SOCW 6520 Assignment 1: Week 1 Blog

  

SOCW 6520 Assignment 1: Week 1 Blog

In this course, you will have 11 Blog Assignments in which you will first post your responses to blog prompts on social work field education experiences and then respond to three other colleagues regarding their blog posts each week. The topics covered in each week’s resources will inform the topics of the blog posts.

Refer to the topics covered in this week’s resources and incorporate them into your blog.

Post a blog post that includes: This is my concentrate year in advanced medical social work and due learning agreement

A description of your understanding of field education experiences

An explanation of your role as an intern in your field education experience, including your agency learning agreement

Resources

Birkenmaier, J., & Berg-Weger, M. (2018). The practicum companion for social work: Integrating class and fieldwork (4th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.

Chapter 1, “Getting Started on Your Social Work Practice Career” (pp. 5–32)

Chapter 2, “Socialization into the Social Work Profession” (pp. 34-61)

FiELD EDUCATION AS THE SIGNATURE PEDAGOGY
OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION

Julianne Wayne
University of Connecticut

Marion Bogo
University of Toronto

Miriam Raskin
George iVIason University

In its EPAS, CSWE (2008) identifies field education as the signature pedagogy
(Shulman, 2005b) of social work education. This article analyzes the field edu-
cation-signature pedagogy fit. It finds congruence in selected organizational
arrangements that are pervasive and routine, and disparities with respect to
expectations about public student performance, peer accountability, the view of
adaptive anxiety, and accountable talk. This article asserts that practicum effec-
tiveness could be enhanced by a broader application of Shulman’s criteria
through a greater emphasis on group structures for learning/teaching in the
ñeld.

THE 2008 EDUCATIONAL POLICY a n d Accreditation

Standards of the Council on Social Work
Education (CSWE) identifies ñeld education
as the signature pedagogy of the social work
profession. “Signature pedagogy is a central
form of instruction and learning to socialize
students to perform the role of practitioner—
it contains pedagogical norms with which to
connect and integrate theory and practice”
(CSWE, 2008, p. 8). The term was tirst coined
by Lee Shulman (2005b), who explains it as
characteristic forms of teaching and learning
used in a particular profession. These forms of

teaching serve the purpose of preparing stu-
dents in the profession’s fundamental ways of
thinking, performing, and acting with integri-
ty. The CSWE recognition of field education as
the profession’s signature pedagogy arguably
elevates its importance and status in social
work education. However, a close examina-
tion of Shulman’s (2005a, 2005b, 2005c) crite-
ria reveals areas of congruence and disparity
between the way he defines signature peda-
gogy and the implementation of field educa-
tion in social work education. This article
examines his criteria of pervasive and routine

Journal of Social Work Education, Vol. 46, No. 3 (Fall 2010).
©2010, Council on Social Work Education, Inc. All rights reserved. DOI: 10.5175/JSWE.2010.200900043 327

3 2 8 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION

activities, public student performance, peer

accountability, adaptive anxiety, and account-

able talk. It argues that the use of signature

pedagogy in its fullest sense could strengthen

the effectiveness of social work education.

Signature Pedagogy in
Reiated Professions

In the past decade, the Carnegie Foundation’s
Preparation for the Professions Program, has
provided 2- and 3-year studies of the art and
science of education in five professions: med-
icine (Whitcomb & Nutter, 2002), law
(Sullivan, Colby, Wegner, Bond, & Shulman,
2007), nursing (Benner, Sutphen, Leonard, &
Day, 2010), engineering (Sheppard, Macatan-
gay, Colby, & Sullivan, 2008), and the clergy
(Foster, Dahill, Golemon, & Wang, 2005a,
2005b). These studies identified the ways in
which preparation builds professional under-
standing, skills, and integrity so that gradu-
ates are prepared to meet their responsibility
to society (Shulman, 2005b). Shulman’s dis-
cussion of signature pedagogy reflects obser-
vations drawn from these studies.

Each study drew data from direct obser-
vation of the actual teaching and learning
experiences of students, focus groups, and
intensive interviews with faculty members
and students. In addition, the researchers
reviewed teaching materials and evaluation
methods. Numerous schools participated in
the study of each profession, supporting the
conclusion that signature pedagogies are not
unique to individual educational programs.
Rather they are replicated throughout pro-
grams in each profession and across local and
regional boundaries.

A detailed review of these studies is
beyond the scope of this arficle. However, it is
noteworthy that a systematic process of
research on teaching and learning practices
was undertaken to identify distinctive educa-
tional pedagogies. Furthermore, in their
analysis these educafion researchers critically
examined both the strengths and limitafions
of the dominant pedagogical practices in their
particular profession. The application of sig-
nature pedagogy to law, medicine, the clergy,
and nursing, the four professions that inter-
face with social work, is illuminated here.

In the study of legal education, the
Socratic case-dialogue method of teaching is
highlighted, especially in the first year. This
approach results in students learning to
“think like a lawyer” (Sullivan et al., 2007, p.
5), despite their wide-ranging academic and
social backgrounds. The authors conclude
that the case-dialogue method develops stu-
dents’ analyüc capacity to understand legal
processes, to see both sides of legal argu-
ments, to sift through facts and precedents, to
use precise language, and to imderstand the
applications and conflicts of legal rules
(Sullivan et al., 2007). These legal education
researchers also note what is not taught, or not
given emphasis: how to use legal thinking in
the actual practice of law, and the develop-
ment and integration of ethical and social
skills with legal analytic thinking. They rec-
ommend an integrated curriculum through-
out the years of the program that brings
together formal knowledge of legal doctrine
and analysis; the experience of practicing law
with responsibility for clients; and developing
students’ identity, values, and dispositions as

FIELD EDUCATION AS THE SIGNATURE PEDAGOGY 329

lawyers. Legal educators need to communi-
cate with each other, work coUaborafively, and
commit to a common purpose of preparing
legal professionals to change curriculum and
pedagogical practices (Sullivan et al,, 2007),

In a review of pedagogies for preparing
medical practitioners, Whitcomb and Nutter
(2002) note the introduction of problem-based
learning, technology-based teaching pro-
grams, and the use of simulated patients. The
fundamental role played by apprenficeship in
clinical educafion is underscored: “Medical
students and doctors in training learn how to
practice medicine by observing skilled clini-
cians caring for patients and by parficipating
in the care of patients under the supervision of
skilled clinician teachers” (Whitcomb & Nut-
ter, 2002, p, 25). Shulman (2005b) elaborates
on the components of medical rounds that
lead to its designafion as the signature peda-
gogy of medicine. In their review of contem-
porary challenges to preparation, Whitcomb
and Nutter (2002) note that trairung takes
place in major teaching hospitals (largely pro-
viding tertiary care), which limits students’
experience with the common health condi-
tions they will encounter in community prac-
tice. They recommend different settings for
different stages in medical students’ develop-
ment and the need to develop and support a
cadre of clinical educators.

In the study of preparing clergy, the
researchers idenfified that across situafions
such as classes, field educafion, community
worship, and spiritual direction there are com-
mon intenfions that guide a wide range of
teaching pracfices (Foster et al., 2005b). These
intenfions, referred to as a signature pedagog-

ical framework, are interpretaüon of texts, sit-
uafions, and relafionships; spiritual and voca-
fional formation; work to heighten conscious-
ness of historical and contemporary contexts;
and the culfivation of performance and ways
of thinking in clerical roles. The importance of
reflective seminary educators who sustain,
model, and coach students is noted. The for-
mation of professional idenfity is emphasized
as well as engagement in a community of
teaching and learning practice. Recommenda-
tions for improving clerical education relate to
insfitutional capacity to reflect on and engage
in dialogue for educational improvement,
internal consistency in the program, and cur-
ricular balance beyond divisions of theory
(class) and practice (field) to view “all forms of
seminary learning as inherently involved in
the cultivation of clergy pracfice” (Foster et al,,
2005b, p, 10).

A review of the nursing literature in the
Carnegie study included a brief summary
report (Benner & Sutphen, 2009) and an article
comparing nursing and clerical education
(Benner & Sutphen, 2007). The literature
appears to offer a multifaceted description of
the signature pedagogy of nursing education.
Some interesting commentary in editorials in
nursing education journals is also instructive
because all pieces argue for multiple signature
pedagogies based on teaching methods or
philosophical perspecfives (Bargagliotti, 2006;
Ironside, 2006), For example, the Carnegie
study researchers report a set of signature
pedagogies in nursing that includes coaching,
simulation, role-modeling, postconferences,
preclinical preparation, postclinical confer-
ences, and an articulation of experiential

3 3 0 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION

learning (Benner & Sutphen, 2009). In a spirit-
ed guest editorial. Ironside (2006) argues for
multipedagogical approaches that include
conventional competency or outcomes-based
education along with teaching approaches
based on feminist and critical social theories,
phenomenology, and postmodern discourses
because the latter approaches refiect the com-
plex nature of nursing practice in ever-
evolving contexts. She stresses the need for “a
robust evidence base on which to base current
and future pedagogical decisions” (p. 52) and
the importance of preparing and valuing
nursing education researchers able to conduct
multiparadigmatic studies.

In this brief review of the study of signa-
ture pedagogy in related professions, it
appears that educators are identifying not
only one central approach to preparing stu-
dents, signature pedagogy, but also additional
teaching methods, philosophical perspectives,
and contextual issues to be addressed in con-
tinuous processes of pedagogical, curricular,
and institutional evolution.

Pedagogy in Sociai Worit

Fieid Education

Field education was originally based on the
belief that students learn to practice the pro-
fession through an apprenticeship supervised
by expert practitioners (George, 1982; Wijn-
berg & Schwartz, 1977). Contributions from
adult learning theory (Knowles, 1980) and
Kolb’s model of experiential learning (Kolb,
1984) provide the theoretical underpinnings
for field education. Specifically, students learn
to practice the profession through active
involvement with “real” experiences in which
they perform a service or helping role, and

opportunities are provided for study of their
practice. Ideally, practice is studied through
two interlinked processes. One is subjective
reflection about students’ understanding and
reactions to the practice situation (Bogo &
Vayda, 1998). The second process involves
conceptualization of the practice situation and
interventions, through making connections to
theory, providing conceptual frameworks,
and supplying explanations from the field
instructor (Fortune, McCarthy, & Abramson,
2001; Knight, 2001). Insights gleaned from
these processes are then used to plan interven-
tions for subsequent practice.

Traditionally, the one-to-one field instruc-
tor and student educational or supervisory
conference is the structure for enacting a wide
range of pedagogical techniques to ground
this view of student learning, none of which
are practiced universally. Students’ “real”
practice can be accessed directly by observing,
listening to audiotapes, or watching video-
tapes and indirectly through reading stu-
dents’ process or summary reports and logs,
or listening to their verbal reports. Students
can also observe and discuss the practice of
others. Reflection, conceptualization and inte-
gration of theory and practice, and future
planning occur largely through field instruc-
tors and students’ review and discussion of
students’ practice material and feedback
about the students’ performance. The field
instructor-student relationship is the context
for learning, and the relationship is expected
to be both supportive and challenging
(Fortune et al., 2001; Knight, 2000). A rich edu-
cational and empirical literature on field edu-
cation explicates pedagogical processes, tech-
niques, and tasks for field instructors (Bogo,

FIELD EDUCATION AS THE SIGNATURE PEDAGOGY 3 3 1

2005; Bogo & Vayda, 1998; Caspi & Reid, 2002;

Fortune et al., 2001; Hendricks, Finch, &

Franks, 2005; Raskin, 1989; Wayne & Cohen,

2001). These are yet to be systematically incor-

porated in all students’ learning experiences

in field education.

Surprisingly, despite the importance of

field educafion pedagogy and the existence of a

substantial knowledge base, the EPAS offers no

pedagogical standards related to supervisory

structure, format, or learning/teaching process-

es. It limits its attenfion to required hours in the

field and the qualifications of field instructors.

Shulman’s (2005a, 2005b) criteria of a signature

pedagogy extend well beyond these standards.

The following section analyzes Shulman’s crite-

ria in the context of social work educafion and

idenfifies areas for further deUberafion and

study by social work educators.

Signature Pedagogy in tiie EPAS:

Shuiman’s Criteria Appiied to

Fieid Education

” . . . Signature pedagogies are both pervasive

and routine. . . . From class to class, topic to

topic, teacher to teacher, assignment to assign-

ment, the routine of pedagogical practice cush-

ions the burdens of higher learning. Habit

makes novelty tolerable and surprise suffer-

able” (Shulman, 2005b, p. 56). This criterion

refers to a shared view of how to best impart

knowledge.

Certain aspects of field education are per-

vasive throughout. Students are assigned to

practice settings, are required to have a field

instructor with a social work degree who will

offer supervision of their field experiences,

and are spending a prescribed minimum num-

ber of hours in the field. However, beyond

those factors, there is great variafion from set-

ting to setting and program to program.

What Shulman (2005c) says about teacher

education could well apply to social work

education. “Every candidate is assigned to a

different place; there is enormous uncertainty

about what they’re going to see, what they’re

going to do, and how their own learning and

performance will be monitored and guided.”

Further, he reflects, “Can you tell me that if

you go to five different student teaching

placements in the same morning in five differ-

ent schools, you can predict what the student

teacher is going to be doing in each of those

places?” His answer to his own quesfioh is

“no.” “So the first problem that I see in teacher

education is the incredible uncertainty of the

pedagogical models of pracfice” (Shulman,

2005c, p. 16).

Neither are social work field educafion

experiences filled with across-the-board edu-

cational routines that foster social work

“habits” or “rituals.” Field instructors do not

have a “shared view of how to best impart

knowledge.” They vary in their use of written

materials and supervisory formats and sched-

ules. Content varies in the balance between

theorefical and practical emphases and in the

analyses of past actions versus planning

future strategies (Wayne, 1988; Wayne, Bogo,

& Raskin, 2006). There is wide variafion in the

nature of student assignments. Some students

are assigned to shadow or observe seasoned

practitioners, while others are sent into solo

practice experiences from the start (Fortune &

Kaye, 2002; Homonoff, 2008; Mumm, 2006).

The lack of consistency is notable.

“Another feature of signature pedagogies

is that they nearly always entail public

3 3 2 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION

student performance” (Shulman, 2005b, p.
57). Signature pedagogies “remov[e] the cloak
of invisibility” (Shulman 2005a, p. 22) for
students.

Students engaged in tield education are
not entirely invisible. All students have
assigned roles involving other people and are
held accountable for their work. The degree of
their accountability varies with the effective-
ness of agency and school monitoring prac-
tices. Though there is a degree of visibility of
students’ performances, there is not—^because
of the breadth of social work practice—and
carmot be equal public visibility of all students’
performances. Although macro and to a lesser
degree group work practice offer opportunities
for visibility, most practice with individual
clients takes place privately. For the most part,
field instructors rely on either written or oral
reports from students about what occurred in
their meetings with clients (Maidment, 2000;
Mumm, 2006; Rogers & McDonald, 1995).
Many arguments support the development of
structures for greater direct observation of
practice. Students may be subjective in their
perceptions of what transpired; may be
unaware of their own nonverbal behavior, such
as tone of voice or body language; have faulty
recall of their experience; neglect to include
moments with clients that they regard as
insignificant; or may offer a skewed report of
their experience to gain approval. As Gambrill
(2001) noted, to assess students’ ability to per-
form the core functions of the profession effec-
tively, instructors must examine their interac-
tions in practice situations.

Signature pedagogies expect students to
be both active and interactive. “Students are
accountable riot only to teachers, but also to

peers in their responses, arguments, commen-
taries, and presentations of new data”
(Shulman, 2005b, p. 57).

Accountability to peers is an important
component of a law classroom and medical
grand rounds. In social work field education,
however, the student is responsible to the
client system, field instructor, agency, and the
school through the faculty liaison, but rarely
are students accountable to other students
through group structures in any form.
Though not mandated by EPAS, BSW pro-
grams usually have field seminars in which
field assignments are discussed. These vary,
however, in their degree of focus on the study
of students’ own practice and on assigned
topics for the class, that is, between inductive
versus deductive learning. In MSW education,
many students go through their entire educa-
tional program without any formal discussion
with another student about any aspect of their
field assignments. Though it may occur in
some places, student-to-student accountabili-
ty is not built into the fabric of social work
field education. Currently, as noted earlier, the
one-to-one student-field instructor relation-
ship is in the forefront of field education, and
field-related educational group structures are
in the background. Shulman’s (2005b) criteria
would reverse this perspective. The current
structure of field education contributes to the
complications of developing this criterion.
Most students are placed in settings in which
they are the only social work student.

Students must experience “adaptive anxi-
ety” (Shulman, 2005b, p. 57) as a necessary
feature of learning in a signature pedagogy.
“Uncertainty, visibility, and accountability
inevitably raise the emotional stakes of the

FIELD EDUCATION AS THE SIGNATURE PEDAGOGY 333

pedagogical encounters” (Shulman, 2005b,
p. 57).

According to Shulman (2005b), students,
to learn, must be emofionally invested in their
work and experience some anxiety. Most edu-
cators would agree social work students bring
anxiety into their field placement even without
student-to-student accountability. Interest-
ingly, social work field educators are concerned
about reducing student anxiety (Gelman, 2004;
Wayne & Cohen, 2001; Zosky, Unger, White, &
Mills, 2003). Shulman (2005b) considers anxiety
a mofivafing factor that stimulates students to
work harder. In any case, social work students
usually do experience anxiety. They are con-
cerned about serving their clients well and
about their own performance rating. Although
social work students do not develop social
work “habits” to deal with uncertainfies, they
do have uncertainfies.

“Accountable talk is one feature of signa-
ture pedagogies. The student must build on
what somebody before has said; he or she
must respond, must offer counterargument,
new data, and cogent commentary” (Shul-
man, 2005a, p. 22).

Rarely, if ever, are students informed
about the need to offer accountable talk in
their verbal participafion in class or field.
Most teachers are happy to have a class in
which there is lively discussion, without mon-
itoring the relafionship of each student’s com-
ment to what was said by another student just
before. The addition of such rigor adds a
dimension to any discussion and is consistent
with aspects of the EPAS standard that
addresses crifical thinking (CSWE, 2008). In
its explanation of critical thinking, the EPAS
states that it “requires the synthesis and com-

municafion of relevant information” (p. 4). In
this sense, student input of anecdotal material
or far-reaching tangential thoughts does not
meet any definifion of signature pedagogy. It
is sometimes difficult to recognize that similar
points are being discussed in different venues,
if discussions in each are more scattered than
focused. The parallel approaches of account-
able talk in the classroom and the field could
help students recognize the relatedness to
each other of the content in each of these edu-
cational arenas.

Applying Signature Pedagogy to

Sociai Woric Fieid Education

The latest EPAS idenfifies field educafion as
social work’s signature pedagogy. As dis-
cussed earlier, Shulman’s criteria of signature
pedagogy include pervasive and routine edu-
cational experiences, public student perform-
ance, active and interactive processes with
peers and teachers, adaptive anxiety, and
accountable talk.

This article has identified areas in which
social work field educafion meets and does
not meet his criteria. Field education is perva-
sive and routine in that it is required of all stu-
dents for the same minimum number of hours
(400 for BSW and 900 for MSW), and it must
be supervised by a field instructor with a
social work degree. Beyond these organiza-
tional factors, social work field education con-
tains few components of Shulman’s (2005a,
2005b, 2005c) signature pedagogy.

The social work literature is replete with
calls for modifications to field education as
currently implemented in the face of the
changing context of social work education
(Jarman-Rohde, McFall, Kolar, & Strom, 1997;

3 3 4 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION

Lager & Robbins, 2004; Raskin, Wayne, &
Bogo, 2008; Wayne et al., 2006), The introduc-
tion of signature pedagogy into the social
work education lexicon can serve as a stimu-
lus and guide for change that would help the
profession meet the challenges it faces.
Shulman (2005a) recognizes that all signature
pedagogies “must adapt to changes in the
conditions of work and in society and to
evolving norms of practice” (p, 23). He notes
the phenomenon of “pedagogical inerfia”—
that is, maintaining the status quo simply
“because nothing deflects [a way of doing
things into] . . . another direction” (p. 22), This
arficle cites recommended changes to the sig-
nature pedagogies of law, medicine, the cler-
gy, and nursing. The criteria of signature ped-
agogy could provide both impetus and direc-
fion for more effecfive social work education.

This article has already discussed the
inconsistency in students’ field experiences.
Though many pedagogical principles are
widely used from setfing to setting, none are
pervasive and routine. Ironically, the concept
of signature pedagogy, including Shulman’s
requirement of consistency, is introduced in
the EPAS (CSWE, 2008) at the same fime as the
EPAS calls for differentiation among pro-
grams. Programs are to identify their unique
features based on their mission, goals, and
context and the way they design the explicit
and implicit curriculum. Despite the reduced
call for standardization of social work pro-
grams, there is merit in considering which, if
any, pedagogical principles are worthy of
becoming a universal component of social
work educafion.

According to Shulman’s criteria, a major
modificafion of field educafion as currenfly

carried out would be the addition of sfudent-
to-student accountability and greater student
visibility of their field education performance.
The most widely used one-to-one field educa-
fion structure runs counter to this criterion.
Since the inception of field education, the pri-
mary arena for the study of students’ practice
has been the student-field instructor confer-
ence, which provides no opportunity for
student-to-student accountability and limits
performance visibility. When the profession
relied heavily on psychodynamic theory to
inform direct practice (during the 1930s
through 1960s), the one-to-one supervisory
relationship itself was viewed as a critical
component of the educational experience
(Wijnberg & Schwartz, 1977), The parallel
processes of supervision and pracfice often
served as a model for how pracfice should be
conducted. Our current reliance on this model
of field instrucfion could well have its roots in
those times.

Field education could incorporate Shul-
man’s (2005a, 2005b) criteria of student-to-
student accountability, the addition of public
student performance that removes the “cloak
of invisibility,” and the acfive interaction with
students and peers through the greater use of
educational group structures. The maxim “All
of us are smarter than any of us” lends sup-
port to the use of educafional group venues.
The group process has the potenfial to foster
greater in-depth crifical thinking and integra-
tion of theory, knowledge, and practice than
what can usually result from the student-field
instructor exchange alone. Shulman (2005a)
describes a medical grand rounds experience
and notes, “Everyone in the system was learn-
ing. In fact, an assistant professor ran the ses-

FIELD EDUCATION AS THE SIGNATURE PEDAGOGY 335

sion, with full professors leaming alongside
third-year clerks” (p. 20).

Field seminars, group supervision, or
what Teigiser (2009) terms opportunities for
“collective learning” (p. 139) could emerge as
major educational arenas for the study of each
student’s practice. Peer learning is a central,
highly valued component of adult education
theory and practice (Knowles, 1980). Expand-
ing its use in social work field education
would bring the additional benefit of provid-
ing students with both the skills and mind-set
to engage in peer evaluation and accountabil-
ity. Accountability to peers remains a major
characteristic of all professions.

As models of education in groups are
implemented and studied, educators would
build the knowledge base for social work’s
signature pedagogy. An example of a possible
model would have the group meet weekly,
with a varied format that could use sessions to
focus entirely on a particular student’s work
or on a common denominator of practice
issues that have emerged. The teachers/
supervisors would need to be highly skilled
educators of practice. They would also need
to be skillful in the use of group processes for
educational purposes (Bogo, Globerman, &
Sussman, 2004a, 2004b). Teigiser (2009) de-
scribes a field education format that contains
many of these elements, with groups organ-
ized by geographic areas.

The field seminar could be considered
part of field education, without granting addi-
tional credits or requiring additional time.
Each student would still have an on-site field
instructor, who could be invited to participate
in the field seminar. The seminar teacher and
field instructor could work out the focus and

content of the seminar. Or group teaching
could take place in learning centers with sev-
eral students placed at a single site (Bogo &
Globerman, 1995, 1999). Such organizational
arrangements could facilitate the develop-
ment of shared learning-teaching transactions
between students and teachers.

The use of group structures taught by
carefully selected teachers also addresses the
concern about the uneven quality of field
instruction. Most schools do not engage in a
thorough screening of field instructors be-
yond the required credentials. Few, if any, pro-
grams require reference letters or conduct in-
person interviews. Though field experiences
have a powerful influence on a student’s edu-
cation, there is usually a less rigorous process
for selecting field instructors than adjunct
classroom teachers. Although field instructor
training may be provided, it is often not
mandatory and is not always sufficient to
develop master teachers. There is something
disquieting about leaving the profession’s sig-
nature pedagogy in the hands of an unevenly
qualified cadre of volunteers. It should be
taught by the best educators in the profession.

A pedagogical group structure taught by
teachers who are known to meet the highest
standards of education and practice would
modify the nature of another labor-intensive
and challenging area in social work education:
the role of the faculty liaison. Faculty liaisons
are responsible for monitoring the quality of
each student’s field experience, and to that
end, they serve as educational consultants to
each field instructor. If students learned from
master teachers in a group context, on-site
field instructors would no longer carry near
total responsibility for educating students, and

3 3 6 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION

a share of resources currently allotted for

monitoring could be shifted to teaching.

The purpose of this article is to offer edu-

cational arguments for modificafions in field

education rather than to explore the pracfical

implications of what is being proposed. The

proposed changes in educational structures

could well require reallocation of resources in

insfitufional environments that offer greater

rewards for scholarship and grant writing

than for excellence in teaching. Some schools

in research universifies have responded by

creating non-tenure-track faculty positions

that permit faculty to direct energies to educa-

tion for practice without being penalized for

reduced scholarly producfivity. As discussed

previously, resources can be shifted from tra-

difional areas such as faculty liaison roles to

new ones such as the development of field

practice seminars taught by master teachers.

Social work educators have shown creafivity

in helping educational programs remain

responsive to ever-changing social and educa-

fional contexts. We remain hopeful that a com-

mitment to teaching effecfiveness will moti-

vate the continuation of the creativity we have

shown in the past.

Conciusion

It is common for students and alumni to state

that their best learning occurred in the field.

Labeling field educafion as the signature ped-

agogy of social work provides an opportunity

for educators to examine and analyze the

learning and teaching processes that lie behind

this widespread comment. A logical next step

is to implement and study teaching and learn-

ing processes that social work educators

would agree are disfinctive and recognizable

as unique to social work field educafion.

This arficle suggests an example of a

model of field instruction that incorporates

many of Shulman’s criteria of signature peda-

gogy. It is hoped that further examination of

the subject will stimulate the development of

additional approaches that could enrich the

field experience of students and convert the

notion of field education as the profession’s

signature pedagogy from an aspiration to a

reality.

References

Bargagliotti, L. A. (2006). Taking the risks of

eagles. Nursing Education Perspectives,

27(6), 294.

Benner, P, & Sutphen, M. (2007). Learning

across the professions: The clergy, a case

in point. Journal of Nursing Education,

46(3), 103-108.

Benner, P, «Si Sutphen, M. (2009). Study of nurs-

ing education. Stanford, CA: Carnegie

Foundation for the Advancement of

Teaching.

Benner, P., Sutphen, M., Leonard, V., & Day, L.

(2010). Educating nurses: A call for radical

transformation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass.

Bogo, M. (2005). Field instrucfion in social

work: A review of the research literature

1999-2005. Clinical Supervisor, 24(1/2),

163-193.

Bogo, M., & Globerman, J. (1995). Creafing

effective university-field partnerships:

An analysis of two inter-organization

models for field education. Journal of

Teaching in Social Work, 11(1/2), 177-192.

FIELD EDUCATION AS THE SIGNATURE PEDAGOGY 3 3 7

Bogo, M., & Globerman, J. (1999). Inter-

organizational relationships between

schools of social work and field agencies:

Testing a framework for analysis. Journal

of Social Work Education, 35, 265-274.

Bogo, M., Globerman, J., & Sussman, T.

(2004a). The field instructor as group

worker: Managing trust and competition

in group supervision. Journal of Social

Work Education, 40,13-26.

Bogo, M., Globerman, J., & Sussman, T.

(2004b). Field instructor competence in

group supervision: Students’ views. Jour-

nal of Teaching in Social Work, 24(1/2),

199-216.

Bogo, M., & Vayda, E. (1998). The practice of

field instruction in social work: Theory and

process (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Colum-

bia University

Press.

Caspi, J., & Reid, W. J. (2002). Educational

supervision in social work. New York, NY:

Columbia University Press.

Council on Social Work Education. (2008).

Educational policy and accreditation stan-

dards. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Fortune, A. E., & Kaye, L. (2002). Learning

opportunities in field practica: Identi-

fying skills and activities associated with

MSW students’ self-evaluation of per-

formance and satisfaction. Clinical Super-

visor, 21, 5-28.

Fortune, A. E., McCarthy, M., & Abramson, J.

S. (2001). Student learning processes in

field education: Relationship of learning

activities to quality of field instruction,

satisfaction, and performance among

MSW students. Journal of Social Work

Education, 37,111-124.

Foster, C. R., Dahill, L., Golemon, L., & Wang,

B. (2005a). Educating clergy: Teaching prac-

tices and the pastoral imagination. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Foster, C. R., Dahill, L., Golemon, L., & Wang,

B. (2005b). Educating clergy: Teaching prac-

tices and the pastoral imagination. [Media

summary.] San Francisco, CA: Carnegie

Foundation for the Advancement of

Teaching

Gambrill, E. (2001). Evaluating the quality of

social work education: Options galore.

Journal of Social Work Education, 37,

418-429.

Gelman, C. R. (2004). Anxiety experienced by

foundation-year MSW students entering

field placement: Implications for admis-

sions, curriculum, and field education.

Journal of Social Work Education, 40, 39-54.

George, A. (1982). A history of social work

field instruction. In B. W. Sheafor & L. E.

Jenkins (Eds.), Quality field instruction in

social work (pp. 37-59). New York, NY:

Longman.

Hendricks, C. O., Finch, J. B., & Franks, C. L.

(2005). Learning to teach, teaching to learn.

Alexandria, VA: CSWE Press.

Homonoff, E. (2008). The heart of social work:

Best practitioners rise to challenges in

field instruction. Clinical Supervisor, 27(2),

135-169.

Ironside, P. (2006). Reforming doctoral curric-

ula in nursing: Creating multiparadig-

matic, multipedagogical researchers.

Journal of Nursing Education, 45(2), 51-52.

Jarman-Rohde, L., McFall, J., Kolar, P., &

Sti-om, G. (1997). The changing context of

social work practice: Implications and

3 3 8 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION

recommendafions for social work educa-

tors. Journal of Social Work Education, 33,

19-^6.

Knight, C. (2000). Engaging the student in the

field instrucfion relationship: BSW and

MSW students’ views. Journal of Teaching

in Social Work, 20(3/4), 173-201.

Knight, C. (2001). The process of field instruc-

fion: BSW and MSW students’ views of

effecfive field supervision. Journal of Social

Work Education, 37, 357-379.

Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of

adult education. Chicago, IL: Associafion

Press/Follett.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Ex-

perience as the source of learning and devel-

opment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prenfice Hall.

Lager, P B., & Robbins, V. C. (2004). Field edu-

cation: Exploring the future, expanding

the vision. Journal of Social Work Education,

40, 3-11.

Maidment, J. (2000). Methods used to teach

social work students in the field: A

research report from New Zealand. Social

Work Education, 19,145-154.

Mumm, A. M. (2006). Teaching social work

students practice skills. Journal of Teaching

in Social Work, 26(3/4), 71-89.

Raskin, M. (Ed.). (1989). Empirical studies in

field instruction. New York, NY: Haworth

Press.

Raskin, M. S., Wayne, J., & Bogo, M. (2008).

Revisiting field educafion standards. Jour-

nal of Social Work Education, 44,173-188.

Rogers, G., & McDonald, P L. (1995).

Expedience over education: Teaching

methods used by field instructors. Clinical

Supervisor, 13(2), 41-65.

Sheppard, S. D., Macatangay, K., Colby, A., &

Sullivan, W. M. (2008). Educating engi-

neers: Designing for the future of the field.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Shulman, L. S. (2005a). Pedagogies of uncer-

tainty. Liberal Education, 91(2), 18-25.

Shulman, L. S. (2005b). Signature pedagogies

in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52-59.

Shulman, L. S. (2005c). The signature pedagogies

of the professions of law, medicine, engineer-

ing, and the clergy: Potential lessons for the

education of teachers. Irvine, CA: National

Research Council Center for Educafion.

Sullivan, W. M., Colby, A., Wegner, J. W.,

Bond, L., & Shulman, L. S. (2007). Educa-

ting lawyers: Preparation for the profession of

law. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Teigiser, K. (2009). Field note—New ap-

proaches to generalist field education.

Journal of Social Work Education, 45,

139-146.

Wayne, J. (1988). A comparison of beliefs

about student supervision between micro

and macro pracfifioners. Clinical Super-

visor, 6(3/4), 271-297.

Wayne, J., Bogo, M., & Raskin, M. (2006). Field

note—The need for radical change in field

educafion. Journal of Social Work Education,

42,161-169.

Wayne, J., & Cohen, C. S. (2001). Group work

education in the field. Alexandria, VA:

Council on Social Work Education.

Whitcomb, M. E., & Nutter, D. (2002). Learning

medicine in the 21st century: A background

paper commissioned in 2002 for Carnegie’s

medical education study. Stanford, CA:

Carnegie Foundafion for the Advance-

ment of Teaching.

FIELD EDUCATION AS THE SIGNATURE PEDAGOGY 3 3 9

Wijnberg, M. H., & Schwartz, M. C. (1977). Zosky D. L., Unger, J. M., White, K,, & Mills,

Models of sfiident supervision: The ap- S. J, (2003), Non-tradifional and tradifion-

prenfice, growth, and role systems mod- al social work sfiidents: Percepfions of

els. Journal of Education for Social Work, field instructors. Journal of Teaching in

13(3), 107-113. Social Work, 23(3/4), 185-201.

Accepted: 1 0 / 0 9

Julianne Wayne is director of field education and associate professor at the University of
Connecticut, Marion Bogo is professor at the University of Toronto, Miriam Rasifin is professor at
George Mason University,

Address correspondence to Julianne Wayne, University of Connecticut, School of Social WorK
1798 Asylum Avenue, West Hartford, CT 06117; e-mail: julwayne@comcast,net.

Copyright of Journal of Social Work Education is the property of Council on Social Work Education and its

content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

MSW Foundation Year -Student Learning Agreement

Walden University — Barbara Solomon School of Social Work

Used with SOCW 6500 and SOCW 6510

Agency Name:
[Type here]

Agency Address:
«AddressBlock»

Student Information

Instructor/Supervisor Information

Faculty Liaison Information

Agency Info

Name: [Type here]
Walden Email: [Type here]
Phone: [Type here]

Name: [Type here]
Email: [Type here]
Phone: [Type here]

Name: [Type here]
Email: [Type here]
Phone: [Type here]

Description:

Academic Term
Example: Winter 2016
[Type here][Type here]

Course Number
Example: SOCW 6500-10
[Type here]

Population Served:

Proposed Schedule:

Give a description of your tasks and responsibilities at the agency:

Importance of the Learning Agreement

Purpose of the Learning Agreement: The learning agreement is designed to ensure students are mindful about the learning expectations in their field placement. It was developed to help students and supervisors/instructors plan a well-rounded experience that will help students meet the learning objectives.
Learning Objectives: The Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) requires students gain competency in nine areas of social work practice. These areas of practice are defined as core competencies of the profession. Each core competency requires particular behaviors students should be able to engage and gain competency in. Students should provide examples of activities in the agency they can participate in to help them meet the learning objectives. Some examples of activities are provided. This is not an exhaustive list, so others can be added. Students must have an opportunity to complete tasks in all nine areas of competency.

Connection to the Student Evaluation: Not only is the learning agreement a helpful tool to plan the learning goals for the term, but it connects directly to the evaluation points in the student evaluation. Field Instructors/supervisors will be asked to complete student evaluations. Each student is evaluated on the nine core competencies of social work. Having a solid learning agreement aligns the learning goals with the student’s evaluation, so no areas are missed.
Instructions

Negotiating the Agreement: The learning agreement should be completed by week 3 at the agency. This is a collaborative process, where the field instructor/supervisor and student meet to establish goals for the term. The student will then submit the agreement to the faculty liaison for feedback and comments. Once everyone is happy with the agreement, all parties sign the agreement. During the evaluation session, toward the end of the quarter, the student and instructor/supervisor should meet to discuss progress and challenges with the plan and develop ways to adjust the learning for the remainder of the placement and the next quarter.
Form Layout:
Each page/grid is devoted to one of the nine Social Work Core Competencies
. Students must have experience in all nine competencies.

Section Descriptions:

Expected Behaviors – the expected behaviors are those that are identified by the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE). These behaviors should be demonstrated by students during the term of the field placement/internship.
Agency Activities-These are examples of particular activities that students can do at the agency to demonstrate the expected behaviors. Most of these are general to all settings. However, if they don’t quite match, feel free to add/change these to fit with the context of your agency. Check all activities that apply.
Field Course Assignments-These are a few examples of field course assignments that help reinforce the Social Work Core Competencies. Students will be required to complete all field course assignments.

How to Complete the From:
a- By week 2, students should complete all student designated sections on the learning agreement and discuss it with their supervisor/instructor.
b- By week 3, students should upload the learning agreement to Blackboard for the faculty liaison to review. (Only upload agreements that have been approved by your supervisor/instructor).
c- After the faculty liaison reviews and signs the agreement, the student and instructor should sign it.
d- After the agreement has been signed, the student will upload it to Meditrek.

Learning Agreement
Social Work Core Competency 1 – Demonstrate Ethical and Professional Behavior

Expected Behaviors – You will be evaluated on these at the end of the quarter

Agency Activities to help you achieve the expected behaviors- Check ALL that apply AND add other tasks associated with your agency.

Field Course Assignments – Complete these in the course when assigned.

a- make ethical decisions by applying the standards of the NASW Code of Ethics, relevant laws and regulations, models for ethical decision-making, ethical conduct of research, and additional codes of ethics as appropriate to context.
b- use reflection and self-regulation to manage personal values and maintain professionalism in practice situations.
c-demonstrate professional demeanor in behavior; appearance, and oral, written, and electronic communication.
d-use technology ethically and appropriately to facilitate practice outcomes.
f- use supervision and consultation to guide professional judgment and behavior.

|_|Familiarize self with clients’ rights and respect these at all times and adhere to the NASW Code of Ethics.
|_|Advocate for those who are incapacitated, incompetent and those who cannot represent their own best interests.
|_|Discuss personal values in supervision when they conflict with the values of the profession.
|_|Discuss case scenarios with my supervisor and faculty liaison that require ethical reasoning.
Seek guidance when you experience and ethical dilemma.
|_|Dress professionally, use appropriate, professional language and behavior.
|_|Adhere to agency polices about technology and record keeping.

Add other activities here:

SOCW 6500 (Field I) Assignments:
Blog entries on supervision, use of self, confidentiality and boundaries.
Process Recording on Values and Ethics

For Student: After reviewing the Agency Activities and Field Course Assignments, describe how these expectations and activities will help you gain competence in ethical and professional behavior. For example how will these tasks use your strengths, help you develop in areas where you lack knowledge or have challenges, and provide you skills for professional social work (be specific)?

For Student: Write two goals that you want to achieve to help you develop as a professional social worker (these should focus on areas where you think you need professional development).
For Student: Write down any questions you have for your instructor/supervisor or faculty liaison:

Instructor/Supervisor’s Feedback for Evaluation: (To be completed during evaluation).

Social Work Core Competency 2 – Engage Diversity and Difference in Practice

Expected Behaviors – You will be evaluated on these at the end of the quarter

Agency Activities to help you achieve the expected behaviors- Check ALL that apply AND add other tasks associated with your agency.

Field Course Assignments – Complete these in the course when assigned.

a-recognize and manage personal values in a way that allows professional values to guide practice
b-make ethical decisions applying the standards of the social work ethical codes
c-tolerate ambiguity in resolving ethical conflicts
d-apply strategies of ethical reasoning to arrive at principled decisions

|_|Interact with those who are different from you based on age, SES, color, culture, disability, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

|_|Discuss in supervision and in class the strengths of engaging diversity and the challenges you have when engaging difference.

|_|Engage in self-refection about personal biases related to client population and discuss with supervisor.

Add other activities here:

SOCW 6500 (Field I) Assignments:
Week 7 – Focus on diversity, including a blog post on the diversity represented in your agency and a process recording focused on cultural competency in your agency.

For Student: After reviewing the Agency Activities and Field Course Assignments, describe how these expectations and activities will help you gain competence with engaging diversity in practice. For example how will these tasks use your strengths, help you develop in areas where you lack knowledge or have challenges, and provide you skills for professional social work (be specific)?

For Student: Write two goals that you want to achieve to help develop cultural competency (these should focus on areas where you think you need professional development).

For Student: Write down any questions you have for your instructor/supervisor or faculty liaison:

Instructor/Supervisor’s Feedback for Evaluation: (To be completed during the evaluation).

Social Work Core Competency 3- Advance Human Rights and Social, Economic, and Environmental Justice

Expected Behaviors – You will be evaluated on these at the end of the quarter

Agency Activities to help you achieve the expected behaviors- Check ALL that apply AND add other tasks associated with your agency.

Field Course Assignments – Complete these in the course when assigned.

a-apply their understanding of social, economic, and environmental justice to advocate for human rights at the individual and system levels.
b-engage in practices that advance social, economic, and environmental justice.

|_|Identify barriers clients face when accessing services at my agency or at other agencies and discuss during supervision.

|_|Discuss with supervisor about how social, economic, and environmental factors affect client outcomes.

|_|Work with instructor/supervisor to engage advocacy for needs and services for clients.

|_|Become familiar with a local or national organization that advocates for your population.

Add other activities here:

SOCW 6500 (Field I) Assignments:

For Student: After reviewing the Agency Activities and Field Course Assignments, describe how these expectations and activities will help you gain competence to advance human rights and social, economic and environmental justice. For example how will these tasks use your strengths, help you develop in areas where you lack knowledge or have challenges, and provide you skills for professional social work (be specific)?

For Student: Write two goals that you want to achieve to help you work to advance human rights and justice (these should focus on areas where you think you need professional development).

For Student: Write down any questions you have for your instructor/supervisor or faculty liaison:

Instructor/Supervisor’s Feedback for Evaluation: (To be completed during the evaluation)

Social Work Core Competency 4 – Engage in Practice-Informed Research and Research-Informed Practice

Expected Behaviors – You will be evaluated on these at the end of the quarter

Agency Activities to help you achieve the expected behaviors- Check ALL that apply AND add other tasks associated with your agency.

Field Course Assignments – Complete these in the course when assigned.

a-use practice experience and theory to inform scientific inquiry and research.
b-apply critical thinking to engage in analysis of quantitative and qualitative research methods and research findings.
c-use and translate research evidence to inform and improve practice, policy, and service delivery.

|_|Research the context and treatment models used by the agency.

|_|Read current research/literature on best practices with the population you serve. Discuss those articles with your supervisor. (See assignment in SOCW6500)

|_|Work with your supervisor to create a brief-interview questionnaire that could be used during an intake process with your population. (see assignment in SOCW 6510)

Add other activities here:

SOCW 6500 (Field I) Assignment:
Assignment to find 5 research articles for best practices in your agency setting.
SOCW6510 (Field II) Assignment:
Use the articles identified in quarter 1 of Field 6500 to develop a short questionnaire that could be used with your client population during intake

For Student: After Reviewing the Agency Activities and Field Course Assignments, describe how these will help you engage in practice-informed research and research-informed practice (be specific). For example how will these tasks use your strengths, help you develop in areas where you lack knowledge or have challenges, and provide you skills for professional social work (be specific)?

For Student: Write two goals that you want to achieve to help you improve use research in your practice (these should focus on areas where you think you need professional development).

For Student: Write down any questions you have for your instructor/supervisor or faculty liaison:

Instructor/Supervisor’s Feedback for Evaluation: (To be completed during evaluation).

Social Work Core Competency- 5- Engage in Policy Practice

Expected Behaviors – You will be evaluated on these at the end of the quarter

Agency Activities to help you achieve the expected behaviors- Check ALL that apply AND add other tasks associated with your agency.

Field Course Assignments – Complete these in the course when assigned.

a-identify social policy at the local, state, and federal level that impacts well-being, service delivery, and access to social services.
b-assess how social welfare and economic policies impact the delivery of and access of social services.
c-apply critical thinking to analyze, formulate, and advocate for policies that advance human rights and social, economic, and environmental justice.

|_|Become familiar with local, state, federal and agency policies that affect the client population and discuss them in supervision and in class.

|_|Explore how the service delivery in the agency is affected by social welfare policies.

|_|Find opportunities at the agency or in advocacy organizations to work with others to advocate to advance human rights and justice.

Add other activities here:

SOCW 6500 (Field I) Assignment:
Policy Paper Assignment
SOCW6510 (Field II) Assignment:
Policy Paper identifying policies that affect a sub-population of the clients served at the agency

For Student: After Reviewing the Agency Activities and Field Course Assignments, describe how these will help you engage in policy practice. For example how will these tasks use your strengths, help you develop in areas where you lack knowledge or have challenges, and provide you skills for professional social work (be specific)?

For Student: Write two goals that you want to achieve to engage in policy practice (these should focus on areas where you think you need professional development).

For Student: Write down any questions you have for your instructor/supervisor or faculty liaison:
Instructor/Supervisor’s Feedback for Evaluation: (To be completed during evaluation)

Social Work Core Competency 6- Engage with Individuals, Families, Groups, Organizations, and Communities

Expected Behaviors – You will be evaluated on these at the end of the quarter

Agency Activities to help you achieve the expected behaviors – Check ALL that apply in each area AND add other tasks in each area associated with your agency.

Field Course Assignments – Complete these in the course when assigned.

a-apply knowledge of human behavior and the social environment, person-in-environment, and other multidisciplinary theoretical frameworks to engage with clients and constituencies.
b-use empathy, reflection, and interpersonal skills to effectively engage diverse clients and constituencies.

Individuals:

|_|Show care, empathy, and genuineness with clients to initiate professional relationships with clients.

|_|Use a strength’s based approach with clients.

|_|Consider how the client’s stage of development may impact engagement techniques.

Add other engagement activities with individuals:

Families:

|_|Initiate professional relationships with families to support client needs.

|_|Consider how family roles and dynamics may impact the engagement process.

Add Other engagement activities with families:

Groups:

|_|Engage with groups by using professional and interpersonal skills associated with effective group facilitation.

|_|Discuss with your supervisor the design of groups in your agency and how those are designed to address developmental needs and psychosocial needs.

Add other group engagement activities here:

Organizations:

|_|Consult with organizations to assist with client needs.

|_|Develop relationships with individuals within advocacy organizations that address the needs of your clients.

|_|Attend a conference hosted by an advocacy organization

Add other engagement activities with Orgs:

Communities:

|_| Connect with community organizations that provide services related to the clients you serve.

|_|Attend a community meeting that discusses the needs of the community where your clients live.

Add other engagement activities with communities:

SOCW 6500 (Field I) –First 11 weeks
Blog on use of self
SOCW6510 (Field II)- Second 11 weeks
Week 1 and 2 focus on engagement with a blog and process recording

For Student: After Reviewing the Agency Activities and Field Course Assignments, describe how these will help you engage with individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities. For example how will these tasks use your strengths, help you develop in areas where you lack knowledge or have challenges, and provide you skills for professional social work (be specific)?

For Student: Write two goals that you want to achieve to help you develop your engagement skills (these should focus on areas where you think you need professional development).
For Student: Write down any questions you have for your instructor/supervisor or faculty liaison:
Instructor/Supervisor’s Feedback for Evaluation: (To be completed during the evaluation)

Social Work Core Competency 7-Assess Individuals, Families, Groups, Organizations, and Communities

Expected Behaviors – You will be evaluated on these at the end of the quarter

Agency Activities to help you achieve the expected behaviors- Check ALL that apply in each area AND add other tasks in each area associated with your agency.

Field Course Assignments – Complete these in the course when assigned.

a-collect and organize data, and apply critical thinking to interpret information from clients and constituencies
b-apply knowledge of human behavior and the social environment, person-in-environment, and other multidisciplinary theoretical frameworks in the analysis of assessment data from clients and constituencies.
c-develop mutually agreed-on intervention goals and objectives based on the critical assessment of strengths, needs, and challenges within clients and constituencies.
d-select appropriate intervention strategies based on the assessment, research, and values and preferences of clients and constituencies.

Individuals:

|_|Utilize agency appropriate forms, tools, and processes to assess clients’ needs, strengths, and limitations to inform appropriate intervention strategies.

|_|Use critical thinking to connect what you learn from an assessment to what potential interventions are needed.

|_|Use the information from the assess clients’ strengths and challenges

|_|Use information from the assessment to help clients identify their personal strengths and challenges.

Add other assessment activities with individuals:

Families:

|_|Assess family support systems for clients that support intervention goals and strategies.

|_|Work with families to assess needs, strengths, and limitations in order to provide resources and services.

|_|Discuss with your supervisor how the various theoretical theories about family roles and dynamics guide how the agency approaches the needs of families.

|_|Use agency appropriate tools and resources to assess families’ needs.

Add other assessment activities with families:

Groups:

|_|Work with groups to assess needs and to inform group intervention goals and strategies.

|_|Develop a needs assessment that would inform the design and development of a group for clients.

Add other assessment activities with groups:

Organizations:

|_|Discuss with your supervisor the needs of clients, the strengths of the services offered, and the areas where more services may be needed.

|_|Assess how other organizations assist with client needs and where there may be gaps in services.

Add other assessment activities with organizations:

Communities:

|_| Assess the role the community plays in providing services for your clients (financial, legislative, representative, etc.) Discuss your findings with your supervisor.

|_|Conduct a community needs assessment to determine social needs in the community.

|_|Begin to learn what resources or services the community provides to clients.

Add other assessment activities with organizations:

SOCW6500 (Field I) – First 11 weeks
Discuss with supervisor evidence-based practices used in agency setting.
SOCW 6510 (Field II)- Second 11 weeks
Week 3 and 4 devoted to the assessment process, with assignments of blogs and process recordings.

For Student: After Reviewing the Agency Activities and Field Course Assignments, describe how these will help you assess individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities. For example how will these tasks use your strengths, help you develop in areas where you lack knowledge or have challenges, and provide you skills for professional social work (be specific)?

For Student: Write two goals that you want to achieve to help you develop your assessment skills (these should focus on areas where you think you need professional development).

For Student: Write down any questions you have for your instructor/supervisor or faculty liaison:

Instructor/Supervisor’s Feedback for Evaluation: (To be completed during supervision)

Social Work Core Competency 8-Intervene with Individuals, Families, Groups, Communities, and Organizations

Expected Behaviors – You will be evaluated on these at the end of the quarter

Agency Activities to help you achieve the expected behaviors- Check ALL that apply in each area AND add other tasks in each area associated with your agency.

Field Course Assignments – Complete these in the course when assigned.

a-critically choose and implement interventions to achieve practice goals and enhance capacities of clients and constituencies.
b-apply knowledge of human behavior and the social environment, person-in-environment, and other multidisciplinary theoretical frameworks in interventions with clients and constituencies.
c-use inter-professional collaboration as appropriate to achieve beneficial practice outcomes.
d-negotiate, mediate, and advocate with an d on behalf of diverse clients and constituencies
e-facilitate effective transitions and endings that advance mutually agreed-on goals.

Individuals:

|_|Use agency-appropriate processes to help clients set goals.

|_|Discuss with supervisor relevant prevention strategies with clients served.

|_|Utilize prevention strategies with clients.

|_| Assist clients by negotiating, mediating, and advocating for needed services.

|_|Talk with supervisor about planning for termination with clients.

|_|Work with clients to transition services when they transition from your service

Add other intervention tasks with individuals here:

Families:

|_|Work with families to provide strategies and interventions that promote family well-being.

|_|Discuss with the supervisor how intervention strategies are associated with roles, dynamics, and family systems.

Add other intervention strategies with families here:

Groups:

|_|Participate in interdisciplinary team meetings.

|_|Facilitate groups that provide education, support, skill development, etc.

Add other intervention tasks with groups here:

Communities:

|_|Participate in a community activity that helps promote wellness in the community.

|_|Begin to learn the issues facing the communities where your clients live.

|_|Partner with community leaders to improve conditions for residents.
Add other community intervention tasks here:

Organizations:

|_|Get involved in an advocacy or support organization.

|_|Be a part of an organizational committee at the agency or outside the agency.

|_|Discuss with your supervisor how the needs of your agency and how change is suggested in that system.

Add other intervention tasks with organizations here:

SOCW 6500 (Field I) First 11 weeks
Discuss with supervisor evidence-based practices used in agency setting
SOCW 6510 (Field II) Second 11 weeks
Weeks 5 and 6 focus on intervention with assignments of blogs and process recordings.
Week 9 focuses on termination (ending services) with clients.

For Student: After Reviewing the Agency Activities and Field Course Assignments, describe how these will help you intervene with individuals, families, groups, communities, and organizations. For example how will these tasks use your strengths, help you develop in areas where you lack knowledge or have challenges, and provide you skills for professional social work (be specific)?

For Student: Write two goals that you want to achieve to help you apply appropriate intervention strategies (these should focus on areas where you think you need professional development).

For Student: Write down any questions you have for your instructor/supervisor or faculty liaison:
Instructor/Supervisor’s Feedback for Evaluation: (To be completed during evaluation)

Social Work Core Competency 9- Evaluate Practice with Individuals, Families, Groups, Organizations, and Communities

Expected Behaviors – You will be evaluated on these at the end of the quarter

Agency Activities to help you achieve the expected behaviors- Check ALL that apply in each area AND add other tasks in each area associated with your agency.

Field Course Assignments – Complete these in the course when assigned.

a-select and use appropriate methods for evaluation outcomes.
b-apply knowledge of human behavior and the social environment, person-in-environment, and other multidisciplinary theoretical frameworks in the evaluation of outcomes.
c-critically analyze, monitor, and evaluate intervention and program processes and outcomes.
d-apply evaluation findings to improve practice effectiveness at the micro, mezzo, and macro level.

Individuals:

|_|Meet with clients to evaluate the progress of their goals and make changes in treatment plans as necessary.
|_|Discuss with your supervisor any barriers to client success.
|_|Work with clients to evaluate and develop new goals.
|_|Work with clients to transition to the next phase of intervention if goals are met.
Add other evaluation tasks with clients here:

Families:

|_|Work with families to evaluate their progress toward goals and help with changes in intervention strategies as needed.
|_|Discuss with your supervisor any barriers families face when working toward their goals.
|_|Work with families to set goals or transition to the next phase of intervention if goals are met.
Add other evaluation tasks with families here:

Groups:

|_|Work with groups to determine their perceived outcomes of the group. (Did they learn new information, develop new skills, find support, etc.)
|_|Discuss with your supervisor the various ways groups can meet their outcomes.
|_|Design a group for clients with the intended outcome in mind.
Add other evaluation tasks for groups here:

Organizations:

|_|Explore how the agency assesses outcomes for its clients and discuss with supervisor. 
|_|Explore if funding sources at the agency require certain outcomes and discuss with supervisor.
|_|Evaluate how support resources support client needs.
Add other evaluation tasks for organizations here:

Communities:

|_|Participate in an agency sponsored evaluation of services provided by a community agency.
|_|Talk to a community representative about a recent social initiative and the results of the effort.
|_|Talk with your supervisor about the perceived benefits of community partnerships and what could be improved.
Add other evaluation tasks with communities here:

SOCW 6500 (Field I) First 11 weeks 
 Agency presentation will have you explore the funding sources for your agency, which may tie to their client success/outcomes. 
 
SOCW 6510 (Field II) Second 11 weeks 
Weeks 7 and 8 focus on evaluation of client success with assignments of blog posts and process recordings.  
 

For Student: After Reviewing the Agency Activities and Field Course Assignments, describe how these will help you evaluate your practice and outcomes with individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities. For example how will these tasks use your strengths, help you develop in areas where you lack knowledge or have challenges, and provide you skills for professional social work (be specific)?

For Students: Write two goals that you want to achieve to help you understand how to evaluate clients and other systems (these should focus on areas where you think you need professional development).

For Students: Write down any questions you have for your instructor/supervisor or faculty liaison:

Instructor/Supervisor’s Feedback for Evaluation: (To be completed during evaluation)

Signature Page

The Field Office accepts e-signatures, so feel free to type in your full name and email as your official signature.
X
Field Instructor’s Signature
X
Student’s Signature
X
Printed Name
X
Date
X
Faculty Liaison’s Signature