

There were several consequences of the move to an issue based learning curriculum and block placements. The change from a subject to an issue based curriculum left some field educators thinking that they had to shoulder too much responsibility for teaching theory and practice. Dispensing with a methods based focus (casework, groupwork, community work, policy, research) initially led to a perception that there was an absence of methods teaching in the issue based learning curriculum. The immediate response in 1997 was to introduce a series of methods based workshops for students. However the feedback prompted us to comprehensively examine the field education program. As a result, in 1998, we piloted different ways to support and enhance both students, in their learning on placement, and field educators, in creating a learning environment for students.

THE NEW INITIATIVES

The initiatives we introduced were influenced by social constructivist approaches to learning. These stress that the learner is active in the process of learning, both discovering and constructing knowledge (see for example Vygotsky 1978). Optimal learning occurs when students use their thinking processes to select, analyse and understand information, thus creating new knowledge. Learning to practice as a social worker is primarily about inquiring, discovering and making sense of, and acting on this new information.

Learning is viewed by social constructivists as a social process, occurring as a consequence of interaction with experts, who have greater knowledge and experience, and with peers. It can be maximised when a student works closely with an expert who models various aspects of professional practice which the student gradually learns. Experts can also provide support as students struggle with tasks that pose challenges. Another important concept of this approach is the role played by co-operative peer group activities which promote discovery and interaction between peers, thus enhancing learning.

The initiatives we introduced included:

* reducing placement classes from fortnightly to four occasions during the sixteen week placement--the rationale for this was based on the introduction of additional educational supports for both field educators and students;

* offering a series of workshops (mainly methods based) for both students and field educators--this was a direct response to feedback from agencies and field educators that they wanted more theoretical input around methods;

* initiating peer support and accountability groups for students--to assist students to develop and use a support network to discuss and analyse their own and their student colleagues' practice; and

* the production of a practice learning portfolio--a collection of their learning contracts, placement reports and weekly reflective journal entries--the rationale was that the gathering of this material encouraged students to recognize, claim and record their ongoing learning. It was also intended to encourage a connection between classroom and placement learning and to seed the idea of continuing education.

A number of other aspects of the program remained the same. Students and field educators were still expected to develop learning contracts where the student negotiated learning goals, outcomes and learning processes. Seminars and workshops on supervision were held for field educators; mid and end of placement evaluations were developed by the student and their field educator; and there was at least one agency visit by placement class teachers, who explored the teaching/learning process with the student and field educator. Students were also required to write weekly in a learning journal.

RESPONSES TO THE INITIATIVES

This section draws on the feedback received from field educators, students and the teaching team.

Placement Classes

Placement classes provide the opportunity for students to reflect on the philosophical, theoretical and professional underpinnings of their practice, away from the throb of agency life. They symbolise the value and practice of stepping back and reflecting - for example on the implicit value assumptions of their practices. Depth of discussion relies on students' familiarity with each other's placement settings and on creating a sufficiently safe learning environment for risks to be taken in sharing thoughts and ideas. For the most part students found placement classes to be a useful source of support and an interesting way to be exposed to a different array of placement experiences. A theme emerging from the feedback, evident in the quotes below, was the importance of having the opportunity to reflect on placement and of discussing theory/practice questions. Fantastic and challenging. Great to hear others self reflect. It's good to get ideas from others of what is a good placement and a good supervisor. It is essential to meet with university staff and peers to reflect on placement particularly on 'problems' in placement and on theory.

A further theme that surfaced in feedback from students, field educators and the teaching team was the dissatisfaction with the infrequency of placement class meetings. It was difficult for students to connect with each other, to understand each other's situation and to form a cohesive group. This was a particular issue for those students who, for a range of reasons, were not happy with their placements. It was difficult because we only met a few times and you didn't get a chance to get to know others. I would have liked more classes at university. I felt a bit on my own. I had some problems in my placement and the class was good to check out things but I would have liked to meet more. These were very helpful and highly stimulating. Perhaps it would be good to have extra placement classes.

The general view was that placement classes provided students with opportunities to enhance their learning in a safe and constructive environment. Students viewed them as offering opportunities different from peer support and accountability groups and from placement supervision. They particularly valued the input from their student colleagues and the structure of the placement classes. For field educators these classes were perceived as supportive of their teaching role.

Workshops for students and field educators

The workshops offered responded directly to the theory/knowledge/skills requirements of agencies and the expressed continuing education needs of field educators. Drawing on the specialised knowledge of academic staff, the workshops included Social Casework, Group Process, Collective Practices, International Social Development, Practitioners as Policy Makers and Participatory Action Research.

Our initial concern about the usefulness of these joint workshops for field educators was ill-founded. They valued both the content of the workshops and the space to think through practice issues. For them it was a way to update their theory and make links between theory and practice. They are great for the students and it's a great opportunity for field educators to keep up to date with theory and practice. These provide an excellent opportunity for me to become aware of current ideas/thinking/theories. I think they also provide a very good way of linking students with practitioners and therefore provide opportunities for applying ideas to context.

Many field educators who attended workshops with their students experienced this positively. Students were also positive about participating in these workshops with field educators. I have attended three workshops and have very much enjoyed them and appreciated the opportunity to refresh my knowledge in various areas. It has been valuable for me as a field work teacher to be back in the university learning environment. My student appears to have benefited from them as well. The workshops have been informative and interesting. Good to do with the field educators.

Student feedback indicated that placement classes were a useful support in placement. For many, they provided knowledge for 'testing out' in placement. The workshops are an excellent addition to placement. I learned so much from those I attended. They were an educational break from placement and I am able to apply things I learned to activities in my agency. These have been brilliant. We should have more of these practice/theory workshops. It has been useful in reflecting back to placement experience.

Some students commented that the intensity of a one day workshop provided an environment more conducive to learning than regular weekly classes. The specific topic area was valuable for both their current and future placements. The workshops have exceeded my expectations particularly the one on radical casework. I felt I learned more in a day about the radical approach than I learned all over the years in all the lectures that have touched on it. I attended the families workshop. I found it very informative and it will come in handy if I do a casework placement next year.

Students placed in areas distant from the campus expressed some concerns about the travelling time required and as a consequence reduced time in placement. For some this precluded fuller attendance at the workshops. It can be inconvenient for me to leave placement as I have so much to do in so little time. This doesn't mean we shouldn't have them but I feel I am a bit pushed for time. I had a placement in the outer western area of Sydney and could only do full day workshops because of the travelling time. I would really value the workshops being held in other places besides uni for access reasons. I think they are useful yet need to rethink for people who have to travel far.

Poor facilities, limited staffing resources and the heavy workloads of academic staff emerged as an issue. This pressure was exacerbated by high enrolments for the workshops and staff reluctance to exclude either motivated students or generous field educators. However, from the feedback it was evident that the workshops were generally meeting the aims of providing additional educational support to both students and their field educators.

Support and Accountability Groups

In social work, the development of a capacity for self directed (or negotiated) learning is central, as is the development of a capacity for collaboration with co-workers. Support and accountability groups created an opportunity for students to develop these capacities and to reflect on all areas of their practice, including the emotional, material, political and spiritual. Groups comprising four or five students in the same locality were expected to meet fortnightly.

The success of support and accountability groups was largely dependent on students' commitment to self-directed learning. Their feedback on the effectiveness of the groups was variable, some considering them to be invaluable, others considering them to be a waste of time. For some, discussion with members of their support and accountability group assisted them to make decisions about particular issues in placement. For example, one student commented that her support and accountability group enabled her to be assertive with her field educator about her expectations of the placement. For others, these groups were instrumental in their learning, facilitating their connections with other students, exposing them to challenge and assisting them to obtain a broader understanding of social work. I love my peer support group. My support group is fantastic. Many issues are explored and our problems are aired. Great solutions to problems are often arrived at. We meet every two weeks for two hours. I feel like they have been excellent. It is good to have some time to debrief with other students as opposed to debriefing the whole time with your supervisor and it is also interesting to see what your group are doing. It's going along great. I get a lot from my peer support group and I feel that this form of activity fortnightly is great as it allows us to reflect and help each other out in adjusting to any problems. Great for critical reflection.

Some students, although ambivalent about the value of the groups, identified some benefits. The support group has not been used to support or advise each other possibly because we are in very different fields and don't feel we are qualified to give advice. I think that if any of us have dilemmas we have dealt with them before we have come to the group. A positive aspect is that I am learning about other areas of social work and I am considering whether or not I am interested in entering these fields.

Several students identified how friendships could influence the dynamics of the group. I think our group stays focussed because we did not know each other prior to the group. We are all very open with each other probably because we knew each other before the group. All the others knew each other so it has been difficult for me to really feel part of this group.

Some students commented on the need for clearer direction in the group, with one student commenting in a journal entry about the need for a leader to direct the group. He felt the group was lacking direction because no one was 'driving' it. In his journal he wrote about his ambivalence of taking charge because of his gender. For some students, this lack of direction posed a problem, while for others it was the real strength of the groups. They have been fairly unstructured and it's awkward to know what we should be achieving. I do appreciate being with the other students and sharing notes but we don't get much feedback from one another. No facilitator to bring us back on track, more like a bitching session and no progress made.

Several students stressed the importance of everyone being committed to the process, noting that if this did not happen the effectiveness of the group could be compromised. Some thought that the peer support group offered them no support or challenge. This group is not useful. I feel able to share issues but don't get any challenging or support or advice. It's just about listening at the moment and feels uncomfortable especially being unfamiliar with the other members. The placement class is better than this group.

While a few students stated that the groups were ineffective when placements were too dissimilar, others thought that this difference was positive, in that they could learn about issues in different agencies. Time was one of the most frequently mentioned constraints--getting away from the agency and organising a time to suit all members of the group.

Feedback from field educators about the peer and support groups was variable, with organisational and time difficulties being stressed. Some commented the time required out of the agency was a concern. The disadvantage from my point of view is that I have two students who are engaged in a joint task who are in different support and accountability groups with each of them 'out of action' for a period of the week which has reduced the time for the task. The advantages are that it provides valuable peer support for students and allows them to compare placement experiences accordingly. The disadvantage is that it takes time away from the placement experience.

Student Learning Portfolio

We introduced a requirement for students to produce a learning portfolio, comprising learning contracts, mid and end of placement evaluations and journal entries. The rationale was that gathering these materials would encourage students to recognize, record and claim ongoing learning. It was also intended to encourage a connection between classroom and placement.

Both students and field educators considered journals to have been a useful way to 'make sense' of what students were doing. It was a different way of writing and processing learning, and therefore challenging. The two most frequent issues raised by students was the demand to be 'reflective' and the contribution the journal made to their understanding of the interdependence of theory and practice, and of policy and practice. Difficult at first but becoming much easier. I find this a good time to link theory and practice. It makes me think in more depth about issues. One problem is that they are time consuming. I have found that writing down and reflecting on how I work, how I dealt with issues that came up during the day and working as a team have been very valuable. It has made me think and make connections between theories I learnt and how these relate to practice. I have found it enormously helpful to set aside time for self reflective journal writing. It is during this time that I have best seen the relationship between theory and practice. It has been helpful to me to clarify personal value commitments and to identify my personal biases. I could not imagine how I would have been able to appreciate what I was learning on placement if I had not been compelled to do this exercise.

Our judgment was that writing the journal was useful for most students. Together with mid and end of placement evaluations, it did provide a record of how their knowledge and abilities developed over the placement. The drawing together of all the aspects of their learning in the portfolio enabled students to recognize directions for their future development in the final year of their degree.

Overall three of the four changes introduced into the field education program, support and accountability groups, workshops and the learning portfolio seemed to have both positive outcomes for student learning and support field educators in their role of supervising students. However the reduction in the number of placement classes appeared to be counterproductive. The issue that emerged in almost all aspects of field education was time, and the lack of it, in the context of busy student lives--time required to travel to workshops, time required to reflect and write journal entries and time 'taken out' of placement to attend support and accountability groups. For some, the 'doing' of placement was more important than the processing of the what and the why of doing. Being at placement was what I really liked and all the other things took time away from that.

FIVE YEARS ON

The changes introduced in 1998 provided the impetus for ongoing review of the field education program, exploring opportunities for students to enhance learning. In 1999, placement classes resumed on a fortnightly basis. They remain a core part of the field education component with space for students to share with each other their learning on placement. The positive response from field educators to the workshop program initiated in 1998 prompted us to re-examine the supports we provided. We developed a program of professional education, which included workshops and a field education conference at the end of each year (1). In 2003, this professional development program attracted 360 participants.

Support and accountability groups are now a requirement in both field placements. More effort is made to prepare students for participation in such groups. For example, they are encouraged to spend the initial meeting establishing ground rules and mutual expectations. Time is also now provided for students to meet. They are also required to submit two short pieces of work on issues arising in their support and accountability group.

IN CONCLUDING

What was innovative in 1998 is now institutionalized in our field education program. We are aware that there is a risk of becoming complacent and of being blind to the potential for being creative in changing contexts. In the current environment of 'running to keep up', it is even more imperative to take stock and decide whether current practices speak to the context now.

For students, being on placement can be a demanding experience as they work towards acquiring knowledge, developing skills and a sense of professional identity. Valuing, structuring and supporting learning in the field in a similar way to learning in the classroom can only enhance students' development as competent and able practitioners.

REFERENCES

Boud D. and Walker D. (1990) 'Making the Most of Experience', Studies in Continuing Education, 12, 61-80.

Carson L. (1997) Support and Accountability Groups, Handout, Department of Social Work and Social Policy, University of Sydney.

Cooper L. (2000) 'Teaching and learning in Human Services Fieldwork', in L. Cooper and L. Briggs (eds) Fieldwork in the Human Services, Allen and Unwin, Sydney, 1025.

Cooper L. and Briggs L. (eds) Fieldwork in the Human Services, Allen and Unwin, Sydney.

Davies M. (1984) 'Training: What we think of it now'. Social Work Today, 15 (2), 1219.

Davis A. George J. and Napier L. (1996) 'Hidden Partners: Inviting partnership in the social work curriculum', Partnerships that Work?: Asia Pacific Regional Social Services Conference, Christchurch, New Zealand.

Everingham F. and Irwin J. (2001) 'Whether the Twain Shall Meet: Knowledge and practice in professional education', in J. Higgs and A. Titchen (eds), Professional Practice in Health, Education and the Creative Arts, Blackwell Science, Oxford, 212226.

Koonin R. (1987) Conceptual Framework of Fieldwork Education Programme: Towards the Development of a Fieldwork Curriculum, University of Sydney, Department of Social Work.

Manis F. (1978) Openness in Social Work Field Instruction: Stance and Form Guidelines, Kimberley Press Inc, Goleta, California.

Napier L. and Fook J. (eds) (2000) Breakthroughs in Practice. Theorising Critical Moments in Social Work, Whiting and Birch, London.

Napier L. and George J. (2001) 'Changing Social Work Education in Australia', Social Work Education, 4 (1), 46-54.

Petruchenia J. (1981) 'Student Participation in the Selection of Placements', Contemporary Social Work Education, 4 (1), 46-54.

Shardlow S. and Doel M. (1996) Practice Learning and Teaching, Macmillan Press, London.

Shields K. (1991) In the Tiger's Mouth: An Empowerment Guide for Social Action, Millenium Books, Sydney.

Slocombe G. (1993) 'If Field Education is So Vital--Why isn't everyone doing it?' Australian Social Work, 46 (2), 43-49.

Vygotsky L. (1978) Mind in Society, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Walker D. and Boud D. (1994) 'Learning from the Pastoral Placement', Ministry, Society and Theology, 8, 7-21.

Wilson J. (2000) 'Approaches to Supervision in the Fieldwork', in L. Cooper and L. Briggs (eds) Fieldwork in the Human Services, Allen and Unwin, Sydney, 26-40.

Wilson J. and Cleak H. (2004) Field Education, Thompson, Melbourne.

(1) We acknowledge the contributions of Deb Hart, Professional Officer Field Education, and Dr Karen Healy, Senior Lecturer, who introduced this initiative.

Jude Irwin and Lindsey Napier *

* Authors: Jude Irwin: School of Social Work and Policy Studies, University of Sydney. Email: j.irwin@edfac.usyd.edu.au

Lindsay Napier: School of Social Work and Policy Studies, University of Sydney. Email: l.napier@edfac.usyd.edu.au