the state of training field instructors in canada

THE STATE OF TRAINING FIELD INSTRUCTORS IN CANADAAuthor(s): Gayla RogersSource: Canadian Social Work Review / Revue canadienne de service social, Vol. 13, No. 1(Winter/hiver 1996), pp. 89-107Published by: Canadian Association for Social Work Education (CASWE)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41669613 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 22:11

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Canadian Association for Social Work Education (CASWE) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserveand extend access to Canadian Social Work Review / Revue canadienne de service social.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.31 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 22:11:05 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=caswe

http://www.jstor.org/stable/41669613?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


THE STATE OF TRAINING FIELD

INSTRUCTORS IN CANADA

Gayla Rogers

Field EDUCATION is an integral feature of the social work curriculum in Canada, and field instructors thus have a profound influence on students' professional development and education. They are expected to be experienced practitioners who are able to provide a learning environment where students can acquire the requisite practice knowledge, skills, and professional identity for the social work profession. Pivotal to the success of a student's learning experience is the ability of the field instructor to direct and facilitate the educational process. To do this competently, field instructors require an understanding of the complex- ities of learning and of teaching adults in a social work setting. As com- petent field instructors are salient to preparing students for professional social work practice, it is useful to know how various schools of social work prepare field instructors for this role.

Abrégé Dans le cadre d'une étude plus vaste, des recherches ont porté sur les genres de formation que les écoles canadiennes de service social dispensent à leurs instructeurs de formation pratique. D'après les données disponibles pendant l'an- née scolaire 1992-1993, on a recueilli et analysé des informations sur l'étendue, la structure, le contenu et le processus de la formation des instructeurs de formation pratique. On a découvert que la plupart des directeurs de formation pratique aimeraient offrir plus de formation théorique et accroître le contenu portant sur l'apprentissage et l'enseignement, la supervision des étudiants et les questions multiculturelles soulevées dans le cadre de la pratique. Les directeurs s'entendent pour dire que les instructeurs de formation pratique ont besoin de formation, mais ils ne sont pas tous d'accord que cette formation devrait être régie par l'ACESS.

Gayla Rogers is Director of Field Education in the Faculty of Social Work at The Univer- sity of Calgary.

Canadian Social Work Review, Volume 13, Number 1 (Winter 1996) / Revue canadienne de service social, volume 13, numéro 1 (hiver 1996) Printed in Canada / Imprimé au Canada

89



90 Revue canadienne de service social, volume 13 (hiver)

Training field instructors in perspective The need for training field instructors in North American social work programs was recognized by Bertha Reynolds (1942) in the 1940s and Charlotte Towle (1954) in the 1950s. Barengarten (1961) suggested that group meetings represented the most helpful format for new field instructors. Several authors since then have offered "think pieces" pro- moting the educational and administrative rationale for training and the benefits of it (for example, Pettes, 1979; Sheafor & Jenkins, 1982; Shu- bert, 1983). Others have described training programs and formats with regard to content and process, providing directions and suggestions for implementing training (Bogo & Vayda, 1981; Glassman, 1995; Shulman, 1989; Wilson, 1981). Several exploratory and descriptive studies con- sider the experience of single programs, and there is a growing literature evaluating training (Abramson 8c Fortune, 1990; Raskin, 1989). Most authors conclude with a prescription for more or better training for field instructors and advocate more research on the topic.

In the description and evaluation of programs to educate field instructors, the quality of the learning environment, such as opportunities for dialogue, networking, and learning from each other, is viewed as equally important as the content related to field instruction (Bogo 8c Power 1994; Rogers, 1995b). Whether the curriculum is developed around an organizing principle such as critical thinking (Rogers 8c McDonald, 1992) or parallel process (Livingston et al., 1992) or whether it is designed to cover essential ingredients for a specific population or program (Showers 8c Cuzzi, 1991), the literature suggests that both course content and group process are relevant. A synthesis of this literature suggests that field instructors will "be attracted to training that they believe will. . . make them better teachers" (Lacerte 8c Ray, 1991, p. 225) and that seminars for field instructors have a significant influence on their satisfaction with the school and on the quality of teaching (Rosenfeld, 1989). However, a contrasting view is presented by Strom (1991), who studied five BSW programs and found that only 6 per cent of field instructors who were social workers (n = 47) and 12 per cent of those who were not (n = 33) felt that the training offered by the schools con- tributed to their skills as supervisors (p. 189).

A small number of studies examining national trends, in contrast to most of the reported research, gather data beyond a single school or grouping of schools in a specific region. These studies look at a variety of issues related to field education (of which training field instructors is one) in an attempt to describe, quantify, and present a broad understanding of the state of field education at a given time. They provide us with a reference point by which to compare individual schools with a national standard and a yardstick by which to measure changes in national norms over time.



Canadian Social Work Review, Volume 13 (Winter) 91

The United States and beyond In the United States, a national study was conducted in 1984 and 1985 to explore "current challenges to quality in field education" (Skolnick, 1989, p. 47). Training for field instructors was institutionally sponsored by 73 per cent (n = 216) of the 296 responding programs. The median amount of training provided was 10 hours over 12 weeks as reported by 186 respondents (p. 58). Of particular concern was finding resources to support training, including allowing time for field instructors to attend (p. 59). Both national and regional training programs were recom- mended, as was the need to develop standards and guidelines with respect to the field instructors' role and training (p. 60) .

A 1989 national survey of graduate social work programs in the United States found that all of the practicum directors believed field instructors needed special training (Lacer te & Ray, 1991). While 79 per cent of the schools in the survey provided orientations, only 60 per cent offered training beyond an orientation session and only half required field instructors to attend (p. 219). Lacerte and Ray also noted that most schools providing training used a similar curriculum covering evaluation of the student, learning contracts, learning styles, the school's curriculum, and teaching of specific skills (p. 218). In the survey of agency field instructors, the researchers collected data from only one graduate school of social work, thus limiting the scope of the findings.

An international study to examine social work field instruction received responses from 51 countries and found that, overall, two thirds of the schools offered training to field instructors (Raskin et al., 1991). Some schools offered an orientation session, and others said an individual liaison oriented each field instructor separately. Training offered to field instructors by schools varied greatly. The quality of field instruction emerged as a major concern everywhere, leading the authors to conclude that the focus and content of preparation for supervision, as well as supports for field instructors, are worthy of future study (p. 269).

The Canadian context The 1980 Canadian study, Trends and Issues in the Field Preparation of Social Work Manpower , was an attempt to develop an understanding of the field practice component of schools of social work. The authors found that schools did not prepare field instructors sufficiently for their role and that only two schools had a formalized preparation program for field instructors focused on developing teaching skills (Watt 8c Thomlison, 1980, p. 15). Most schools held an orientation meeting for field instructors at the beginning of an academic term, followed by individual contact with field instructors, usually focused on mid-term, final evaluation, or both (p. 15). However, field instructors believed that they needed additional skills to perform their role more adequately (p. 20) . Watt and




Kimberley (1981), in a further report, went so far as to propose "Pro- grams of certification " but found consensus in the recommendation that each school provide a formal training mechanism for new instructors and ongoing training experiences for all field instructors (p. 101).

The only other Canadian data since this study were collected in 1985. In referring to this more recent information, Bogo and Vayda (1993) note that "consistent and comprehensive training programs were . . . being offered in only four Canadian schools in the form of seminars, courses, or support groups" (p. iii). These data were collected from 18 schools participating in a project funded by Health and Welfare Canada to produce a national curriculum for use by Canadian schools to enhance the competence of field instructors. The survey also revealed that almost no documentation existed on the content, structure, or process of training activities provided for field instructors and suggested that the need for development of a comprehensive approach to field instruction and training seemed evident (Bogo & Vayda, 1989, pp. 224-225). The result of this project was the publication of The Practice of Field Instruction in Social Work : Theory and Process (Bogo 8c Vayda, 1987) with an annotated bibliography to be used in field-instructor training. This book represented consensus regarding the generic elements of field instruction. A subsequent Health and Welfare grant to the Contin- uing Professional Education for Social Workers Project produced a teaching manual for training field instructors to accompany the text (Bogo 8c Vayda, 1993). These materials were sent to all schools in Can- ada in 1990 to be used in training field instructors prior to publication of the manual in 1993.

Expert opinion Raskin's Delphi studies (1983, 1993) identified consensus statements by those considered to be experts in field education in North America. In the first study, there was consensus with reference to inadequate attention to training for the field instructor role. In the second study to revisit and determine what had changed in the past decade, Raskin found that experts continued to identify processes to help field instructors help students as a research priority.

Clearly, further research on field instructor training is warranted since the "practice of training field instructors has yet to show what relation- ship training has with student performance, skills, knowledge, or teaching ability" (Raskin, 1989, p. 4). Before researching the impact or effectiveness of field instructor training in Canada, it is necessary to know its extent and to describe the structure and content of existing training programs.




Methodology Questionnaires were sent to the entire set of field directors and coordinators of all Canadian Association of Schools of Social Work (CASSW) institutional members as listed in the September 1991 Directory (n = 26) . Twenty-five of the 26 schools responded to the questionnaire, resulting in an overall response rate of 96.2 per cent.

The questionnaire was specifically developed for the purposes of the study and contained a series of questions to determine the types of training each school provided. A very broad definition of training was used to identify the full range of activities schools might employ to prepare, educate, or train field instructors. Type of training was determined accord- ing to whether the program offered formal courses, short courses, workshops/seminars, orientations, individual preparation, or some combina- tion of these. Formal course is defined as scheduled classes during an academic term in which participants usually earn credits. Short course con- sists of several sessions over a number of weeks. A workshop /seminar is offered once or more during a term, usually focusing on specific aspects of field instruction. Orientation is a session for field instructors held at or near the beginning of term to provide general information about requirements and expectations. Individualpreparation of field instructors provides general information about the field program and specific information about students on a one-to-one basis. These training activities represent a continuum in terms of length of time, expectations of participants, and depth and range of content and skills.

A number of questions were asked about the hours and amount of training, the number of field instructors receiving training, and procedures. Details were sought about the format, content, teaching methods, assignments, and evaluative mechanisms employed. Each of these characteristics is examined in relation to the types of training offered across Canada.

Finally, field directors were asked to indicate their opinions on issues reflecting their experience in preparing and working with field instructors. These data were gathered using a scale composed of Likert-type items ranging from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (5). Each item focused on a different issue such as whether training should be mandatory, respondents' satisfaction with the training their programs provide, whether the training follows the Bogo and Vayda model (1993) , whether it includes content on multicultural practice, and other salient aspects of field education.

The data were analyzed using SPSS for Windows 6.0 (1993). All of the variables were cross-classified with training type to highlight the differ- ences and similarities across Canada. It must be borne in mind that the results only reflect the views of Canadian field directors and coordinators. No data were gathered from faculty, administrators, agency person- nel, field instructors, or students for this national survey. However, field




directors and coordinators are, by virtue of their role, in a position of knowledge with reference to the school's objectives, students' needs and expectations, field instructors' competence, and the field education model employed. They therefore speak with some trustworthiness about field-instructor training.

Findings Critical elements and characteristics of field-instructor training that emerged from the survey fell under the headings of structure, format, content, and opinions on training issues.

Structure Structure incorporates the types of training provided to field instructors in Canada in the 1992-93 year, as well as the length of training and the extent to which it is required. The most commonly offered types of training practicum opportunities, as shown in Figure 1, are workshops/ seminars and individual preparation with 73.1 per cent (n = 19) of schools offering each of these types. This is closely followed by orientation, offered by 65.4 per cent (n = 17) of the schools. Formal courses are provided by 23.1 per cent (n = 6) of the schools and short courses are offered by 19.2 per cent (n = 5). Compared to the 1980 and 1985 data showing two and four courses for field instructors respectively, the number of courses offered has increased considerably especially if formal and short courses are added together (n = 1 1 ) .

Figure 1 Training Offered by Canadian Schools by Training Type




Of the 25 responses to the national survey, only one school indicated that it was providing no training to field instructors in the 1992-93 academic year and this was due to special circumstances. As Table 1 shows, 96 per cent of schools provide one or more types of training for field instructors. One school has only one type of training to offer field instructors, while five schools offer four types of training. Two types are offered by nine schools and three types are provided by another nine schools.

TABLE 1 Number of Types of Training Provided in Canada

No. of schools No. of types provided (n = 25) No type 1 (4%) Only one type 1 (4%) Two types 9 (36%) Three types 9 (36%) Four types 5 (20%)

The length of training varies by type as shown in Table 2. Formal courses have the most number of hours (mean=31.3) and sessions (mean=13.1). Short courses follow with an average of 15.6 hours and an average of 3.4 sessions. An average of nine hours of training is provided in workshops/ seminars over an average period of 3.1 sessions and an average of 5.7 hours in orientations over 2.2 sessions. It is more difficult to be accurate in the time spent on individual preparation as a number of schools indicated 4 4 as needed" when asked about the number of hours and sessions. Using the data available from 1 1 of the 19 schools which provided this type of training, we can determine that the average length of individual preparation is 1.5 hours over 1.5 sessions per field instructor. Thus, field instructors who are individually prepared receive the least training over the fewest sessions. Perhaps because these sessions are one-to-one, more are not necessary to provide adequate training. The cost of individual preparation for the schools, however, is enormous in terms of the total number of training hours, an average of 63 hours per school.

TABLE 2 Length of Training by Training Type

(Mean hours and sessions)

Type of training Hours Sessions

Formal 31.3 13.1 Short 15.6 3.4 Workshop/seminar 9.0 3.1 Orientation 5.7 2.2 Individualpreparation 1.5 1.5




Formal courses are compulsory in five of the six schools where they are offered, yet none of the schools providing short courses requires field instructors to take them. Only one school requires its field instructors to take the workshops/seminars, but in seven schools orientations are compulsory and half of the schools require individual preparation. Participation in training is more likely to be voluntary for those schools not offering a formal course for field instructors.

Format characteristics Table 3 presents data regarding certain format characteristics such as selection procedures, teaching methods, assignments, evaluation, and feedback. It is important to keep in mind that these data only report on training in the 1992-93 year, and this snapshot may or may not reflect a typical year or usual training activities.

Only those schools offering formal or short courses answered questions about selection procedures for instructors accepted into the courses. All but one school offering formal courses have some type of selection criteria (n = 5). Procedures range from written applications to personal interviews; minimum requirements include status as a first-time field instructor, possession of an MSW or a BSW, and a minimum of two to three years' work experience. Three of the five schools with short courses have selection procedures requiring written applications, status as a first-time field instructor, possession of a BSW, and a minimum of two to three years' work experience.

The most commonly used teaching method across all types of training in the 1992-93 year was group discussion. It is used by all schools offering formal courses, workshops/seminars, and orientations and by all but one school with short courses. Group discussion is obviously not used in individual preparation to any great extent. The next most commonly used teaching method is the lecture, employed with considerable fre- quency by all training types except individual preparation (formal = 5/6; short = 4/5; workshop/seminar = 18/19; orientation = 13/17). The use of role play and experiential exercises is prevalent in half or slighdy less than half of all types of training except individual preparation, where it is not used at all. Taping and playback of tapes, a method that encour- ages field instructors to record their work with a student and play it back for self-evaluation, to obtain feedback from others, and as an example of student supervision, is less frequently used over all training types. Half of the formal courses, none of the short courses, a few workshops/seminars, and one orientation program indicated the use of taping and playback as a teaching method. One-to-one discussion is used as a teaching method only in individual preparation, and then in about half of the cases. Independent study is used in individual preparation and in one formal course.




*

Ř P ěř

H Js*

I ■ä

co a

il M

a u £ bß

•O I 13

"3 ~ ,2 Oi ^HCO^HOTťOOOcOTf li." s s ^ cu

a •S ~ 3 N CO rf LO i-H O O O O CM «3 W* i-H fH .- I

M. I S

I

M.

I ® I ® o § a> oooioo^^HOi-HOCNr-H^ i H Ils l £

~ J H I l £ «

* s "ç/5

£ g in co T^T^ooooo o o o ^ ^ ■§ O Ů 00 ««8-5- O Ů e

u •a 3 « ^ 1 .5 3 « ja vo io m 0 m co h o cm ̂ <£> cd .5 g g li a o o A e ta « ~ .g c o

bp fr * .s e ^ o I I 2

,ükl 1 ï * •* s - S'gfsS s 8 jj H 7» o !£ x o» £ tj cr $ n ° 8 u-S S u ž-ř > n °

•rt O <n .2 ̂ C 'O C u bJO <L> u •rt •g 1 S.Ë«,o|'?fiî

O <n .2 ̂ C 'O C 2 ^3

bJO ¡3 <L>

^ u

•g £ ß c c u § J JÍŠ o Já a-ë I S v SL SL g § 2 ^ §-gJ3íS(S^I<S tí

o a-ë g>|-:g:g

v 5 | 2 ^ tí V3 5 s-< u ii. w « a; rt> V3 «g .Q id « w

U en H <UPu.P-I* «g




Assignments are not given to any great extent in training courses for field instructors. They are required in two formal courses but not at all in short ones, and in one workshop/seminar but not in orientation or individual preparation. Competency of participants is only evaluated in four formal courses. Otherwise competency is not assessed, regardless of training type. Participants are given feedback in all formal courses but not in any of the short ones. In a small number of individual preparation programs (n = 3), workshops/seminars (n = 2), and orientations (n = 2), feedback is given. However, participants evaluate the training they receive in all formal courses, most short courses, more than half the workshops/seminars and orientations, and a small number of individual preparation programs.

Teaching methods used in training field instructors rely on the tradi- tional way of imparting information, the lecture format, and on group discussion to encourage the exchange of ideas and experiences. Less frequently used are teaching methods which require more risk-taking by participants, such as exercises and role plays, and the demonstration of actual or simulated behaviours associated with field instruction, such as videotaping and playback. It makes sense that competency would be evaluated in a formal course, but it is somewhat surprising that it is not evaluated at all in short courses, nor are participants given feedback. In general, it would appear that schools are satisfied that field instructors are taking part in training and do not want to threaten their participation by expecting assignments, demanding work that might require risk taking or exposure, evaluating competency, or giving feedback. There is a concerted effort to make sure that field instructors have opportunities to evaluate the training they receive.

Content in field-instructor training Field directors were asked in an open-ended question to list the three most important content areas in order of priority for each training type and, in a subsequent question, to identify content areas they would like to add to the training provided to field instructors. This latter question was asked to ascertain the possible direction of future changes in emphasis or focus of training programs.

Eight distinct content areas were identified in an analysis of the responses to the first question. Figure 2 shows the number of field directors identifying a content area as important, while Table 4 presents the content areas considered important by training type.

All types of training include content related to field objectives /roles, which received the most mention of any of the areas overall. Typical responses in this category are: clarify roles and responsibilities of all par- ties, spell out the goals and objectives of the practicum, be clear about expectations and who does what.




Figure 2 Most Important Content in Canada

The content area of supervision comes second when considering all types of training. Topics included under this heading relate to: methods of supervision, such as live supervision, group supervision, viewing vid- eos, or discussing cases; the process of supervision, such as the super- visory relationships and giving feedback; and the content of supervision, such as case analysis, skill development, or knowledge use.

The third topic most frequently ranked as important by field directors can be classified as beginnings , encompassing information on preparation of the agency, orientation of students, developing learning contracts, and other activities that take place during the initial phase of field education.

The content areas under the headings of learning/ teaching and evaluation are tied for fourth place relative to other topics. Learning/ teaching is distinguished as a separate category from supervision and covers such topics as learning preferences, teaching styles, and teaching adult learners. The area of evaluation includes anything to do with the process and procedures of evaluating student progress and performance, as well as related issues such as power dynamics and agency evaluation criteria versus those of the school.

Tied for fifth in order of importance are the content areas of integration and curriculum. Integration includes such topics as integrating theory and practice, using theory to inform or guide practice, and building theory from practice. Curriculum pertains to content on the social work program of the particular school. In this category field directors noted,




*

1

.a

ř bß

^ '1 al

^

H ^ tí I a

0

1

lis ^ ^ s? j? S sř £ » *S S H 00 CM <£> r-i 00 CM Oi « -3 •5 S.Ü H HNoowMio^rHMW»òmofioí^o5 2 ■g q. g< 3- ^ w (M ^ rH w ^ (M w w rH r-H w -g q. w w w w w ^

u a í o ^ ^ ^ ^-v ^ ^ ^ ^6 "'S 2 éřsřěS ss g ~ -Sn 00 00 CD ^csi^H T*< ~ g iL r-H evi o l> CM iri o TfHOOlN^HObai 43 •p* O. r-H CM >w' r-H CM »-H 1- < W ü </)

S CU^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ S" M S *£

^ ^ ^ ^ fcS ^

SS ^ ^

t£ « a ^ 00 GO O CO CO O u ai 15 11 rHGMOcOCMTť^oioeOCM^tOTtíOOOOÓ P„ £ g& ^^CM - - -CM - r-H rH &>| > vu •fi s CL i-i CL

t¡sr S ^ S* S" ^ Si o II CM co r-H CM ß " -Sä O CM CM O I-H^HCOCOO r-H rH O CM CM S V & w CM 1-HCO rH CM S* ¡2 ~ w ^ - - V S

_ _ _ _ _ _ ^2 1 S 2 ^

_ SČ _

i£ _

ï? _

£ _

^2-c _

S r- I ^ GO r-H GO C "5 SÜ o H S O CM Tjî fi C *« £0 ^ CO ^ CM w r-H c ,C ^ ^ ww w O ^ S i 2 c 2 c • <D •ö & C ^ S C o

i. s i 1 1 i i i ti i. Il 'I

s ^ I ! I

i I J |i

la ? f ! I a I s£ rs




for example, the importance of content about the core and optional courses that students take either prior to or concurrent with the practicum, the policies of the school, and the current context of social work education in the school's catchment area.

Notable for its absence is any content on multicultural and multiracial practice or issues. Topics that could have fallen in this category would have included diversity issues, anti-discriminatory or anti-oppressive practice, and multicultural or multiracial content, none of which was mentioned by field directors in 1992-93 when the data were collected.

As Table 4 shows, the nature of the content deemed important in Canadian field instructor training varies with the type of training. In terms of formal courses, the most important content falls under objectives, followed by learning/ teaching, and then supervision and beginnings. Given that formal courses extend to an average of 13 sessions, there would be many other opportunities to include the additional content areas. For example, evaluation is not of pressing concern at the out- set and might not be discussed until later in the course. Curriculum might be covered in other types of training such as orientation, one possible reason why it is not deemed important in a formal course. Short courses, which have an average length of three sessions, most often identify content on supervision as important, followed by content on beginnings and objectives. Interestingly, only one school identified learning/ teaching in the top three important content areas for short courses.

Supervision appears to be the content area most often seen as important in workshops/seminars, followed by evaluation and then by field objectives. However, in orientations the content area identified as most important pertains to field objectives, closely followed by curriculum and then by beginnings. Field objectives are also identified as most important in individual preparation. The second and third content items most often mentioned in individual preparation are curriculum and beginnings.

Workshops/ seminars have more sessions than orientations or individual preparation and are usually spread out over the term to deal with specific issues in field instruction as they arise. They tend to focus on "how to" topics like supervision and evaluation, whereas orientations are by nature designed to inform participants about field objectives and the curriculum without as much emphasis on techniques and skills. Because orientations are most often held at or near the beginning of the term, it is not surprising that they also deal with beginnings. When field instructors are individually prepared, orientation is usually the goal, delivered on a one-to-one basis instead of via a group session. This may be the reason that the content areas considered to be important are the same for both individual preparation and orientation.

Responses to the question about what field directors would like to add to training were analyzed. Eight categories were identified along with a




ninth category, indicating nothing should be added to the content of existing training.

Most often mentioned as an area to be added to formal courses is multicultural content followed by content on evaluation. In short courses, supervision then multicultural content and field objectives are considered important areas to be added. It is interesting that supervision is the content area most schools want added in workshop/seminar, orientation, and individual preparation. As supervision was already rated of most importance in workshops/seminars (see Table 4), schools must feel they are not providing enough content in this area. Field directors who offer workshop/seminar, orientation, and individual preparation also want to add multicultural content and content on learning/ teaching types. The need to add multicultural content reflects the growing awareness of its importance in the curriculum and in social work practice. Field directors are also suggesting that field instructors need more than information on field objectives and curriculum; they need input on how to teach and what it means to learn.

Opinions on field issues Field directors were asked to indicate their extent of agreement with statements about field instructor training on a Likert-type scale. The "strongly agree" and 4 'agree'* categories were combined, as were the " strongly disagree" and "disagree" categories, to simplify analysis of the

data, which are presented in Table 5.

TABLE 5 Extent of Field Directors' Agreement on Selected Training Issues

N = 25

1 ) Field instructors require special training for this role. 23 (92%) * 2) Training should prepare field instructors to

demonstrate and teach about ethnically sensitive, antidiscriminatory practice. 23 92%

3) Our training does prepare field instructors to demonstrate and teach about ethnically sensitive, antidiscriminatory practice. 13 (52%)

4) CASSW should require schools to provide training for field instruction. 18 (72%)

5) Our training follows the manual sent by CASSW: Bogo 8c Vayda (1990). 13 (52%)

6) Amount of training we provide is adequate to meet our expectations. 10 (40%)

7) Type of training we provide is adequate to meet our expectations. 10 (40%)

8) Training for field instructors should be mandatory. 17 (65%) * Percentage of respondents identifying content area by item as important.




There was nearly universal agreement by field directors in Canada that "Field instructors require special training for this role." There was also high agreement (n = 23) that "Training should prepare field instructors to demonstrate and teach about ethnically sensitive, antidiscriminatory practice." However, when it comes to actually providing this type of preparation, only 13 (52%) of the field directors agreed that "Our training does prepare field instructors to demonstrate and teach about ethnically sensitive, antidiscriminatory practice." This may explain why multicultural content was identified as an important addition to training.

Eighteen of the 25 field directors were of the opinion that "CASSW should require schools to provide training for field instructors." Not shown in the table is an interesting trend suggesting that, as the type of training becomes less formal, structured, and frequent, the field director's agreement that CASSW should require training decreases. About two thirds of field directors (n = l7) agreed that "Training for field instructors should be mandatory." This statement implies that schools should require training for their field instructors, whereas the previous one suggests that it become a CASSW policy.

The Bogo and Vayda materials appear to provide generic content for use in some training of field instructors; approximately half of the field directors agreed that "Our training follows the manual sent by CASSW: Bogo & Vayda."

Ten (40%) of the field directors agreed that the "Amount and type of training is adequate to meet the expectations." Those offering formal courses were most satisfied with the amount and type of training, while the lowest level of agreement was with amount and type of training provided in workshops/seminars and orientation.

In summary, there is consensus among field directors that field instructors require training, but less agreement that it should be mandatory or required by CASSW. There is also a high level of consensus regarding preparing field instructors to teach about multicultural practice, but only half the field directors believe their training does this. About half of the field directors use the Bogo and Vayda manual and it is used, to some extent, in all types of training. Both the amount and type of training provided do not appear to be adequate, but those providing formal courses are most satisfied with their programs in this regard.

Recommendations and conclusions The findings of this survey indicate that field directors and coordinators in Canada, based on their responses for the 1992-93 academic year, believe that training field instructors will improve the quality of teaching and learning in field education. Most field directors would like to increase the amount of training they offer, as well as move the type of training further along the continuum toward more formalized and




structured courses. There is also a desire to add content related to learning and teaching, supervision, and multicultural issues. Some interest is evident in generic training materials, but these do not seem to provide all the answers for every school. Schools need to augment generic materials with content tailored to their programs.

Schools could use help, however, in developing and implementing models of training field instructors. GASSW could be a central clearinghouse in connecting field directors and coordinators with materials and the exper- tise of others. GASSW could also help field directors give voice to their con- cerns regarding the training of field instructors by creating a set of expectations governed by accreditation standards. It may be impossible, for example, for some schools to meet a standard that requires field instructors to have an MSW and two years of work experience, but it may not be difficult to expect schools to provide a minimum amount of training for whomever they do select. CASSW could also expect a minimum curriculum to be delivered in training field instructors that includes content beyond information about a school's objectives. For example, a curriculum could be specified that covers the knowledge and skills of teaching and learning in field education, multicultural issues, and other content areas to help field instructors prepare students for the social work profession (see, for example, Thomlison et al., 1996) .

It is possible to articulate competencies for field instructors that could be agreed upon at a national level. Each school could then institute the types of training programs suited to ensuring their field instructors are able to meet the expectations. Training programs are believed to enhance the effectiveness of field instructors. However, motivating social workers to become and remain field instructors is simply not enough. The research on field instructor turnover suggests that work has to be done at an agency level to support field instructors in terms of reducing their workload, releasing them to participate in training or meetings sponsored by schools, and acknowledging the value of field instruction within the organization (Bogo 8c Power, 1992; Lacerte & Ray, 1 99 1 ; Rosenfeld, 1 989) . This may be expecting a lo t from our social work community, especially in light of the current economic realities. As schools of social work, we must find ways to help the agencies recognize the value of training field instructors, because everyone loses when the quality of field instruction is poor. Employers become frustrated by the lack they see in our graduates; clients suffer from poor practice delivered by students and hasty practice delivered by overburdened field instructors; students experience a huge variance and lack of consistency in the quality of learning; and schools suffer a loss of reputation and poor relations with the practice community. A clear set of expectations and a reasonable and achievable pathway towards meeting them will help all those involved.




We must not underestimate the importance of the field instructor or the field practicum in social work education. For this reason, future research should include the views of field instructors and students and should address the impact of training field instructors on student progress and performance. We need to determine if different types of training produce different results in how students learn to be social workers and to practice their profession. We need to establish whether combina- tions of training are more or less effective in preparing field instructors. These questions are particularly important in view of the limited resources for supervision in both schools and agencies and the need for attention to issues of gatekeeping and quality. In light of the growth in distance education, internationalization, and outreach to aboriginal communities, consideration must also be given to the delivery of the practicum in remote, removed, or distant circumstances and the training needs of these field instructors.

More than at any other time in our history we need to educate social workers to be knowledgeable, aware, flexible, adaptable, innovative, skil- ful, assertive, and sensitive (Rogers, 1995a). This may suggest we need a new breed of social worker, a critically reflective practitioner. Developing such social workers means in part exposing them to exemplars from our practice communities who can demonstrate and discuss practice and be models and mentors for students. The social workers who undertake this responsibility need the best we can provide in preparation and support. The more we know about existing training for field instructors in terms of the extent, scope, content, and process, the more we can critically examine and integrate present practices into a coherent and meaning- ful set of best practices that can be articulated, conceptualized, applied, and further developed. Research into field-instructor training will inform this process and augment the transformation of practitioner to educator. It honours the invaluable role of field instructors and gives voice to their desire to make a responsible, positive, and informed con- tribution.

REFERENCES Abramson, J., 8c A. Fortune (1990). "Improving Field Instruction: An Evalua-

tion of a Seminar of New Field Instructors." Journal of Social Work Educa- tion 26, no. 3, 273-286.

Barengarten, S. (1961). "Educational Issues in Field Instruction." Social Service Review 35, no. 3, 246-257.

Bogo, M., & R. Power (1992). "New Field Instructors' Perceptions of Institu- tional Supports for Their Roles." Journal of Social Work Education 28, no. 2, 178-189.

Bogo, M., 8c R. Power (1994). "Educational Methodologies and Group Ele- ments in Field Instructor Training." The Clinical Supervisor 12, no. 2, 9-25.




Bogo, M., 8c E. Vayda (1981). "An Educationally Focused Faculty/Field Liaison Program for Full-time Field Instructors." Journal of Education for Social Workers 17, no. 3, 59-65.

Bogo, M., & E. Vayda (1987). The Practice of Field Instruction in Social Work: Theory and Process. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Bogo, M., 8c E. Vayda (1989). "Developing a Process Model for Field Instruc- tion." Canadian Social Work Review 6, no. 2, 224-232.

Bogo, M., 8c E. Vayda (1993). The Practice of Field Instruction in Social Work: A Teaching Guide. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Glassman, U. (1995). "Special Issues in the Education of Field Instructors." In G. Rogers, ed., Social Work Field Education: Views and Visions , pp. 185-196. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt.

Lacer te, J., & J. Ray (1991). Recognizing the Educational Contributions of Field Instructors." In D. Schneck, B. Grossman, 8c U. Glassman, eds., Field Education in Social Work: Contemporary Issues and Trends , pp. 217-225. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt.

Livingston, D., P. Chernack, 8c D. Grodney (1992). "An Innovation in Training Field Instructors in the Age of AIDS." Paper presented at the 38th Annual Program Meeting of the Council on Social Work Education, Kan- sas City, Missouri.

Pettes, D. (1979). Staff and Student Supervision. London: George Allen & Unwin. Raskin, M. (1983). "The Delphi Study in Field Instruction: Identification of

Issues and Research Priorities by Experts." Arete 8, no. 2, 38-48. Raskin, M. (1989). Empirical Studies in Field Instruction. New York: Haworth Press. Raskin, M. (1993). "The Delphi Study in Field Instruction Revisited: Expert on

Consensus Priorities. "Journal of Social Work Education 11, no. 1, 16-27. Raskin, M., L. Skolnick, &J. Wayne (1991). "An International Perspective of

Field Education. "Journal of Social Work Education 27, no. 3, 258-270. Reynolds, B. (1942). Learning and Teaching in the Practice of Social Work. New York:

Farrar 8c Rinehart. Rogers, G. (1995a). "Field Education: A Pedagogy of Its Own." In G. Rogers,

ed., Social Work Field Education: Views and Visions , pp. 529-535. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt.

Rogers, G. (1995b). "In Search of Quality and Competence: Practice Teaching/ Field Instruction in Social Work Education." Unpublished doctoral dis- sertation, University of Newcastle upon Tyne.

Rogers, G., 8c L. McDonald (1992). "Thinking Critically: An Approach to Field Instructor Training. "Journal of Social Work Education 28, no. 2, 166-177.

Rosenfeld, D. (1989). "Field Instructor Turnover." In M. Raskin, ed., Empirical Studies in Field Instruction, pp. 187-218. New York: Haworth Press.

Sheafor, B., 8c L.Jenkins, eds. (1982). Quality Field Instruction in Social Work: Pro- gram Development and Maintenance. New York: Longman.

Showers, N., 8c L. Cuzzi (1991). "What Field Instructors of Social Work Students Need from Hospital Field Work Programs." Social Work in Health Care 16, no. 1, 39-52.

Shubert, M. (1983). Field Instruction in Social Casework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Shulman, L. (1989). Teaching the Helping Skills: A Field Instructor's Guide , 2nd ed. Itasca, 111.: Peacock.




Skolnick, L. (1989). "Field Instruction in the 1980s: Realities, Issues, and Problem-Solving Strategies." In M. Raskin, ed., Empirical Studies in Field Instruction , pp. 47-75. New York: Haworth Press.

Strom, K. (1991). "Should Field Instructors Be Social Workers Journal of Social Work Education 27, no. 2, 187-195.

Thomlison, B., G. Rogers, D. Collins, 8c R. Grinnell (1996). The Social WorkPrac- ticum: An Access Guide , 2nd ed. Itasca, 111.: F. E. Peacock.

Towle, C. (1954). The Learner in Education for the Professions : As Seen for Social Work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Watt, S., 8c D. Kimberley (1981). "Trends and Issues in the Field Preparation of Social Work Manpower: Part 2, Policies and Recommendations." Cana- dian Journal of Social Work Education 7, no. 1, 99-107.

Watt, S., 8c B. Thomlison (1980). "Trends and Issues in the Field Preparation of Social Work Manpower: A Summary Report." Canadian Journal of Social Work Education 6, nos. 2-3, 1-18.

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



the state of training field instructors in canada

Documents