AUSTRALIAN ASSOCIATION FOR RESEARCH IN EDUCATION CONFERENCE THE UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE STUDENT AND SUPERVISOR EXPECTATIONS OF FIELD EXPERIENCE IN A SOCIAL WELFARE SETTING December, 1994 Alex Beveridge A.A.R.E. CONFERENCE ABSTRACT STUDENT AND SUPERVISOR EXPECTATIONS OF FIELD EXPERIENCE IN A SOCIAL WELFARE SETTING Alex Beveridge The purpose of this study was to inquire into the expectations about field placement of a Social Welfare Studies student and Field Education Supervisor. The study attempted to identify the explicit and implicit expectations of the principal actors in this complex educational process and context. Scant attention has been paid to student expectation and satisfaction with field placement. Whilst there is extensive literature on field placement in a general context, most of it is from the point of view of field educators, and to some degree agency supervisors. This paper describes a qualitative analysis of inİdepth interviews undertaken with a Social Welfare student and Agency supervisor in the context of an Acute Psychiatric field placement setting. Individual constructs surrounding the student's and supervisor's expectations are elaborated and grounded in relation to previously collected research literature. PROBLEM AND PURPOSE OF THE CASESTUDY This study was inspired by, and grew out of, the author's experience as Field Education Adviser in Social Welfare Studies. In carrying out this role, the author has been constantly alerted by students to the importance of this supervisory experience. The purpose of this study was to inquire into the expectations about field placement of a Social Welfare Studies student, Agency Supervisor, and University Practice Adviser. The study attempted to identify the explicit and implicit expectations of the principal actors in this complex educational process and context. Long before field placement begins, students have expectations of the experience and of the relationship they will have with the Agency Supervisor and University Field Education Adviser. Friedson (1977) argues that students tend to hold onto these expectations even when they are unmet in the field practice experience. Additionally, Friedson asserted that students are likely to have concerns regarding the process of assessment and evaluation. Given the expectations expressed by students it would also be reasonable to suggest that the Agency Supervisor may also entertain a range of specific and general expectations of the student's performance in the agency placement. Scant attention has been paid to student expectation and satisfaction with field placement. Fortune et al. (1985) note that rarely are students' perceptions of their placement taken into account in the literature on field practicum and supervision. The importance of student satisfaction was emphasised by Raskin (1982) who suggests that it is directly linked to the necessary conditions of students learning. This link was stressed by Brennan (1982) who argues that the most pervasive learning problem for students in the field is not knowing what they should learn. Two studies confirm that both students and supervisors consider it imperative to set clearly delineated learning goals and objectives and formulate a specific agenda for supervisory conferences (Peaper, 1982). In a related study undertaken by Cameron & Wilson (1993) which examined studentİteacher perceptions of supervision styles, four distinct styles of supervision were observed ranging from neglectful practices, to collegial, empowering approaches. The findings suggest that supervision which is collegial as distinct from neglectful, directive, or consultative, is more likely to enhance the professional development of studentİteachers and facilitatereflective action. The importance of the role of the supervisor is highlighted by Cameron &Wilson (1993), and attention is drawn to the fact that supervisors often employ styles of supervision which are antithetical to encouraging student growth and achievement. Supervisors and students often disagree on what specific supervisory behaviours are essential or desirable. For example, in one study, they agreed that emotional support is important, but students valued autonomymore than did supervisors while supervisors valued cognitive structuring more than did students (Rotholz & Werk, 1984). Worthington & Roehlke (1979) found that supervisors appeared to perceive good supervision as directly related to feedback about the student's counselling skills. In contrast, beginning counselling practicum students rated supervision as better when their supervisors used a direct teaching approach. Students placed significant emphasis on the supervisor modelling actual counselling skills within a supportive relationship which actively encouraged students to experiment with implementing newly learned counselling skills, incorporating skills found facilitative into their own repertoire of skills. In the study reported on by Worthington & Roehlke (1979), beginning practicum students frequently asked for positive and negative feedback about their counselling ability. Students are possibly threatened by evaluation of their counselling behaviours. The students wanted to build their repertoire of potential counselling behaviours and skills by a shared process of being engaged with the supervisor in reflecting on the supervisor's actual counselling experience. The importance of the supervisorİstudent relationship is evidently a significant issue of concern for students. Emphasis is placed by the students on initial structure, the provision of content knowledge, feedback about counselling strengths as opposed to weaknesses, and encouragement to develop their own unique counselling style. A comparative example of students' perceptions of practicum supervisors is provided in Reed's (1990) study which examined first, second, and third year Diploma in Teaching students. The analysis identified nine criteria that contributed positively to students' ratings of supervising teachers. Criteria contributing positively and significantly to all students' ratings of supervisors included: Supervising teacher was enthusiastic; discussed weaknesses sensitively; made time to help; treated student as a colleague; provided useful sources of information; discussed practice teaching rounds in advance; gave feedback as soon as practicable; used appropriate teaching; did not interrupt. In a similar study that focused solely on students' views, Rosenblatt & Mayer (1975) found that students objected to four behaviours: Constrictive Supervision, in which the student is not given enough autonomy; Amorphous Supervision, in which the student gets too little direction; Unsupportive Supervision, in which agency supervisors and field instructors are cold, aloof, distant, and sometimes hostile; Therapeutic Supervision, in which the supervisor ascribes deficiencies to the students' personality and conducts supervision as a form of therapeutic process so as to work on the student's supposed personality deficiency. (Rosenblatt & Mayer, 1975). The preceeding enquiry by Cameron & Wilson (1993) which identified four basic styles of supervision (Neglectful, Directive, Consultative, and Collegial) would appear to be consistent with significant mediating factors outlined in Rosenblatt & Mayer's (1975) study. Cameron & Wilson (1993) suggest that the four basic supervisory styles canbe viewed as a continuum: Neglectful and Directive styles are characterised by low studentİteacher satisfaction and low communication between student and supervisor. The Consultative and Collegial styles are marked by high student satisfaction and high levels of communication between student and supervising teacher (p.162). The University faculty and the Agency relationship is undoubtedly crucially important and, without strong supportive links, the educational process is fraught with problems. The faculty must adequately prepare individual students and support students for responsible fieldwork through appropriately presented theoryİpractice foundation studies. They must also keep the Agency Supervisor informed of the curriculum content and expectations, and develop strong mutual links and sense of reward for the Agency's service both to the University faculty and the professional body by accepting student trainees (Gordon, 1982). FIELD PRACTICE AT THE UNIVERSITY OFNEWCASTLE Historically, Field Practice in the Bachelor of Social Science (Welfare Studies) at The University of Newcastle has been organised around two supervised placements of two hundred and fifty hours in second and third years within a social welfare agency, community based organisation, or a statutory body. The four major methods of contemporary social welfare work are represented in the range of placements, in particular; Casework, Groupwork, Community Action/Community Development, Social Policy, and Social Administration. The assessment report is composed of a general report which asks the Agency Supervisors to base their assessment criteria on key learning objectives (conceptual, technical, and personal) identified by the student in collaboration with the Agency Supervisor. Finally, the assessment report asks the Agency Supervisor to provide general observations: of the student's overall field practice experience; strengths and abilities; and specific areas for development. The Assessment Report is discussed and signed by both the Agency Supervisor and the student. An additional section is provided for an overall assessment to be completed by the University Field Practice Adviser. Recommended results are then forwarded to the Field Education Coordinator. During the overall period of assessment a formative assessment report is carried out by the University Field Practice Adviser at the midİplacement and final assessment stage. The overall assessment strategies, rationales, and framework which historically emerged had cogent educational objectives and were an attempt at providing an organisational structure to a difficult area of social welfare education. However, beyond the plethora of documentation surrounding the structure and organisation of the field placement and process of student assessment, there remain a number of questions. Principally these concern the process by which the student's expectations and learning objectives, and the expectations of the Agency Supervisor, are identified and brought into focus. This case study attempted to address some of these perceived deficiencies. METHOD As a means of developing a qualitative analysis of the individual student's and Agency Supervisor's expectations, a formally structured statutory field education placement setting was chosen. The practice setting selected was a general psychiatry treatment and rehabilitation hospital in NSW, Australia, catering for a diverse population of approximately two hundred acute, chronic, and forensic clients. The Agency Supervisor, and the Social Welfare student allocated to the placement were interviewed prior to either persons meeting or establishing an initial learning contract. Each separate interview was recorded and transcribed for analysis. As a means of providing some degree of structure to the interviews, a competencies and skills assessment outline was provided to the Agency supervisor and student for their consideration prior to the individual interview sessions. Principal areas included: thinking skills, feeling skills, communication skills, processing skills, and learning skills. (See Appendix I.) THE SUPERVISOR'S EXPECTATIONS Great importance was ascribed by the supervisor to student attitudinal aspects. The supervisor spoke at length about the need for a student to have a "broadİminded", nonjudgemental, accepting approach to clients with potentially devastating psychiatric problems. Furthermore, the supervisor expressed the view that the student should have a fairly well developed contentİknowledge base, relevant to general psychiatry and drug dependence. Of particular interest was the supervisor's initial difficulty in recalling his own undergraduate field practice experience. When pressed however, the supervisor commented on his placements which ranged from no direct counselling practice with formalised structured supervision to the extreme experience of being "cast" in at the deep end where they were overwhelmed by the demands. This apparent gap between the supervisor's personal experience and expectations of the student would appear to require further examination. The central constructs of expected "attitudes" and "values" reİemerged throughout the interview, and the supervisor placed a major emphasis on the need for the student to actively work on their personal awareness through selfİreflection and sorting through individual value conflicts as they arise. Again, there appears to be a gap between the expected student process of selfİreflection and critical thinking and the contribution of the supervisor as an active participant and facilitator of this developmental process. Along with the notion of cardinal social welfare work values (respect for the dignity and uniqueness of the individual, acceptance, unconditional positive regard, selfİdetermination, confidentiality, advocacy, social action and social justice), a primary expectation of the student centred on the need for critical theory, practice, and personal analysis. Although no identifiable strategies for monitoring or assisting the student in the process were articulated, the supervisor however, stated an expectation that the universityİbased curriculum content, knowledge areas and experiential learning content had a significant responsibility in equipping the student with the expected knowledge, values, competencies and skills. The notion of confrontation and challenging learning experiences occurring in the learning process was emphasised by the supervisor who argued that "challenge" grows out of "realİlife" experience. The analysis, and integration of that learning process was seen as the central task to grapple with by the student in the field placement context. The issue of "commitment" developed as a recurring theme and the supervisor appeared to link this expectation with their earlier constructs of the "rightİattitude" and "acceptance". When questioned about student essential thinking skills, the supervisor identified the need for skills in analysis. A number of examples were given by the supervisor. Examples such as the ability to analyse social situations and individual needs, the ability to formulate multidimensional assessments and plan appropriate interventions. Additionally, the concept of student "problemİsolving" ability emerged and was interestingly considered paramount given the range of competing power structures, historically based practices, and personalities making up the Agency culture of the particular placement arrangement. Here, too, the supervisor's emphasis on problemİsolving did not extend to the supervisor taking a facilitative role in this process. The student seemingly was expected to solve the complex framework of organisational structures and practices along with individual social arrangements via some vague process of initiation over time. In contrast to the approach taken by the supervisor to problemİsolving, some attention nearing the closure of the interview concerned the idea of the educator "sharing" knowledge with the student. This particular emphasis given by the supervisor appeared to be aligned with an apprenticeship model of teacherİpupil. The clinical nature of the placement setting, in particular the demands which would be placed on the student by the acutely disturbed and chronic clients, were identified by the supervisor as a significant factor. The need for the student to develop "specialist" skills of counselling: establishing a therapeutic alliance, assessment, diagnosis, planning and intervention, was emphasised by the supervisor, and appeared to be seen as an extension of the earlier expectation that the student should have a foundation of "good" practice skills. Near to the conclusion of the interview, the supervisor was encouraged to reflect on the most significant expectations of the student and was then asked to hypothesise the "ideal" student. The supervisor provided the following sketch of an ideal student: A student with personal qualities like acceptance, open to new ideas, a questioning nature, someone who is not going to sit back and accept everything that is going on, someone who asks "why", what is the rationale for this or that approach, not a passive student, someone who is really active in their learning and enquiry, someone very selfİdirected and focused. THE STUDENT'S EXPECTATIONS The interview with the student involved in the study followed the same semiİstructured approach as outlined in the above discussion with the social welfare agency supervisor. After gathering a general overview of the student's expectations of the particular agency and the supervisor, the principal constructs of thinking skills, feeling skills, communication skills, processing skills and learning skills were utilised as a framework from which the student was encouraged to elucidate a range of salient expectations. The student placed initial importance on the supervisor's expected ability to be able to teach the student a range of skills germane to counselling clients in a general psychiatry setting. Attention was drawn by the student to their perception that after a period of exposure to contentİknowledge areas, the supervisor would be expected to provide some directİlearning experience. Of particular interest was the student's expectation that to some measure the supervisor would provide a significant amount of modelling, and encourage direct observation of their clinical counselling practice. Content knowledge was again raised by the student as an issue and was expected to be integrated by the supervisor in actual liveİcounselling sessions over the course of the two hundred and fifty hours of field education. The student's only concern with a shift from a directive supervisory approach to a student enquiryİbased, nondirective approach was a desire for close monitoring and ongoing feedback from the supervisor. The student hoped for a supervisory style of feedback which was positive, offered some alternative strategies for future application in direct practice, and which drew on the supervisor's own grappling with growth and change in counselling style and integration of theoretical approaches. At the level of the student/supervisor relationship, the student expected some degree of flexibility and respect for individual differences. The student, whilst aware of her position as novice, hoped that she would be viewed as an individual with strengths and weaknesses appropriate to her level of academic background and practice experience. Relationship issues, in particular themes of "empowerment", and "nurturing", were repeatedly raised as significant expectations. The student expressed some degree of anxiety at her expectations of the supervisor's competence and ability to provide the necessary learning experiences, emphasis was again placed on the supervisor as a teacher of integrated theory and practice. Consistent with the hypothetical question posed to the supervisor earlier, the student was asked to hypothesise the "ideal" supervisor. The student provided the following sketch of an ideal supervisor: A supervisor who has extensive experience, competencies and skills; actively committed to an educational role; directive and active in instructional approach, yet recognises students' strengths, abilities, and individual needs; encourages movement to independent practice and enquiry, allowing students to find their own style and counselling approach; has an ability to share and transfer knowledge but also accept new ideas; has an openness to alternative theories and interventions; is accessible for consultation and advice; encourages students to formulate and examine their own position on an issue; gives positive feedback which is delivered at appropriate stages, and constructive criticism which suggests other ways of handling a situation. In closing, the student reiterated earlier themes of initial structure, leading to autonomous practice, sequential and timely feedback and access to the University Field Education Adviser. RESEARCH FINDINGS This study is timely, given the move towards more formal competencyİbased standards in field education, and is significant in regard to highlighting the potential differences between the expectations of students and field supervisors. The main finding of this study is that those knowledge, values, skills, behaviours, and approaches to learning and practice that supervisors believe to be important are not always the same constructs deemed to be important to students. Moreover, this discrepancy of expectations between supervisors and students has a potentially important influencing effect on the learning process and student satisfaction in the field placement. The student's expectation of the supervisory relationship, and the supervisory style appear to provide a contrast with the views elaborated by the supervisor. In contrast to the student's expectation that the supervisor would provide some initial structuring and direction, the supervisor appeared unclear as to his/her responsibility and degree of active involvement. Whilst the supervisor elaborated a range of clear expectations of the student, i.e. attitudinal aspects, personal qualities, openness to new ideas, a questioning nature, and what would appear to be a deep learning approach, the supervisor's exact role andstrategies in this process were not outlined. The differing expectations of the student and supervisor appear similar in nature to the research findings of Worthington & Roehlke (1979). The contrast between student expectations of skill development and level of competency, and those of the supervisor, is well illustrated in the supervisor's implicit view that the student would naturally move from basic skills to a more advanced level. Conversely, the student would appear to expect the supervisor to provide some degree of: active modelling; provision of relevant content knowledge; sharing examples of the supervisor's clinical experience through examining case studies; provision of timely feedback; and the flexibility to shift from direct instruction to a more problem based studentİcentred approach. The student's desire for a collegial, empowering style of supervision appears illİmatched with the approach adopted by the supervisor. Although the supervisor mentioned some perceived need to be actually involved and contribute to the student's learning experience, the exact strategies and process by which the supervisor might make a contribution were not outlined. There are several obvious limitations of this study that necessitate a tentative interpretation of the findings. Perhaps the main limitation of the study is that it is applicable only to beginning social welfare studies practicum students. As students become more experienced, they may come to value differing supervisory styles and accommodate different educational approaches. They may also come to value less being taught new counselling skills in a structured learning environment. In the area of social welfare practice and also related fields, the insights gained would be important: in sensitising and providing feedback to supervisors; research information could be used as part of the teaching of inexperienced field educators; and finally, the outcomes could be used to alert and remind experienced supervisors to attend to a range of important variables including the areas of content knowledge, teaching approaches, competencies and skills, and relationship factors which are central to positive student learning outcomes. REFERENCES Berg, K. & Stone, G. (1980). "Effects of conceptual level of supervisionstructure on counsellor development." Journal of Counselling Psychology, 27, pp.500İ509. Bogo, M. & Vayda, E. (1987). The Practice of Field Instruction in Social Work: Theory and Process. Toronto, University of Toronto Press. Brennan, E.C. (1982). "Evaluation of field teaching and learning." In B.W. Seafor & L.E. Jenkins (eds.) Quality Field Instruction in Social Work. New York, Longman, pp.76İ97. Butler, B. & Elliot, D. (1985). Teaching and Learning for Practice. Aldershot, Gower. Cameron, R. & Wilson, S. (1993). "The practicum:Studentİteacher perceptions of teacher supervision styles." South Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp.155İ167. Cassidy, H. (1982). "Structuring field learningexperiences." In B.W. Seafor & L.E. Jenkins (eds.) Quality Field Instruction in Social Work. New York, Longman, pp.198İ214. Fortune, A.E., Feathers, C.E., Rook, S.R., Scrimenti, R.M.,Smollen, P., Stemerman, B. & Tucker, E.L. (1985). "Student satisfaction with field placement." Journal of Social Work Education, Vol. 21, No. 3, Fall, pp.92İ104. Friedson, E. (1977). "Preface." In Rue Bucher & Joan G.Stelling, Becoming Professional. Beverly Hills, California, Sage, p.12. Gordon, M.S. (1982). "Responsibilities of the school:Maintenance of the field program." In B.W. Sheafor & L.E. Jenkins (eds.) Quality Field Instruction in Social Work. New York, Longman, pp.116İ135. Peaper, R.E. (1984). "An analysis of students' perceptions of thesupervisory conference and student developed agendas for that conference." Clinical Supervisor, 2, pp.55İ69. Raskin, M.S.(1982). "Factors associated with studentsatisfaction in undergraduate social work placements." Arete, 7 (1), pp.44İ54. Reed, K.F. (1990). "Students' perceptions of practicumsupervisors." SouthPacific Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp.41İ95. Rotholz, T. & Werk, A. (1984). "Student supervision: Aneducational process." Clinical Supervisor, 2, pp.15İ27. Rosenblatt,A. & Mayer, J.E. (1975). "Objectionable supervisory styles: Students views." Social Work, 20, pp.184İ189. Worthington, E.L. & Roehlke, H.J. (1979). "Effectivesupervision as perceived by beginning counsellorsİinİtraining." Journal of Counselling Psychology, 26, pp.64İ73. APPENDIX I FIELD EDUCATION: COMPETENCIES & SKILLS ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST *Adapted from: Barbara Butler & Doreen Elliot (1985) Teaching and Learning for Practice. Gower: Aldershot. This checklist has the following functions: 1. As an assessment aid, it gives an indication to students and to practice teachers of course expectations of minimum levels of competence in Year 2 and Year 3. It is intended that it should offer a rough guiderather than a rigid framework to be interpreted strictly. 2. As a learning aid, it may be used in selfİassessment by students, alerting them to practice areas deemed important for assessment of professional competence, and also in conjunction with the field practice teacher's assessment. 3. As a teaching aid, it may be used to identify areas of strength and weakness and also for giving qualitative feedback to students on their performance.