Fieldwork in the Human Services: Theory and Practice for Field Educators, Practice Teachers & Supervisors

140 × 215 Fieldwork in the Human Services Theory and practice for field educators, practice teachers and supervisors e...

Author: Lesley Cooper

22 downloads 1025 Views 1MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

140 × 215

Fieldwork in the Human Services Theory and practice for field educators, practice teachers and supervisors

edited by Lesley Cooper and Lynne Briggs

ALLEN & UNWIN

FINAL ART c: ALLEN & UNWIN r: DP3\BP3301W\PRELIMS p: (02) 9438 3722 f: (02) 9438 3733 92 CHANDOS STREET ST LEONARDS NSW 2065

i

140 × 215

To our families Richard, Will and Jane Freeland and Emily Bouterey Wilson and Gary Briggs

Copyright © this collection Lesley Cooper and Lynne Briggs 2000 Copyright in individual pieces remains with the authors All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publisher. First published in 2000 by Allen & Unwin 9 Atchison Street St Leonards NSW 1590 Australia Phone: (61 2) 8425 0100 Fax: (61 2) 9906 2218 E-mail: [email protected] Web: http://www.allen-unwin.com.au National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry: Fieldwork in the human services: theory and practice for field educators, practice teachers and supervisors. Bibliography. Includes index. ISBN 1 86448 830 1. 1. Social service—Field work. 2. Social work education. 3. Social service—Field work—Study and teaching (Higher). 4. Human services—Study and teaching (Higher). 5. Field work (Educational method). I. Cooper, Lesley. II. Briggs, Lynne. 361.00711 Set in 10.5/12 pt Bembo by DOCUPRO, Sydney Printed by SRM Production Services Sdn Bhd, Malaysia 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1


ii

140 × 215

Contents

FIELDWORK IN THE HUMAN SERVICES CONTENTS

Tables and figures Contributors Preface

Section 1

vi vii xiii

Teaching, learning and assessment in the field

1 Overview of teaching, learning and assessment in the field Lesley Cooper and Lynne Briggs 2 Teaching and learning in human services fieldwork Lesley Cooper

3

10

3 Approaches to supervision in fieldwork Jill Wilson

26

4 The supervisory relationship Elizabeth Beddoe

41

5 The competency approach John Hopkins and Lesley Cooper

55

iii


iii

140 × 215

iv

FIELDWORK IN THE HUMAN SERVICES

6 Two pedagogical approaches to group supervision in the human services Sue Maywald

70

7 Assessment of performance Lesley Hughes and Karen Heycox

84

8 Working with cultural difference Rosemary Smart and Maurice Manawaroa Gray

96

Section 2

The responsibilities of fieldwork management

9 Overview of responsibilities of fieldwork management Lynne Briggs and Lesley Cooper

113

10 Legal responsibility and liability in fieldwork Steven Shardlow

117

11 Ethics in fieldwork Lynne Briggs and Raylee Kane

131

12 Maintaining the partnerships between educators and practitioners June Allan 13 Innovative field options Helen Cleak, Linette Hawkins and Lew Hess Section 3

145 160

Practical suggestions

14 Overview of practical suggestions Lynne Briggs and Lesley Cooper

177

15 Managing fieldwork Diana Moore

182

16 Students at risk in the field Narda Razack

195

17 Strategies to promote student learning and integration of theory with practice in the field Jane Maidment 18 Negotiated learning contracts Gayla Rogers and Paul Langevin


205 216

iv

140 × 215

CONTENTS

v

19 Reflective learning and supervision Gwen Ellis

227

20 Working with male students in field education Ken McMaster

239

References Index

251 263


v

140 × 215

Tables and figures

TABLES AND FIGURES

TABLES 3.1 3.2 3.3 4.1 4.2 5.1 10.1 13.1 17.1 17.2 17.3 20.1

Functions in supervision Supervision techniques Content discussed Developmental stages of the supervision relationship Engagement in fieldwork supervision—a model for building a student–field educator relationship Principles of assessment The ‘legal liability lottery’ Practitioners’ dilemmas and solutions Structured observation Audio-visual recording Student presentation Levels of inquiry into masculinity

28 37 38 45 47 65 129 173 209 212 213 246

FIGURES 17.1 20.1

Essential components for purposeful observation Responsibility/accountability dimension for male behaviour

206 248

vi


vi

140 × 215

Contributors

CONTRIBUTORS

JUNE ALLAN is senior lecturer and coordinator of the Bachelor of Social Work program at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT), Melbourne, Australia. She holds a doctoral degree from La Trobe University and has worked in public and community health, and children’s and family services. June has also had extensive involvement with field education, having coordinated a large student unit in a public hospital and the social work field education program at RMIT. She currently teaches direct practice and is interested in ways in which universities and human services organisations can work together to provide effective educational experiences for students. ELIZABETH BEDDOE is the Director of Social Work programs at the Auckland College of Education in New Zealand. She has been a human services worker for 20 years, practising mainly in women’s health, and has undertaken many roles in the New Zealand Association of Social Workers (NZASW), including a five-year post as part-time executive officer. Liz has been in private practice as a supervisor, trainer and consultant, and has been an educator for five years. Her teaching interests include supervision, field education, continuing professional education and the incidence of violence in the workplace in human services work. LYNNE BRIGGS has a PhD and is the senior clinician and unit manager of the Family Mental Health Service, Healthlink South, vii


vii

140 × 215

viii


Christchurch, New Zealand. She is an experienced mental health social worker and has been a field educator since 1981. Lynne is an associate lecturer for the Community and Family Studies Department, University of Otago, Dunedin. Her research interests are treatment outcomes studies, particularly post-traumatic stress disorders, clinical education and women’s mental health. She convenes the Ethics Committee for the NZASW. HELEN CLEAK has been a human services practitioner for over 25 years. She has worked and published in the areas of health, ageing and crisis intervention. Helen is also a lecturer in the Department of Social Work and Social Policy at La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia, where she has been coordinator of field education for ten years. During this time she has worked enthusiastically to encourage collaboration between the various schools of social work. This has resulted in a Combined Schools Fieldwork Manual, a united approach to securing student placements and a regular workshop for new field educators with training provided by all schools. LESLEY COOPER has a PhD and is the director of field education at Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, where she also teaches social work ethics and social planning. She has practised as a human services worker across a number of fields, using various practice methods. Her research interests include human services education, student supervision and the evaluation of alternative foster care for children. She is currently coordinating a fieldwork development project for all professional and vocational courses at Flinders University. GWEN ELLIS is fieldwork coordinator for the School of Policy Studies and Social Work at Massey University, where she also lectures. Gwen has a BA (Hons) from the United Kingdom, a BSW and MSW from Massey University, and a Certificate of Competency in Social Work from Aotearoa/New Zealand Association of Social Workers. Prior to working at Massey University, Gwen worked as a human services health worker and manager of a family support service. Her research interests include field education in social work, and family social work services that are contracted by the state and provided by voluntary organisations. MAURICE MANAWAROA GRAY is currently a consultant, trainer and director of Jade Associates and Chairman of Te Runaki


viii

140 × 215

CONTRIBUTORS

ix

Otautahi o Kai Tahu. He was formerly director of the Maori Studies and Research Centre at Lincoln University, New Zealand. LINETTE HAWKINS has been involved in field education planning for students in social and community service courses since the 1980s. Her commitment to a flexible adult learning paradigm has led to innovative strategies during employment at RMIT and Deakin Universities. LEW HESS has extensive experience in supervision of students from a diversity of disciplines. His expertise is in the area of crosscultural human services work. Lew is currently social work field education coordinator at RMIT in the Department of Social Science and Planning. KAREN HEYCOX is a lecturer in the School of Social Work, University of New South Wales, Sydney. Karen has qualifications in both social work and women’s studies. Over the past 25 years, she has worked in both the health (hospital and community health) and university sectors. She has taught subjects such as human services practice, human behaviour, social welfare, and women and social work to social work students; introductory clinical and behavioural sciences to medical students; socially constructed prejudice to students across disciplines; and training programs for Home Care Service coordinators. She has also undertaken consultancies on social work in community health and in a general medical practice. Her research and publishing areas have focused on fieldwork (with Lesley Hughes), older women and issues-based learning. JOHN HOPKINS has a LLB, Dip Soc Wk (VUW), CQSW, MNZASW and has spent thirteen years in the Probation Service (New Zealand). This included six years as a student unit supervisor. John was a foundation staff member of the School of Social Work, Auckland College of Education, leaving as senior lecturer and field placement coordinator after ten years. Since 1992, he has been a private practitioner, maintaining an interest in human services fieldwork. He wrote most of the unit standards, qualifications and supporting documentation for social services and mental health support work for the National Qualifications Framework, and is National Moderator for Te Kaiawhina Ahumahi, the national standards-setting body for social services. LESLEY HUGHES is a lecturer in the School of Social Work, University of New South Wales, Sydney. She has qualifications in


ix

140 × 215

x


psychology, social work and higher education. Over the past 25 years, she has worked in statutory child welfare, educational counselling, voluntary sector emergency relief and as a researcher in these and other areas. She has taught in the areas of welfare and social work practice, human behaviour, social policy, and women and social work. Together with Karen Heycox, she has researched and published on various aspects of fieldwork education. Her current research interest is women and religion in Australian welfare history. RAYLEE KANE is director of professional programs, Community and Family Studies Department, University of Otago, Dunedin. She is the co-editor of Social Work Review and has practice experience in health, in particular women’s health. Before taking up her position at the University of Otago, she was director of NZCETSS. She remains actively involved in government committees relating to education and training in the human services. Raylee is a member of the Ethics Committee for NZASW. PAUL LANGEVIN holds a MSW from the Maritime School of Social Work, Dalhousie University, Canada. His practice has encompassed direct services, supervision, administration and human services education. Currently Paul is working on his PhD thesis—an exploration of postmodernism in human services practice—with the faculty of Social Work, University of Alberta, Canada. JANE MAIDMENT has a BA (Hons) and Dip SW. Over the past four years she has been fieldwork coordinator at the Department of Social Work, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. She is currently working on a PhD in human services field education. In February 1999, Jane began a new position as lecturer in field education at Deakin University, Victoria, Australia. Her enduring interest in field education began during the late 1980s when, as a human services worker, she started supervising students in the field. She has conducted field education research on teaching and learning strategies, and working with difference in the field. SUSAN MAYWALD is a field education coordinator at Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia. She has an interest in community development, feminist human services practice and collaborative learning theories. In her current work, she is focusing on developing partnerships with students in the field. Sue has a MSW (Flinders University) and a Graduate Certificate of Tertiary Education (FUSA).


x

140 × 215

CONTRIBUTORS

xi

KEN MCMASTER has a MSW from Massey University and has worked at the cutting edge of men’s change for the past fourteen years. In addition to pioneering the development of services in the area of family violence, he has also been a founding member of STOP, a community-based organisation that works with men who sexually offend. He has published two books on men’s violence to women, has held a part-time lecturing position in the Social Work School at the University of Canterbury for the past three years, and now works full-time in his own training consultancy. DIANA MOORE is a lecturer in the School of Social Work and Social Policy at the University of Queensland, Brisbane. She has been involved in the university’s field education program for a number of years and is interested in the challenges of developing a field education program that matches the learning needs of students, the requirements of the training course, and resources in the field. For her Research Masters Degree at the University of Queensland, Diana completed a study of field educators’ first experience of supervising a student and the way in which they learnt to become field educators. NARDA RAZACK is an assistant professor/field education coordinator in the School of Social Work, York University, Toronto, Canada. Her research and publications include works on antioppression and anti-discriminatory pedagogy and practice approaches, transitional perspectives for social work, and inclusive field education. She is currently involved in a project that critically analyses international student exchanges. GAYLA ROGERS has a PhD and is an associate professor and dean, Faculty of Social Work, University of Calgary, Canada. She has pursued her interest in field education through research, presentations and publications. She has developed and taught courses, seminars and workshops to students and field instructors, and has provided consultation to social work programs in Canada, the United States and Britain. Gayla has presented and published several papers on field education and has been master teacher at faculty development institutes and Council of Social Work Education (CSWE) Annual Program Meetings. She is currently a member of the Board of Accreditation of the Canadian Association of Schools of Social Work. STEVEN SHARDLOW is director of social work studies at the University of Sheffield, United Kingdom. From 1989–96 he was


xi

140 × 215

xii


chairperson of the Association of Teachers in Social Work Education and is currently a board member of the European Association of Schools of Social Work. He is joint editor of the journal Issues in Social Work Education and teaches and researches human services values and ethics; comparative human services practice; and human services education, especially practice learning. ROSEMARY SMART received her Masters degrees in Education and Social Work from the University of Canterbury, New Zealand. She is a registered psychologist, human services worker and psychotherapist who co-founded, and currently works at, the Victoria Therapy Centre in Christchurch. She is also a fieldwork teacher for the University of Canterbury, where she formerly lectured. Rosemary has worked as a clinician in the area of health and justice, and as a director of a human services agency. She has a particular interest in cross-cultural counselling, sex therapy, narrative therapy, supervision and training. JILL WILSON has a PhD and is a senior lecturer and deputy head at the School of Social Work and Social Policy, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, where she is responsible for the field education program. Jill has extensive experience as a field educator and human services academic. Her other practice interests include intellectual disability, ageing and human services theorising.


xii

140 × 215

Preface

PREFACE

During the early 1990s, opportunities for field education in the human services in New Zealand were becoming scarce. Conflictual issues had arisen between training providers and field educators, and even between schools. Urgent measures were needed to enable training providers, field educators and agencies to address these issues. In January 1995, the New Zealand Council for Education and Training in the Social Services (NZCETSS) hosted an inaugural field education symposium in Auckland. This aimed to bring academics and field educators together in an effort to address the issues facing the field education of students in human services organisations. The symposium acknowledged the critical importance of field education in the development of competent human services workers. The primary impetus for this book arose out of the symposium, at which Australia’s Dr Lesley Cooper gave a keynote address. Later, in November 1995, a group of Australian and New Zealand academics and practitioners attending the Asia Pacific Regional Social Services Conference in Christchurch met to discuss the possibility of an edited book on field education. Following that meeting, and mindful of contributors’ specific interests, the editors approached Allen & Unwin with a proposed outline for an edited xiii


xiii

140 × 215

xiv


collection of writings on field education: Fieldwork in the Human Services. The purpose of this book is to draw on training providers’ experiences to assist field educators. Assistance is offered by specifying theoretical frameworks for fieldwork education and practical strategies for improving the quality of practice teaching and learning. All the authors pay tribute to the importance of fieldwork in human services education. Fieldwork in the Human Services is written for human services educators who are responsible for the practical education of students. The human services include social work, social welfare, youth work and counselling, and cover many fields of practice, including child and family welfare, aged care, women’s services, probation, health and indigenous populations. Human services academics and field educators from Australia, Britain, Canada and New Zealand have contributed to this book. One of the co-editors, Lesley Cooper, is an academic in the field of social administration. The other, Lynne Briggs, is a senior social work clinician and field educator working in child and family mental health services. The book will be useful both to training providers, and to experienced and new field educators. Given that Fieldwork in the Human Services was written with an international audience in mind, the varying terminologies used in different countries had to be considered. The editors have therefore attempted to ensure that standard terminology, acceptable to human services across a range of countries, has been used in all chapters. The term ‘human services’ has been used to denote social work, social welfare and youth work, except where these words are very specific to the context, or are titles or quotations. The term ‘field educator’ refers to fieldwork teachers, practice teachers and field instructors. The term ‘fieldwork’ embodies such terms as field placements, field education, clinical practice and practice placements. The book is divided into three main sections, all of which have international relevance. Section 1 is concerned with teaching, learning and assessment in the field. Section 2 considers the management of fieldwork from three different perspectives—the university, the agency and the field educator. The specific legal responsibilities of all those involved in fieldwork are also taken into account here. These first two sections are structured to provide a theoretical overview of issues. Each chapter ends with a ‘Theory into practice’ component, in which the authors outline how a


xiv

140 × 215

PREFACE

xv

selected theory can be applied in the field. Section 3 describes a range of practical suggestions and gives examples of how these might be applied in practice. Overall, Fieldwork in the Human Services deals with the central aspects of field education for human services workers. There are no easy answers. Human services field educators and training providers continue to face the challenge of providing quality practice opportunities for human services students. The way forward includes a coordinated effort from all involved. The editors and authors of this book hope it will make a contribution to that effort.


xv

140 × 215


xvi

140 × 215

SECTION 1 TEACHING, LEARNING AND ASSESSMENT IN THE FIELD

FINAL ART c: ALLEN & UNWIN r: DP3\BP3301W\MAIN p: (02) 9438 3722 f: (02) 9438 3733 92 CHANDOS STREET ST LEONARDS NSW 2065

1

140 × 215


2

140 × 215

1

Overview of teaching, learning and assessment in the field

Lesley Cooper and Lynne Briggs TEACHING, LEARNING AND ASSESSMENT IN THE FIELD OVERVIEW OF TEACHING, LEARNING AND ASSESSMENT

The human services field involves learning in, and from, the real-life work of communities, agencies, practitioners and clients. It is a special form of learning that allows students to learn experientially, under the guidance and supervision of experienced practitioners in the context of specific requirements of training institutions, agencies and the professions. While the organisation of this activity involves a large number of stakeholders, including students, academic staff, practitioners and clients, the student is the key person and learning is the core task. Learning from real-life experiences provides a range of major challenges for all those involved in this important educational activity—students, practitioners, academic staff and those field coordinators who operate on the boundary between the training institution and the agency in which the learning occurs. This book is written for field educators—practitioners who, on a day-to-day basis, are responsible for students and their learning. The chapters are organised for the purposes of assisting them in their role as educators. This introduction, however, provides a conceptual orientation to the learner, the context of learning and learning from experience, based on the work of David Boud and David Walker (Boud and Walker 1990, Walker and Boud 1994). Four key themes are addressed, emphasising the importance of: 3


3

140 × 215

4 • • • •

TEACHING, LEARNING AND ASSESSMENT IN THE FIELD

the learner; the context for learning; the learning experience; appropriate management and organisation of fieldwork.

Although the learner and learning are at the heart of fieldwork, the last theme is crucial, as learning cannot take place without it.

THE LEARNER The learner is the most important person in the human services field. Students come to their fieldwork experiences with an extensive range of prior social and cultural experiences that impact on what they learn and how they approach the task of learning. These experiences may be conscious, but often they are hidden. Part of learning is assisting students to understand the impact of these prior experiences through developing self-awareness during the supervision process. There is an increasing diversity among students attending university. In recent years, the profile of university students has changed. More women are attending; there is an increase in mature-age students; many are from non-English speaking backgrounds; and there is an increasing number of indigenous students. Language skills vary enormously. Mature-age students may come to university lacking confidence in their ability to study and cope with academic or practical learning. Younger students may be confident about their intellectual ability but lack the life experiences needed to engage with clients in the human services. Indigenous students struggle with agency values and beliefs that differ from their cultural orientation. Learning new skills, practices and tasks arouses strong emotions as students struggle in an unfamiliar environment with clients and educators who may be different from themselves. Where students are required to work across cultures, anxiety about learning or feelings of oppression may become acute. All students, irrespective of their experiences or cultural backgrounds, come to their first field placement with some trepidation, anxiety and excitement about this new learning challenge. Although early learning experiences are significant in terms of the way students approach fieldwork learning, the students’ social, emotional and intellectual development is also important. Believing


4

140 × 215

OVERVIEW OF TEACHING, LEARNING AND ASSESSMENT

5

that students have attained all milestones of cognitive and emotional development if they have reached adulthood is a false assumption. Entering university heralds a time when students are required to process large amounts of information and knowledge. The beginning of fieldwork brings the realisation that learning practice is more than the application of classroom theory. Learners are required to adapt all their cognitive skills to issues of professional practice. They soon discover that there is no right or wrong answer, but instead a plethora of approaches, all of which are acceptable. In addition to these prior personal, social and cultural experiences, students have particular intentions and goals with regard to field learning. Some students see fieldwork as an opportunity to decide if this career is the right one for them. Others’ unique life experiences give them the desire to help people, just as they have been helped. A few with a well-defined view of social justice and injustice have a political commitment to change the world for the better. Although some students may be explicit about their intent, Boud and Walker (1990) note that students may have little conscious intent or commitment to being in an agency. Whatever their reason for doing fieldwork, each student will approach the learning tasks in a different manner.

CONTEXT FOR LEARNING Learning in the field involves learning from experience and making the most of that experience. It occurs off-campus in a wide variety of workplaces. Classroom learning comprising lectures and tutorials has a degree of uniformity, predictability and transparency. The same claim cannot be made for off-campus field learning. This is complicated, challenging and puzzling. Field learning may not be a totally structured and carefully executed activity orchestrated by the agency, field educator and student. It can be uneven, unpredictable and often surprising. Boud and Walker (1990) refer to the importance of the learning milieu—the physical environment of the agency where the learning takes place. They emphasise the interaction between the learner and the specific field learning environment. As well as being a physical environment, the milieu encompasses the social, cultural, interpersonal, economic, legal and political context. It incorporates ‘the formal requirements, the culture, procedures,


5

140 × 215

6


practices and standards of particular institutions and societies, the immediate goals and expectations of any facilitator, as well as the personal characteristics of any individuals who are part of it’ (1990: 65). The cultures, procedures and formal requirements of the training institution and the agency form an integral part of this complex milieu. While Boud and Walker were primarily interested in the interaction between the learner and the milieu, field educators acknowledge the impact of social, political and economic events on the availability of fieldwork, the quality of learning and opportunities for students. In the current political and organisational climate, educators and practitioners must contend with rapid change and the associated organisational turmoil. These turbulent settings become the classroom (or context) for student learning. Immersion in this environment potentially provides a first-hand appreciation of the vigour, intensity and impact of change. Despite these opportunities, it also creates problems both for those responsible for the organisation and management of student learning and for students. There may be insufficient field placements that allow appropriate learning. Field educators may be busy with additional work and unintentionally neglect the learner and their needs. A high turnover of field educators may result in large numbers of inexperienced field educators. Some novice students may not receive an adequate orientation, being given too little work, while those with prior experiences may be simply used as an extra pair of hands, thus receiving little educational or administrative support.

LEARNING FROM EXPERIENCE Field learning occurs through and from workplace experiences, but involves more than just students learning from these experiences. Learning is enhanced when it is treated as a conscious, reflective process and when students have control over that process. Boud and Walker (1990) aimed to achieve this with their framework for learning from experience, which was intended to raise educators’ and students’ awareness of the complexity of learning by making the components of learning as explicit as possible. This book has a similar objective. It aims to make explicit three key concepts: the complementary concepts of teaching and learning, together with assessment. It also intends to illustrate how student learning in the field reaches beyond achieving specified


6

140 × 215


7

learning outcomes to include an appreciation of difference, culture, self, complexity of practice, milieu and practice relationships. Teaching consists of the actions, strategies and behaviours that make student learning possible. Learning means a change in an individual as a result of experiences. Learning from experience is the primary goal of field learning. This book shows that there are many teaching, learning and assessment theories and practices that support such experiential learning. The learning experience begins with the first contact between students and their agency field educator. This first encounter is generally a structured event involving orientation combined with a process of contracting learning activities and assessment, and can give a positive or negative flavour to the whole fieldwork experience. Field educators play an important role in how students approach the task of field learning. It is assumed that educators appreciate the variety of learning theories and their consequential teaching strategies, and will use these in a positive manner. The process of learning from experience in human services fieldwork occurs during ‘supervision’—structured conversations between the student or students and their field educator. Thus the field educator– student relationship is vitally important. Assessment is a central feature of fieldwork. Teaching and learning are not achievable unless assessment is taken seriously and considered as a key element of learning. Assessment can be an ongoing process. It can occur informally during the structured supervisory conversation, or more formally through an ‘event’—an evaluative conference when students are given direct feedback about their performance. As many educators can attest, assessment of student performance can be one of the most difficult and conflict-ridden areas of professional education. A negative or badly managed student assessment can have wide-ranging consequences for the student, agency and training institution. A principled assessment approach that takes account of complexities can facilitate and enhance learning in fieldwork and minimise disruptive consequences.

MANAGEMENT AND ORGANISATION OF LEARNING Although this introduction is written from a learner’s perspective, the book is written for field educators. Fieldwork has an educational focus and requires careful management and organisation. This


7

140 × 215

8


is an important task for all educators, as efficient management is necessary to enable learners and field educators to maximise learning opportunities. Management begins with the preparation of students on campus; is supported by field learning and concurrent integration seminars; and is completed with final assessments and the debriefing of students. Field educators have a number of specific managerial, legal, ethical and educational responsibilities. They are responsible for the overall management of the student learning process, beginning with planning for learning, orientation to the agency, arranging the learning contract and being involved in the mid- and end-offieldwork assessments. They also provide constant administrative oversight of the student’s work throughout fieldwork, including activities such as selection of work, monitoring workloads and assisting with the integration of theory and practice, as well as the day-to-day skills of writing and recording.

OVERVIEW: SECTION 1 This section of the book is oriented to teaching, learning and assessment in fieldwork and covers some core issues. In Chapter 2, Lesley Cooper specifically considers the complementary concepts of teaching and learning. She discusses fieldwork’s importance as a step in the development of professional expertise and students’ various approaches to this form of learning. Emphasis is placed on field educators getting to know their students, as the student is the most important person in the fieldwork from a learning perspective. Four learning theories are described and applied to learning in human services fieldwork. The chapter concludes with a specific application of cognitive strategies for understanding agency records. Jill Wilson provides a review of supervisory models in Chapter 3, describing and critiquing these approaches and linking them to day-to-day supervisory practice. Models discussed include the apprenticeship model, the growth approach, role systems models, academic and articulated models, the loop model, competency approaches and structured learning approaches. In Chapter 4, Elizabeth Beddoe asserts that the supervisory relationship is at the heart of human services field education. She describes the roles and the beginning, middle and final developmental stages in a supervisory relationship. The beginning stage has three clearly identified phases: planning, building the relationship


8

140 × 215


9

and clarifying expectations. In the middle stage, field educators are expected to consolidate the relationship and take account of issues of oppression. The final stage involves closure and final evaluation. Chapter 5 focuses on the use of competency-based approaches in human services fieldwork. John Hopkins and Lesley Cooper describe the strengths of these approaches, especially the specification of standards and their assessment. Standards provide clarity around what is assessed, how it is assessed and the criteria against which the student’s performance is judged. The assessment process is based on a clear set of principles and, most importantly, evidence of performance. There is an outline of guidelines that field educators might adopt for writing standards for performance and assessment criteria. Sue Maywald describes two approaches to group supervision in Chapter 6. The first depends on the expertise of the field educator and utilises understandings of group work and group dynamics. The second is based on an understanding that deep learning occurs when students are assisted and encouraged to take risks in their learning. Sue utilises a cooperative learning approach, drawing on cooperative learning groups and feminist pedagogy. At the end of the chapter, she outlines a set of interpersonal and small-group skills that can be used by field educators in establishing learning groups. Lesley Hughes and Karen Heycox discuss the assessment of students’ performance in fieldwork in Chapter 7. Assessment in this chapter is defined as a process and event—as ‘formative’ and ‘summative’. They pose some key questions for field educators: why assess, what is assessed and how to assess. Using their research findings, they identify some of the complications associated with assessment in human services agencies. In conclusion they specifically address the issue of giving feedback to students. Chapter 8 concludes Section 1 with an examination of cultural difference. Rosemary Smart and Maurice Manawaroa Gray believe that the major learning challenge for students and the major teaching challenge for their field educators is recognising some of the cultural values, beliefs and assumptions that are internalised through socialisation and education. Once recognition is achieved, both educators and students need to come to terms with other cultural and value systems to enable them to work more effectively with minority groups. The authors end the chapter by outlining the stages in developing fieldwork that is culturally sensitive.


9

140 × 215

2

Teaching and learning in human services fieldwork

Lesley Cooper TEACHING AND LEARNING IN HUMAN SERVICES FIELDWORK

The effectiveness of human services fieldwork depends on understanding and implementing two key concepts: teaching and learning. While little attention has been paid to these complementary concepts in human services fieldwork to date, a number of educators are now gradually remedying this deficit. Human services field educators have traditionally drawn heavily on concepts of supervision and adult education to explain both teaching and learning of experiential practice. Understanding how to supervise has been of greater importance than understanding students and how they learn. This dependence on classical supervisory approaches to teaching and learning has been criticised increasingly for its hierarchical and ‘expert knows best’ approach. By focusing solely on supervision, human services educators have ignored a range of educational theories, including those from educational psychology and research into adult learners in higher education. An alternative approach to field education is described here. While most approaches begin with supervision and associated interpersonal strategies that are teacher- or therapist-centred, the approach taken in this chapter is based on understanding students and how they learn professional practice. Learning theories and their complementary teaching and instructional approaches are 10


10

140 × 215

TEACHING AND LEARNING IN HUMAN SERVICES FIELDWORK

11

identified, and the chapter concludes with practical examples of strategies and approaches to be used in the human services field.

LEARNING PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE Human services fieldwork is a key step taken in the development of professional expertise. Students learn on the job, developing knowledge about cases, clients, programs, projects, communities and groups. The separation of theory taught in the university and professional practice crystallised as blocks of time in the work settings has created problems for those learning professional practice. There has been little attempt to clarify the conceptual processes involved in experiential learning and to understand the competencies required to research and develop practice theories so necessary to guide human services teaching. Notwithstanding these structural difficulties, one researcher has examined how professionals learn professional practice by focusing on the knowledge required to learn more effectively. The work of Donald Schön (1983, 1987) is of particular importance here. He was highly critical of the dominant model of professional practice that treated practice as an exercise of technical rationality and led to the development of a positivistic approach that was able to solve simple and limited professional problems. Professionals, however, are required to solve murky problems that demand an artistic and intuitive approach to reframing them. When practitioners put aside the technical application of knowledge to professional problems they draw on their own experiences and intuitive knowledge to reflect on what they are doing. Distinctive features of this ‘reflective’ thinking are ‘reflection-in-action’ (thinking on your feet) and ‘reflection-on-action’ (contemplating after the practice is completed). Although the notion of reflective thinking is not new, reflection provides educators with instructional strategies that elicit implicit theories and value the importance of student constructs, practice beliefs and knowledge. This view of how professionals learn has several ramifications. Researchers such as Schön are interested in: • •

what practice knowledge is needed to assist in learning effective practice; and how best to elicit practice theory.


11

140 × 215

12


Schön clearly advocates reflection as a method of reaching practitioners’ personal practice knowledge. Using his analysis, fieldwork education must be designed to allow and encourage reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action. Selection of material for student learning in field education should allow exposure to, and immersion in, the complexity, uncertainty and uniqueness of the human services. Straightforward, easily resolved problems do not facilitate student learning. Students encounter difficult problems face to face and need time to understand the complex relationships, analyse problems and come to terms with decision-making in the face of uncertainty and moral quandaries (see Chapter 19).

TEACHING AND LEARNING In human services fieldwork, teaching and learning take place during field education. This chapter begins by exploring the concepts of both teaching and learning, then examines the core theories of learning and the resulting instructional approaches. Each theoretical approach described in this chapter is represented in subsequent chapters. Teaching and learning are complementary concepts. Teaching consists of the actions, strategies and behaviours that make student learning possible. Field educators have a broad range of responsibilities which enable this learning. Educators motivate students, discover their learning needs and interests, discuss their perceptions about practice issues, model their practice, understand students’ prior experiences, assess the students’ learning, provide regular feedback and ensure that agencies provide an environment supportive of student learning. Becoming a good educator requires an understanding of learning from the student perspective, expertise in human services practice, a mastery of teaching skills, a willingness to evaluate practice and the desire to be a lifelong learner. Learning is a simple concept and means a change in an individual as the result of experiences that impact on how they understand, behave in, respond to and conceptualise the world around them. This involves the whole person. Students are expected to achieve a wide range of different learning outcomes as part of human services fieldwork. These outcomes include skills, roles, values and beliefs, practice methods and problem-solving. Students achieve these by ‘learning how to learn’ through observation, imitation, reflection on their experiences, structured


12

140 × 215


13

conversations with educators, role-plays and plenty of actual practice. Learning is enhanced when treated as a conscious, reflective and developing experience for students, and when control over learning rests with students themselves.

LEARNING THEORIES Students in the field are required to learn skills, particular behaviours and concepts of problem-solving and critical thinking, and to develop knowledge about themselves and their emotional responses to situations. There is no single learning theory that adequately explains how students learn this particular set of attributes. Similarly, it is not possible to assert that supervision explains how students learn or what is the best teaching method. Learning theories are sets of concepts and principles that describe and explain learning. These theories provide the basis for development of instructional strategies to achieve learning. Four specific categories of learning approaches—each of which has found its way into supervisory practice—are outlined for this chapter’s purposes: • • • •

behavioural; social learning; cognitive; social constructivist.

Behavioural theories of learning We know more about how animals (especially rodents and pigeons) learn than about how children learn; and we know more about how children learn than about how adults learn. (adult educator Malcolm Knowles, 1990: 11).

Behavioural theories of learning evolved from Thorndike, Pavlov and Skinner’s studies on animals. The foundation concept for behavioural learning theories is ‘classical conditioning’. The following example illustrates this process. In animals, presentation of an ‘unconditioned’ stimulus (food) causes an unconditioned response (salivation). Pavlov (1941) found that if a neutral stimulus (such as a light) is switched on without any connection to food, a dog will not respond by salivating. If a light is presented at the same time as food appears, the light becomes a ‘conditioned’


13

140 × 215

14


stimulus. After this training, the dog salivates with the presentation of light. Thus a stimulus (the light) produces a conditioned response (salivation). Thorndike and Skinner extended Pavlov’s research. Thorndike (1931) outlined the Law of Effect. If an action is followed by a positive change in the environment, the action is likely to be repeated in a similar situation. Skinner was particularly interested in observable or voluntary behaviour, especially the connection between behaviour and its consequences. Skinner (1953) studied animal behaviour (rats and pigeons). Rats were placed in boxes where they pressed a bar and received food. Although their behaviour was initially accidental, the rats soon learned that pressing the bar provided food pellets. They then extinguished other forms of behaviour and concentrated on pressing the bar, learning that this particular behaviour resulted in pleasurable consequences. Skinner experimented with the nature, frequency and pleasure of rewards, and observed the subsequent behaviour. The use of pleasant or unpleasant consequences to change behaviour is now known as operant conditioning. These early experiments with their specific effects on behaviour have given rise to sets of behavioural learning principles that are widely used in education and counselling. They include the use of positive reinforcement through praise, attention, grades and awards to motivate students. Field educators often use feedback about a student’s performance to reinforce particular student behaviours. Chapter 7 (see the ‘Theory into practice’ section) includes a discussion of instructional strategies.

Social learning theory Bandura’s (1986) social learning theory extended behavioural theory. He noted that learning could occur without the behaviourists’ consequences and reinforcements. Students do not need to be reinforced or punished in order to learn. Learning occurs through a process of observation or imitation of a model of behaviour or particular skills. Modelling or imitation may occur by watching experts practise particular skills; by watching the successes and failures of their peers; or by observing field educators at work with clients or groups. Bandura noted several stages of learning: • •

attentional stage; retention stage;


14

140 × 215


• •

15

reproduction stage; motivational stage.

Getting the student’s attention may mean engaging them in the excitement of learning a new practice activity. A field educator may do this by: • • • • •

providing interesting background material about a client or group; posing a practice or ethical dilemma; describing the unique features of the setting; referring to an unusual feature of a community or situation; or linking theory to practice.

As soon as the student is engaged, field educators can then introduce and model the new activity. Modelling is a demonstration of actual practice or an explanation of how practitioners think about issues in practice. Students can then practise this and thus retain the new activity for themselves. They may observe their field educators interviewing a client or making a referral to another agency, or they may listen to the field educator describe the rationale of a particular approach. Students then try this activity with their own clients, attempting to match the practitioner’s or field educator’s skills and processes. Alternatively, field educators may encourage students to role-play the interview or referral. When students attempt to match their behaviour and actions to those demonstrated by the field educator, they have entered the reproduction stage of observational learning. They have learned about the field educator’s approach and know the teacher’s style and preferences. Feedback from the field educator about the student’s actions is essential at this reproductive stage. Student assessment of the effectiveness of their modelling is also important. They are finally motivated to copy and reproduce the expert’s behaviours and actions because such actions lead to praise (a consequence) from their field educator. Students come to appreciate the field educator’s approach and seek to please them through emulation.

Cognitive approaches to learning Cognitive theories of learning provide another perspective on how individuals learn. They refer to processes that go on in the student’s


15

140 × 215

16


mind and include sequences of information processing, storage and retrieval. While many researchers have focused on the memory processing dimensions of learning, others have examined what makes information meaningful and how students come to understand new concepts. Cognitive theorists refer to three different types of memory: • • •

episodic—refers to memories of personal experiences stored in the form of images; semantic—directed to facts, concepts, principles, rules and problemsolving ability; procedural—refers to a knowledge of procedures such as riding a surfboard or bike.

Semantic memory is very important. Meaningful information is stored in the form of schemata or a hierarchical network of connected facts and information. Information is understood and most easily retained if it fits readily into the student’s pre-existing schema. Students learn best when they can: • • • • •

process information; look at it from different perspectives, including a range of theories, expert opinions, critiques or practical applications; understand the connections to their prior educational or personal experiences and concepts; use the information in new ways; and apply the principles to new practical situations.

One important discovery from research into cognitive psychology is that learning is a skill which itself can be learned. This knowledge about one’s learning processes or how one learns is called meta-cognition. Educators are now teaching students metacognitive strategies to assist with learning. A wide range of strategies is evident, including study skills, reflection on practice, setting learning goals, self-assessment skills, note-taking, problemsolving procedures, clinical reasoning skills and self-questioning strategies. The ‘theory into practice’ section of this chapter discusses examples used in field education: summarising, questioning, clarifying and predicting skills in reading case studies or agency records.

Constructivist views of learning The central tenet of constructivist approaches is that the student discovers and constructs knowledge. Learning is more than the


16

140 × 215


17

educational colloquialism of ‘ram, remember and regurgitate’. Students attach meaning to what they observe and actively use knowledge and observation to shape their own reality. Each individual student must discover, transform and shape complex information so that it makes sense to them. In the professions and human services, students are expected to construct their own understanding of their profession. This view of learning incorporates certain assumptions about the learner, who is expected to be ‘active’ and ‘self-regulating’. Active means that the student makes use of thinking processes to select, analyse and transform information, thereby establishing new knowledge relationships. Self-regulating refers to the amount of control the student exerts over the learning process. A self-regulated learner might be expected to analyse tasks or work set for them; set goals for learning; develop specific strategies to reach those goals; and monitor their progress in achieving them. Vygotsky (1978) influenced constructivist approaches. He firstly emphasised the social nature of learning and the importance of learning from more capable peers. Several key educational principles form part of this approach: • • • • •

Learning is social. It is a dynamic interaction between the collective and the individual. Students learn through a process of interaction with others. Peers, other adults or experts are important for learning. Cooperative and peer group activities are important for learning. Students will learn more if they can discover and talk to other students.

This implies a need for group approaches to field education which offer deliberate encouragement of student-to-student learning. The second concept is the importance of working with students in their zone of proximal development. Students face many tasks they are unable to do alone but can complete successfully with the assistance of peers or adults who have a slightly higher level of intellectual development. The third emerging concept is the importance of cognitive apprenticeship. A student develops expertise in thinking by working and interacting closely with an expert. The expert models thinking strategies about professional problems and approaches, gradually socialising the student into day-to-day professional activities. Educators


17

140 × 215

18


may achieve this cognitive apprenticeship by thinking aloud about their practice and dilemmas. This approach has implications for the way in which we educate students in the field. Learning practice is a process of inquiry, discovery and appropriating information. Learning also takes place through discussion and exchange of ideas. Meaning is mutually and collaboratively constructed between students and clients, students and educators, and students and students. Teaching or supervision is neither telling nor directing; nor is it transmission of facts and information. Teaching is the capacity to encourage meaning, understanding and interpretation in students. It involves checking out student perceptions about practice, methods and clients. Sue Maywald has used this theoretical framework as the basis of her discussion on group supervision (see Chapter 6).

Learning in higher education and the human services It is only in recent years that educators have begun to examine how students approach learning in higher education (Biggs 1991; Ramsden 1992). Researchers using qualitative and quantitative studies have examined students’ approaches to learning. In essence, there are different orientations to learning. Some students have a deep approach. They are motivated by an intrinsic curiosity about the topic and as part of their strategic approach read widely, reflect on their reading, ask questions and relate them to prior knowledge and experiences. Other students have a more superficial approach. They work only to avoid failure. They try to memorise details, treat the task as an external imposition and understand the parts but not the whole. They don’t think deeply about what they learn or make connections to previous experiences. The third group of students is neither deep nor superficial. These students are strategic, motivated by achieving grades and strategically optimising time and effort. In terms of student outcomes, Biggs and Ramsden note that students using deep approaches consistently get better grades. All of these approaches to learning have been observed in human services field education, with similar outcomes. Gardiner (1989) observed learning and teaching approaches from the student and field educator viewpoint. He argued that personal concepts of learning held by field educators and students, student perceptions about agency learning tasks and interaction between students and educators all impacted on student learning. Learning approaches adopted by the student are dependent on learning approaches adopted


18

140 × 215


19

by the field teacher. Three levels of learning are proposed for field education. Level one focuses on the content of learning. This is a surface reproductive approach emphasising facts and procedures. It is an expert-driven approach to learning. The second level is associated with the process more than the content of learning, representing a shift from superficial to deep approaches to learning as students actively search for meaning. At level three, ‘meta’ learning or ‘learning to learn’ can occur. Students and their educators appreciate their own learning processes and transfer learning from one context to many others. Few of Gardiner’s students and field educators reached this approach to learning (1989).

UNDERSTANDING THE STUDENT PERSPECTIVE The student is the most important person in the field education process. If teaching is to involve changes in the student’s perspective and in the whole person, one of the most important things we can do is understand students, how they learn in higher education and their stages of social and intellectual development. Educators assume that when students have reached adulthood, they have attained all milestones of cognitive, physical, social and moral development. While physical development may peak during the twenties, cognitive, social and emotional development continues throughout adulthood. Between the ages of 20 and 30, young adults leave home permanently, make intimate commitments to partners, make decisions about vocations and may also bear children. Entering university heralds a time when young adults are required to process large amounts of knowledge and information. The beginning of fieldwork brings the realisation that practice is more than the application of classroom theory. Students have to adapt all their cognitive skills to issues of professional practice in the human services. They soon discover that there is no single right or wrong answer to problems but a multiplicity of approaches, each of which is acceptable. An understanding of this cognitive development is essential for understanding students and their stages of learning. Intellectual development is related to concepts of maturity. Three key people have contributed to our understanding of cognitive development. William Perry (1970) acknowledged that students move from


19

140 × 215

20


dualistic thinking to a position where they are able to accept relativistic viewpoints. Beginning students have a dualistic view of the world—the right and the wrong, the good and the bad. These divisions are apparent in their values, beliefs and attitudes to people. Students at this stage of development believe right answers can be found in books, provided by experts and memorised by hard work. These dualistic views have profound implications for students undertaking fieldwork. Perry found older students at later stages of intellectual development had a diversity of views, values and judgments that came from a range of sources, evidence and analysis. Entry into adult life requires individuals to use information and to reason about a wide range of issues. Schaie (1977/78) outlined four stages of cognitive development: •

•

•

•

the acquisitive stage—begins in late adolescence. Individuals have a greater capacity to store, combine and use large amounts of information; the achieving stage—early adulthood. Knowledge is adapted and applied to a wide variety of situations. This means applying knowledge to practice for students embarking on a professional career; the responsibility stage—middle adulthood. Involves an expansion of responsibilities to others—family, work colleagues, clients, children and other social relationships; the re-integrative stage—late adulthood. This is a time when people reintegrate their interests and values and are more selective about their particular intellectual circumstances.

Labouvie-Vief (1980, 1985) stressed the importance of pragmatic thought development. He asserted that adults are aware of the difficulties and complexities of everyday life—the multiple roles and the balancing of responsibilities—but instead of attempting to resolve every contradiction, they accept dilemmas and inconsistencies. The social, cognitive and psychological impact of the early years at university should not be under-estimated. Many students attending their first field placement are facing the culture shock of attending university; making a vocational choice; and responding to the impact of making career, life and personal decisions. Educators need to understand the importance of these cognitive changes and accompanying changes in attitudes and values, tolerance and acceptance of diversity, greater attention to moral reasoning and changing social relationships.


20

140 × 215


21

Cognitive development is not necessarily continuous. The stages of cognitive development and learning cannot be rushed. Experiential learning provided in fieldwork is a complex mixture of intellectual, practical, affective and value-based learning tasks. It requires application of information to a wide variety of social situations with no single correct solution. Students may need time to absorb complex ideas and associations. They will learn at different rates, depending on their intellectual sophistication and maturity. When students do not see things in the same way as the field educator; when they fail to appreciate the complexity of social situations; or when they express rigidity in their values and beliefs, the field educator needs to explore their perceptions constructively. The message for field educators is that there is no one right way to teach. Differences in intellectual maturity require different approaches to match the students’ needs.

TEACHING CONCEPTS IN SUPERVISION Supervision is a particular approach to field teaching in the human services. Many field educators learn how to supervise by using the same teaching approaches they experienced as students. These may not represent effective teaching strategies. Three conceptions of teaching with parallels to supervisory practices in the human services are evident in the general literature (Ramsden 1992): • • •

transmission of information; institutional management and efficacious use of teaching skills; teaching as facilitation of learning.

Understanding these different teaching approaches is important, as each individual’s view of teaching will influence how they work with students and assist them with learning in their fieldwork. The first concept is of teaching as the transmission of information, instilling practice wisdom into students and being authoritative about content. While this transmission view is most evident in the classroom, there are parallels in field education. The traditional concept of the supervisor is of a professional who possesses privileged knowledge and uses this to tell and advise students how to practise. This telling prevents the student engaging with clients or projects and discovering their own solutions. Gardiner (1989) alerted field educators to a more serious concern about teaching approaches. He argued that many models of supervision are practice


21

140 × 215

22


or therapeutic paradigms, not teaching and learning paradigms. This drift of concepts from therapy to education led to a form of teaching that directed students into the ‘right’ way to practise. The second concept of teaching is the institutional management and efficacious use of teaching skills for different students. The focus is on the student but the teacher is preoccupied with use of strategies and techniques to ensure learning. Although it extends the repertoire of techniques, it does not change the teacher’s understanding of how students learn. Those field educators preoccupied with mastering interviewing techniques fall into this category. The third concept is that teaching is the facilitation of learning. This view assumes that the learner actively constructs meaning while the teacher actively motivates and encourages. Teaching is an egalitarian process in which both teacher and student work cooperatively. The teacher engages the student, enabling them to explore their perceptions, understandings and misunderstandings about the learning tasks. The teacher then intervenes in a positive way to change any misunderstandings. There are some remarkable parallels between the assumptions of this view of teaching and theories of supervision. In particular, Ramsden (1992) places a great deal of emphasis on finding out about the students’ perceptions, understandings and misunderstandings, and working to change them. The key issue for all field educators is to explore the question: ‘What sort of field educator am I?’ These concepts provide a useful framework to examine assumptions about teaching in general and field education in particular.

THEORY INTO PRACTICE Research into higher education has demonstrated that students adopt qualitatively different approaches to learning that lead to different outcomes. If some learning strategies are more effective than others, then students can be taught skills that will enable them to learn more effectively. One of the difficulties facing new students in their first field placement is how to read and comprehend agency records. When opening an agency record for the first time, how do they know what is important to read and what the core issues are for the management of their work. This section describes four cognitive strategies students can use either alone or in groups to improve their understanding of practice material in the agency (Cooper 1996):


22

140 × 215


• • • •

23

teaching students to read and comprehend agency records; explaining cognitive strategies; sharing thinking with the student; encouraging debate.

These strategies include the processes of summarising, clarifying, questioning and predicting. A group approach is preferable given the assumptions of constructivist learning theories.

Teaching students to read and comprehend agency records Select a detailed agency record that includes a social history, summary information, case study, court reports or referrals to other agencies.

Explanation of cognitive strategies Explain the cognitive strategies and provide hints to help students use each one.

Summarising Ask students to provide a summary description or key ideas of various parts of a record. The following approaches might be useful: • • • •

This paragraph tells us . . . The client’s story is . . . The problem can be summed up this way . . . The worker was trying to achieve . . .

Clarifying Ask students to identify aspects of the record that are not clear to them. These may be words, concepts, the record’s purpose or the nature of intervention. In addition to identifying words or concepts, students might be encouraged to undertake some of the following suggestions: • • •

pinpoint differences between the client and worker; clarify the meaning of theoretical ideas; search the record for explanations of practice concepts or ideas.

Questioning Ask students to list questions that arise after reading the text. The following examples might assist students:


23

140 × 215

24 • •


What questions would you want to ask the practitioner after reading this record and what is the rationale for this question? What questions would you like to ask the client or other service providers?

Predicting Ask students to formulate their hypotheses about the future direction of the case or the worker’s success in achieving their objectives. The following statements should assist students with this task: • • • •

The worker is successful or unsuccessful because . . . The worker assumes the cause of the problem is . . . An alternative hypothesis is . . . On the basis of information in this case, I would predict . . .

Share your thinking with the student Field educators are expert practitioners with extensive practice experience. This practice knowledge is an important resource for students. Educators can share their practice thinking with students. Students can learn by listening to and discussing their instructor’s intellectual approach. The field educator should begin the process by first demonstrating the use of the strategies in the students’ presence. Begin by summarising the record, including the key issues and points—this is a surprisingly difficult task for both field educators and students. Educators can then talk about issues which may need clarification and elaboration. If the report raises further questions, these can be discussed. Finally, on the basis of information contained in the report, predict the outcomes.

Encourage debate and discussion Part of the learning process is sharing various interpretations of written material, differences of opinion and ideas. Ask students to share their cues, reasoning and how they arrived at their particular interpretations.

SUMMARY This chapter has explored the complementary concepts of teaching and learning. Learning involves the whole person and means a change as the result of experiences that impact on an individual’s


24

140 × 215


25

behaviour and conceptualisation of the world. Teaching consists of actions that make such learning possible. Learning can have a profound impact on people. Understanding students and their cognitive development is fundamental to the teaching and learning process—it is a vital part of learner-centred education. Four learning theories and associated instructional approaches have been discussed: behavioural theories, social learning theories, cognitive theories and constructivist theories. The final section of this chapter, ‘theory into practice’, outlined a set of meta-cognitive skills to illustrate cognitive learning theories. When these are applied in a group setting, this approach also derives from constructivist theory. Finally, attention has been drawn to the theoretical concepts discussed in other chapters of this book.


25

140 × 215

3

Approaches to supervision in fieldwork

Jill Wilson APPROACHES TO SUPERVISION IN FIELDWORK

Most training courses for human services workers includes timelimited fieldwork where students learn in work settings with an accredited practitioner known as a ‘field educator’, ‘supervisor’ or ‘field instructor’. Students tend to retain vivid memories of these learning experiences. Supervision is both a series of events—regular formal meetings between a student and agency staff member—and a process of enabling students to learn and to deliver an appropriate standard of service to the client group. Students are expected to be taught experientially, learning by observing others, participating in the agency’s work and reflecting on their own work. They learn about the practice context; about deriving knowledge from the work done; and about using knowledge to understand situations and create opportunities for advancement. Importantly, this learning is about themselves and their orientation to practice. Fieldwork provides a testing ground for making vocational choices; an important site for learning and teaching about practice on the job; and a quality control device before new graduates are ‘let loose’ on the public. The literature describes approaches to supervision in many ways: its functions; models that focus on identifying its essential character; the process of learning to be a field educator; and, to a lesser extent, theories for supervision. This chapter presents a brief 26


26

140 × 215

APPROACHES TO SUPERVISION IN FIELDWORK

27

exploration of supervision’s functions, describes the development of supervisory practice models and learning to be a field educator, and suggests ways of linking the literature to day-to-day practice.

FUNCTIONS OF FIELDWORK Field educators occupy positions of administrative responsibility and are expected to: • • •

support students; direct, monitor and evaluate practice; facilitate learning from their own work.

In turn, students are expected to: • •

be accountable to field educators for their work; be accountable to their training institutions for their learning.

Many authors have used these functions of supervision—often referred to as ‘administration’, ‘education’ and ‘support’—to understand its purpose and inherent tensions. Table 3.1 describes the variations and complementary links between these different functions in terms of goals, foci, tasks and knowledge (Kadushin 1976; Siddle and Wilson 1984). The inherent tensions between these functions, as outlined in Table 3.1, include the need to balance students’ learning needs and agency tasks, and the need to provide support while challenging their work performance or approach to learning. Such tensions exist in an environment where there is a power imbalance between field educator and student. The field educator is generally assumed to be competent in the supervised work practices and hence is seen as having power associated with knowledge, as well as power associated with their administrative position. Generally the field educator–student relationship relies on the development of trust as a way of negotiating these structural issues. Potential conflicts become more overt when a student is seen as marginal between a pass and a fail, or when the relationship between student and field educator becomes strained. Understanding the functions of supervision certainly alerts the field educator to some of the ‘tasks’ of fieldwork supervision. It can be useful in clarifying why supervision is usually not a straightforward process.


27

140 × 215

28


Table 3.1

Goals

Focus

Tasks

Functions in supervision Administrative function Educative function

Helping function

• Ensure best learning experience for student through service to clients • Client/service • Student learning needs in relation to task performance • Introduction and • Information and information giving knowledge exchange and building • Assigning work to • Assigning work to accomplish student accomplish learning goals agency/service goals

• Ensure best way of learning for student

• Ensure best service to clients

• Responsibility for quality of service

•

• Reviewing and evaluating work

•

• Coordinating work

•

• ‘Buffer’ to student

•

Knowledge • Agency • Welfare field • Welfare issues

• • • •

• Student learning needs

• Information (experiential) exchange • Assigning work to challenge and provide a sense of accomplishment Responsibility for • Responsibility to learning ensure student manages pace and intensity Assessing/evaluating • Self-assessment and direction on part of ‘growth’, learning, student development capacity Coordinating, • Integrating past/present/future, integrating learning examining experience experiences with student ‘Buffer’ to • ‘Buffer’ to learning—sequencing, person—safety and challenge timing in learning How learning occurs • Capacities Time phases • Limits Class curricula • Anxieties past/present/future Teaching methods • Behavioural patterns

MODELS OF SUPERVISORY PRACTICE Different approaches to supervision have emerged over time in an attempt to resolve these tensions. Approaches reflect different understandings of learning and teaching in the context of contemporary practice, and different ways of establishing and maintaining the field educator–student relationship. Such approaches are generally termed ‘models’ rather than ‘theories’. While there is considerable debate about these terms, the following definitions are used to serve this chapter’s purposes:


28

140 × 215


•

•

29

A ‘model’ describes what happens in practice in a general way, using a range of abstracted principles that prescribe what to do, giving practice a degree of structure and consistency. A ‘theory’ accounts for why an action produces a particular result, and includes both a perspective (or framework) and a model for practice.

A field education model always has a theoretical base, even though this may not be explicit. The literature discusses models of what are variously called ‘field education’, ‘supervision’, ‘field instruction’ or ‘practice teaching’. The models represent ways of linking assumptions about practice, teaching and learning, and are presented in chronological order. They are presented briefly here as a base against which you may be able to identify your preferred approach and the reality of your supervision.

Apprenticeship model The apprenticeship model has been the basic approach to teaching from the earliest days of training human services workers. It was developed in a context where little was written about practice. In essence, it suggests that students learn how to practise through their own direct work and by observing experienced practitioners. It assumes that students learn by doing; that evaluation standards are a reflection of their field educator’s practice; and that the experiences available with competent field educators in functional agencies provide the means of achieving the fieldwork’s desired goals. Little attention is paid to variations of learning style, starting points or interactions between educator and learner. This approach remains a suitable starting point in fieldwork, particularly for students who learn from observation or doing. It provides a basis for comparing practice styles. Teaching occurs through regular student–field educator discussions of work done, and may be presented in a detailed process report. These discussions tend to focus on the task, the field educator’s practice wisdom and instructions for applying this knowledge to the student’s work in the agency context. The learning agendas reflect the agency’s practice and assume that once people have observed ‘best practice’, they will be able to achieve it themselves, given enough practice and support. This model tends to focus on the ‘how’—behaviour and strategies. It tends to omit the reflective and conceptual activities important to developing a general framework that can help make learning transferable from one situation to another and provide a


29

140 × 215

30


basis for critiquing practice. In busy work environments, there is a danger of this model ‘[collapsing] into instruction by the practice teacher on how to work with each case according to the agency’s expectations’ (Shardlow and Doel 1996: 41). Newer developments of this model incorporate a cognitive apprenticeship where the field educator models their thinking as well as their actions.

Growth model This model, based on psychological theories of human development, places heavy emphasis on supervision’s support function, and on reviewing and understanding interactions between student and client/other. Supervision sessions focus on the students’ attitudes, feelings and responses toward those with whom they work, with the intention of helping students to achieve personal growth. Performance standards are linked to evidence of professional growth. The model is very individualised and is not based on an open negotiation of learning agendas. These emerge as ‘problems’ are uncovered. Use of the growth model can exacerbate the powerlessness students may experience in relation to their field educator. It is therefore linked to objectionable supervisory styles (Rosenblatt and Mayer 1975) and has been largely abandoned as a ‘pure type’. However, elements of this model are evident in meeting supervision’s support component. Some also remain in the reflective process promoted in the ‘loop model’ (Bogo and Vayda 1987) and in work with students who are assessed as marginal in the field (Wilson and Moore 1989). When students are seen as potentially failing in the field, reasons for their lack of progress may be located in their personalities. Field educators may focus on this dimension in an attempt to get them ‘unstuck’. There is a fine line between enabling a student who is struggling personally with fieldwork demands, and entering into a therapeutic relationship with that student. Generally it is accepted that, while the focus is on the student in relation to the task, rather than the student per se, an appropriate balance is achieved. It may be useful to suggest to the student that they seek external assistance with their own issues to complement discussions in supervision.

Role systems model This model represents the introduction of more sociological theory into an understanding of supervision. It gives explicit recognition


30

140 × 215


31

to the imbalance of power between field educator and student, making the field educator responsible for attempting to ensure that the most appropriate type of learning/teaching occurs. It emphasises the negotiation of role expectations in a context of unequal relationships. In contrast to the two preceding models, it focuses on the interaction between student and field educator, but provides little guidance on the content to be covered or the ways in which learning occurs.

The academic and articulated models These models are concerned with the interrelationship between, and sequencing of, academic and field teaching and learning. They reflect greater use of learning theories in reaction to the earlier ‘learning by doing’ models. The assumptions about learning in the academic model are that competent practice depends on prior intellectual understanding (deductive learning), while both class and field learning are viewed as equally important in the articulated model. Thus the articulated model appears more flexible, but it requires considerable commitment by university and field to develop and maintain the planning structures necessary for its full implementation. There are various structural barriers to the integration of theory and practice in fieldwork, however, such as different sets of assumptions about practice and the nature of teaching and learning, both between and within universities and agency environments. These need to be spelt out if there is to be genuine negotiation between university and field about fieldwork content.

The loop model Bogo and Vayda (1987) developed the loop model from Kolb’s (1976) four-stage model of learning. It focuses specifically on the student’s learning rather than being presented as a model of teaching. Learning is understood as the integration of theory and practice, and difficulties in achieving such integration are linked to omitting one or more of the phases. The model uses four phases to describe a way of making learning from practice explicit: • •

retrieval (description) of sections of practice by the student; reflection on choices made, on the effectiveness of work done and on the knowledge, value and attitudinal assumptions made;


31

140 × 215

32 • •


linkage of these observations to relevant theoretical literature; and making decisions about future responses.

This process is repeated, giving the model its name. Naming the stages of facilitating learning in this way can be helpful in providing both students and field educators with a map to help them interpret what has happened in practice and learning terms. Some of the models described above utilise only one or two of these phases. A process that is limited to retrieval and professional response produces the apprenticeship model. Similarly, a process that focuses mainly on reflection produces the growth model of supervision. This places heavy emphasis on the processes of learning, while the content to be learnt is largely determined by examples brought by the students. This is in contrast to the following competency-based models.

Competency-based models These models relate not just to fieldwork but to the entire training. They underpin current regulations governing professional training in countries such as New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Emphasis is placed on learning outcomes rather than processes. Teaching and learning are defined in performance terms. Outcomes are stated as behavioural objectives and criteria are used to measure performance (Shardlow and Doel 1996: 41–2). The starting point is a list of desirable attributes of a graduating practitioner with specified levels for particular stages of the course. Professional accrediting bodies may identify these attributes, and the field educator and student may translate them into learning objectives that will help meet the stated competencies in a particular agency context. In this model, the field educator is an adviser—a facilitator who assists the student to achieve stated competencies. This approach provides clear guidelines for assessment and evidence of a student’s performance. Hence it reduces the potential for abuse of power between field educator and student. It depends on making human services knowledge concrete in the form of measurable behaviours, thus fitting the current managerialist approach to human services. Its links with this approach can also be seen as a limitation, since the managerialist model is interpreted by some as undermining practitioners’ professional status and their right to exercise discretion. Other limitations are the difficulty of capturing the emotional quality of interactions and the worker’s


32

140 × 215


33

values in a competency format. It is also suggested that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and the partialisation process in this competency-based model fails to capture the whole of practice. Nevertheless, the development of the competencies approach makes the content to be covered and the way it is assessed quite clear. Specific arguments for and against the competency approach are outlined in Chapter 5.

The structured learning model Shardlow and Doel (1996) developed this model in response to the challenges facing British human services and their training programs in the 1990s. It attempts to integrate a range of learning approaches, a content to be learnt and ways of evaluating that learning. The core of this model is the development of a practice curriculum based on principles describing how people learn. The planned curriculum includes objectives, content, methods that can be used to teach and learn about professional practice, and principles to guide the assessment of student performance. The approach specifies the way students are to be taught, irrespective of the agency tasks. It has no obvious links to any particular practice method and is dependent on a very specific, mutually understood approach to structuring the teaching/learning experience. It focuses on educative and administrative supervision in relation to specific topics to be taught (Kadushin 1976), placing field education at the heart of a whole curriculum. Like the competency-based model, it gives students and field educators specific rather than broad direction on content and assessment, and hence increases the control of each in the teaching/ learning/evaluation processes. It provides a sequence for the learning to be achieved and encourages exploration of learning opportunities to fit different learning styles. However, to practise effectively in most agencies, many more areas need to be learnt than are encompassed in such a curriculum. Questions of how the whole is to be appreciated and assessed are largely omitted from this model. Nevertheless, it does provide useful guidelines on setting and evaluating fieldwork curriculum—an area neglected by many education bodies—and provides a description of useful teaching techniques to demonstrate that curriculum. In summary, all of these models have strengths and limitations. They rely on a range of theories that are linked to personal growth, the ways people learn and understandings of the nature of human


33

140 × 215

34


services practice in contemporary society. Field educators may vary the model they use with their assessment of the student’s learning needs and performance standard. Wider experience is likely to foster a clearer ‘theory’ about how to be an effective field educator, more confidence in making assessments, and hence more purpose in practice.

BECOMING A FIELD EDUCATOR It has been suggested that the ability to teach others how to be effective practitioners is the final stage of development as a practitioner (Reynolds 1965). The previous stages are: • • • •

acute consciousness of self; sink or swim adaptation; understanding the situation but not necessarily being able to control behaviour; relative mastery when the practitioner can both understand and purposively direct practice.

It is apparent that new field educators pass through phases in this role similar to those in their initial training. Understanding the nature of learning also influences a field educator’s development. Gardiner (1989) identified three levels of learning interaction between students and field educators: • • •

a focus on the content of learning; a focus on the process of learning; learning to learn.

He argued that the field educator’s understanding of the teaching/ learning processes determines the level at which they can teach. This infers that the field educator’s understanding of learning/ teaching may be linked to their overall practice framework since, generally speaking, we teach what we know. It is helpful to locate field education in an analysis of society, and to locate the purpose of human services within that analysis. Just as this practice moves between a number of different agendas ranging from care to control, or change to maintenance, so field education will move within the practice. The practice framework consists of how and what field educators know about human services practice methods, their assumptions about the world and their ways of valuing people. It is argued that this will have an enormous impact on the theory


34

140 × 215


35

that underpins field educators’ approaches to practice (Moore 1995). It is suggested that it is possible to understand an individual’s approach to practice by understanding their approach to supervision, and vice versa. Hence it is possible to develop practice in both contexts by identifying and evaluating the framework being used.

THEORY INTO PRACTICE This section explores ways in which the approaches to supervision outlined in this chapter can be linked to day-to-day practice. The suggested approach is to: • •

develop a language to describe what field educators do; and identify patterns in field educators’ behaviour using the functions of supervision and the approaches described.

Developing a language Any language developed to describe what field educators ‘do’ needs to encompass two areas: 1 field educators’ behaviour in supervision, considered in terms of comments and questions and the extent to which they focus on the student’s thinking, affect or behaviour. The questions and comments can be mapped on to the overall approach to practice. It may be possible to see gaps between what the field educator really does and what they would consider more ideal. Being able to identify the relationship between the real and the ideal is one way of building up a theory of supervision. The focus on student thinking, feeling and doing is also considered, since learning is said to occur when these three areas of response are seen as congruent; and 2 the content areas discussed, considered in terms of the amount of time across a number of areas. Attention is also paid to the amounts of time spent discussing the specifics of the situation and considering the broader issues these represent.

Supervisory behaviours It is possible to describe behaviour in terms of style and purpose. Learning can be defined as the integration of thinking, feeling and doing. Unless the student is given an opportunity to explore all


35

140 × 215

36


dimensions over time, it can only be assumed that the student has learnt new ways of viewing situations, and of linking action to understanding of the self and a broader knowledge base. It can be suggested (see Table 3.2) that supervision that relies heavily on just one style of talk, or omits an area of student functioning, is unlikely to be responsive to most students’ needs. Behaviours are considered in terms of questions, providing direction and information, and offering encouragement and reassurance. The quality of the student–field educator relationship, the overall behaviour pattern and the way one interprets the other’s intentions will affect the final interpretation (Tomm 1988). Tomm used four styles of questions in supervision: • • • •

lineal; circular; strategic; reflexive.

Lineal questions orient the field educator to the situation of ‘the other’. They are investigative and assume that phenomena are linked in a linear way. Two examples are: ‘Could you tell me what that was about?’ and ‘What difficulties are you having locating the information?’ Circular questions are exploratory and assume that everything is related to everything else. They attempt to find patterns that link people, ideas, feelings and beliefs. For example, ‘Who decides to change the topic of conversation?’ or ‘What happens when you try to raise that issue with the manager?’ Strategic questions are intended to challenge and correct the student’s view to bring it into line with the field educator’s opinions. These questions assume there is a linear connection between a particular situation and a particular cause. For example, ‘How long will it take you to get that process report finished?’ and ‘Don’t you think it is time you got out there to see someone?’ If this form of questioning is used consistently, the student may well feel directed and confronted. Finally, reflexive questions intend to influence the other in a more general manner. They assume circular connections between the issues faced. This leads the field educator to try to facilitate the identification of useful ways of understanding or moving forwards, based on a wider view of the situation. One such question may be, ‘If you were able to discuss these points with the case manager, what effect you do think such a discussion might have?’


36

140 × 215


Table 3.2

37

Supervision techniques Thinking

Students

Doing

Questions—lineal Questions—circular Questions—strategic Questions—reflexive Reflective comments Interpretive summary Knowledge input Giving direction Confronting Encouraging and reassuring

Directives These behaviours provide explicit direction to the student and are usually expressed as statements. They generally focus on what the student does or how they understand a situation. It would be unusual to need to direct a student in relation to their feelings.

Providing information Table 3.2 suggests three ways of providing information: •

• •

The field educator paraphrases what the student has said to ensure that the student’s message has been received and to summarise the points made. The field educator offers a range of reasons for the situation taking the course it did. Knowledge is usually offered to the student in the form of agency policy and practice distilled from the field educator’s own experience, or refers to written material that the student might find useful.

It is easy to get ‘carried away’ and to do a lot of the talking in supervision. This makes the student’s life relatively easy or perhaps relatively boring! As a rough rule of thumb, the field educator should not occupy more than one-third of the airways.

Encouraging and reassuring While much of this sort of behaviour might be non-verbal, it is helpful to be explicit about what is considered to be well done, difficult, challenging or requiring considerable courage to persevere.


37

140 × 215

38


Table 3.3 Task

Content discussed Student as learner

Agency

Broader field

Miscellaneous

F A C T S I S S U E S

An analysis of the styles of talk makes it possible to see the likely results of supervision and to monitor these against an assessment of the student’s learning needs and learning styles. In addition, students tend to model their behaviour with clients on their perception of their field educator’s behaviour. They try to emulate what they value and avoid what they find less useful. The field educator’s approach not only reflects their own practice but also has a large impact on explicitly and implicitly influencing their future colleagues’ practice.

Content discussed Table 3.3 outlines a way of describing content. The major areas are considered in terms of the specific situation and the general issues this might represent. The student and field educator engage in a process of generalising and specifying knowledge, and of applying and generating information, by moving between specific and general points.

IDENTIFYING AND MONITORING THE APPROACH TO SUPERVISION The outlines of supervisory content and behaviour are used in conjunction with voice tapes of supervision sessions. They provide a summary of field educator behaviour patterns when the techniques are identified using a number sequence over a particular


38

140 × 215


39

topic, and the content areas covered are measured in minutes. Effective supervision is linked firstly to using a range of techniques across the three areas of student functioning and the types of behaviour, and secondly to generalising from the specific content areas to broader issues and practice principles. Patterns over time are taken into account when evaluating practice. For example, some time may be used focusing ‘thoroughly’ on a piece of work and the remainder of the time focusing solely on the administrative requirements of ensuring that the work is done adequately within the agency guidelines. Supervisory behaviours and the content covered reflect an approach to practice, the demands of the task, an assessment of the student’s capabilities and the overall agency environment, which may either constrain or extend fieldwork’s learning/teaching possibilities. Some of the questions field educators might ask themselves about their practice are: •

• •

• • •

To what extent do the behaviours reflect Bogo and Vayda’s (1987) ‘retrieve, reflect, link and act’ process of supervision for learning? To what extent is my purpose driven by the student’s work or a learning agenda, and how shared is this purpose? How conscious am I of ethical issues that can arise in deciding how much information about the student I share with others; in evaluating performance in fieldwork; and in the extent to which the student’s time is used to promote learning or the smooth running of the agency? What is the quality of my relationship with the student—what sort of work can it support? How comfortable am I in the role of field educator—what are the issues for me and what might be the issues for the student? How supportive is the agency at this time for students and field educators, and what might be done to create a positive learning environment?

SUMMARY This chapter has provided a description and critique of various approaches to understanding the purpose and functions of supervision. It has suggested a range of strategies for achieving greater clarity in understanding what kinds of links are being made


39

140 × 215

40


between field educators’ specific behaviours and their general ideas about practice and communicating that practice. It is suggested that developing an approach to supervision occurs when it is grounded in understanding what it is field educators actually do, and the assumptions they make about teaching, learning and their overall practice. Just as field educators expect students to grow and develop as practitioners while they are in the field, the field educators themselves will be able to grow and develop in their roles as they gain a better understanding of their own behaviour and the purposes and functions of supervision.


40

140 × 215

4

The supervisory relationship

Elizabeth Beddoe THE SUPERVISORY RELATIONSHIP

The supervisory relationship is at the heart of field education. The field educator requires skills and personal attributes—warmth, genuineness, sensitivity, the ability to facilitate another’s learning and the capacity to model good practice. The focus, style and organisational context of work in human services have altered dramatically over the last three decades with the growth of managerialism and an emphasis on efficiency. Field education and the nature of the relationship between student and educator have therefore changed as practice has changed. It is not surprising that student preparation for professional practice in turbulent organisational contexts is the focus of the supervisory relationship. Research and practice initiatives in field education have encouraged a shift away from both apprenticeship and therapeutic approaches towards reflective and facilitative teaching. This chapter examines the key stages and associated issues in the development of a learning relationship that will provide the student with a supportive but challenging organisational context.

SUPERVISION: THE ROLE AND THE RELATIONSHIP Supervision within fieldwork is a structured, interactive and collaborative process that involves monitoring, facilitating, coaching 41


41

140 × 215

42


and supporting students during their fieldwork experience. Its primary purpose is to ensure that the student has the opportunity to reflect on their own practice and their observations of agency work. Supervision may focus on the student’s development in most of the following areas: • • • • • • • • • • •

knowledge base needed for the practice context; awareness of the social, cultural and political context of practice; ethical responsibility and multiple accountabilities; beliefs, attitudes and values; linking of theory and practice; skills for self-monitoring and self-care; effective use of professional supervision; professional identity; theoretical and personal approach to practice; management of service delivery tasks; management of agency requirements and expectations.

The field educator motivates student learning within the supervision relationship in a difficult organisational environment. The work itself may raise stressful and painful issues. An effective relationship must be established between student and supervisor for these tasks to be undertaken. This relationship may be viewed from two perspectives: firstly as a vehicle for learning and secondly as a source of experience of ‘relationship’ in itself (Loganbill et al. 1982). The relationship is necessary as a vehicle for learning because it provides a context in which essential information can be given and the student assisted to relate theory to practice. From the second perspective, experience of the learning relationship itself can be a source of considerable learning both about the nature of supervision and, more broadly, about the development of professional relationships in which one person facilitates the process of change in another. These two perspectives are important to remember when examining how to build and sustain the supervision relationship. The student may experience stress and conflict as well as intimacy and nurturing within such a relationship.

THE FIELD EDUCATOR’S QUALITIES The field educator brings the sum of their past experiences to each new relationship. These include their previous supervision


42

140 × 215

THE SUPERVISORY RELATIONSHIP

43

experiences and their personal style. Some key qualities are necessary to facilitate the development of a creative and constructive relationship. Supervisors must possess the following characteristics in some measure: • • • •

•

•

genuineness—the ability to meet others with honesty and without pretence; capacity for growth—the best supervisors are still deeply engaged in their own learning and development; courage—to challenge and take risks in sharing their own doubts and fears; sense of humour—the ability to recognise that fun and joy can be an important part of working in the human services, even though the context may be deeply serious and challenging; respect—for the uniqueness of each individual student’s personal journey and recognition of what they bring into this new relationship from their prior experience; professional expertise—the ability to act as a role model and mentor within the practice environment.

Given the complex focus of the supervision relationship, it is clearly central to the effectiveness of the fieldwork component. The field educator acts simultaneously as manager and clinical supervisor. The following section outlines some core tasks for the development and management of this relationship during fieldwork.

SOME CORE TASKS FOR EFFECTIVE FIELDWORK SUPERVISION Effective supervision of students involves a number of core tasks. While some of these fall outside any discussion of the supervisory relationship, a failure to attend to these activities impacts on an effective learning relationship. These tasks include planning and preparation before the student begins fieldwork. This may involve preparing agency staff for the student’s arrival, organising work space and arranging suitable learning activities. Other core tasks include negotiation of the learning contract, setting out of clear expectations, assessment approaches and patterns of supervision. All these tasks influence the efficacy of the supervisory relationship and are covered in Chapter 5.


43

140 × 215

44


DEVELOPMENT STAGES OF A SUPERVISORY RELATIONSHIP The student–educator relationship is embedded in a very complex context. Participants manage each other’s expectations alongside those of the agency, colleagues, management, clients and personnel from the teaching institution. The field educator stands in the middle of this tangle of relationships, facing the demanding task of being both assessor of and advocate for the student in the organisational context. A developmental approach is useful in considering how a supervisor might go about developing this relationship while managing the tasks discussed previously. Table 4.1 outlines the developmental stages of the supervisory relationship. There are three distinct phases: the beginning phase, the middle phase and the termination phase. Each phase has a particular theme and associated tasks, as discussed below.

Beginning phase—construction This phase consists of: • • •

supervisory planning; building the supervision relationship; clarifying expectations.

In supervisory planning, the field educator needs to undertake some important tasks before a student arrives at the agency. Too frequently, pre-fieldwork planning focuses on the practicalities of the student’s imminent arrival rather than on the field educator’s personal preparation. It is essential for beginning field educators to explore their development in their own supervision and to consider what it is they have to offer a student. This may include consideration of their own experience as a student, what they are committed to including and what they wish to avoid. It is helpful to identify their personal value base, the theories that shape their practice, their preferred practice model and their personal perspective on the nature and direction of their particular profession. This exploration of the supervisor’s theoretical orientation, values, beliefs and readiness to articulate their philosophy of practice is also an essential preparation for the supervision relationship. If helpfully facilitated by another, such exploration can do a great deal to reduce the anxiety many new fieldwork supervisors feel when faced with the unknown, perhaps threatening, student. There


44

140 × 215


Table 4.1

45

Developmental stages of the supervision relationship

Phase

Theme

Tasks

Beginning phase

Construction

Middle phase

Consolidation

Termination phase

Closure

• • • • • • • • • • • • •

Pre-student planning Build rapport Clarify expectations Establish boundaries Explore styles and theoretical orientations Deepen trust Review expectations Test boundaries Manage conflict Explore autonomy and dependence Explore environmental stressors Evaluate relationship Manage emotional impact of assessment issues and forthcoming termination • Critical review of learning • Preparation for farewells

is often an ambivalence in this situation as the supervisor simultaneously relishes the opportunity to influence a new practitioner while fearing the student’s critical gaze. Building the supervision relationship requires acknowledgment of some of its special features. Firstly, it is a relationship in which the assessment procedures are formalised and occur within a tight, predictable timeframe. Many field placements can be as short as ten weeks—or even less—and it is worth spending a little time at the beginning to establish a relationship in which openness and trust can develop. The supervisory relationship generates student anxieties. Firstly, students may rightly anticipate that the learning relationship contains challenges to values and their beliefs about their competency. Secondly—and particularly for mature students—there is a need to deal with their expectations of autonomy and dependence. Students retraining in a new profession find adjustment to the ‘novice’ role challenging after experiencing independence and autonomy in their previous occupations. In addition, all students face the anxiety of exposing their vulnerability as they test out their skills in new situations. Field educators should not assume that apparently confident students will approach new learning and the tasks involved without some anxiety and trepidation. Field educators also experience anxiety about the newly developing supervision relationship. They face the complex task of


45

140 × 215

46


creating a safe, trusting relationship in which assessment is a major feature. It is not only students who will be assessed. Field educators realise that they too will be evaluated during the fieldwork process—by the student, the educational institution and to some extent by their colleagues and superiors in their own workplace. They may fear that their own practice limitations will be exposed or that they will not be up to the task of supervision. As already stated, the planning process for fieldwork must include some degree of honest self-evaluation by the field educator. This can encompass their strengths and weaknesses, their special skills and knowledge and a revisiting of their own experiences as learners. Awareness that issues from their own journey from student to professional to field educator may impact on their performance in the supervisory role can assist greatly in the task of relationshipbuilding. It is suggested that this process should be open to some extent. An exploration of mutual hopes and fears can contribute much to the development of a constructive and trusting relationship. It is strongly recommended that the beginning sessions within the supervision relationship focus on the previous learning and supervision experiences of both field educator and student. In many cases, this will be the student’s first experience of supervision. As such, it can provide a powerful modelling opportunity that can have considerable influence on the student’s professional identity. It is also necessary to begin the supervision relationship by allowing time to discuss the similarities and differences between student and field educator. The points to consider include age, race, gender, educational status, family background, class and economic status, spiritual and political beliefs, and previous work experience. Failure to address these aspects can lead to unstated issues of power that may interfere in the establishment of a constructive supervision relationship. This will be discussed more fully later in this chapter. Table 4.2 provides a summary of focus areas to explore in the first one or two supervision sessions. Fieldwork supervisors may find it helpful to use this as a checklist to provide a format for engaging in this relationship-building process. Clarifying the expectations of all parties is very important for a successful field placement. Making a contract is a useful way to record the specific expectations between the student, the supervisor and the educational institution. This agreement covers practical matters such as the fieldwork timeframe, agency conduct rules,


46

140 × 215


Table 4.2 Area of focus

47

Engagement in fieldwork supervision—a model for building a student–field educator relationship Questions to guide exploration

• Who am I? How has my life experience shaped my development? • What do I like about myself? Establishing an • How do you behave in a new situation? understanding of • How do you cope with pressure? each other • How do you avoid doing something very anxiety-provoking? • What is the most negative behaviour you demonstrate to stop something you don’t like from happening? • What is the most positive behaviour you demonstrate to stop something you don’t like from happening? • What are the similarities and differences between us in terms of race, gender, class, life experiences, etc? Professional identity • What are the theories and values that underpin your practice? and learning issues • What are your beliefs about the essential purpose of the profession? • What are your strengths and weaknesses as a beginning practitioner? • What are your strengths and weaknesses as a supervisor? • What are your preferred learning styles? • What are your previous experiences of being assessed? • Which methods of assessment provide the best feedback for me? Mutual expectations • What are our previous experiences of supervision? • What ‘baggage’ do we carry about supervision? • What are our mutual expectations about this relationship? • How will power and authority be used in this relationship? • How will assessment and evaluation be undertaken? Self-disclosure

Sources: Ford and Jones (1987); Morrison (1993)

arrangements for supervision and backup during the field educator’s absence. Ford and Jones (1987) identify three sets of expectations: •

•

the implicit expectations that students are motivated to learn and that field educators are competent to practise and to supervise students (1987: 33); the educational institution’s expectations, including the expectation that the agency will assign appropriate work to the student and that the student will be assessed within the context of the agency. It is vital that the contract makes clear the type of tasks the student will be able to undertake and that these include some progression to work of greater challenge during the course of the fieldwork (1987: 34);


47

140 × 215

48 •


expectations concerning the institutional context of the fieldwork. Some explicit requirements may be imposed relating to specialised knowledge, skills and behaviours.

It is crucial that the contract-forming process includes discussion of the relationship’s boundaries. It is important to explain that supervision is not counselling or personal therapy. While there may be considerable emotional content in the work being undertaken by the student and old issues may be re-triggered, it is important to explain that the student will be supported to seek appropriate professional help elsewhere. It may be useful to discuss specific examples of such possibilities and how they would be dealt with in supervision and elsewhere. While the contract itself may delineate many practical considerations, the negotiation process makes a considerable contribution towards the development of the student–field educator relationship. A careful exploration of the issues to be covered by the contract sets the scene for the supervision relationship and helps define boundaries.

The middle phase—consolidation The consolidation phase is where the investment in the relationship-building tasks of the beginning phase pays off. If rapport and trust have been built effectively, the complex issues of the middle phase can be tackled. Feedback should be a continuous process for it to be effective within fieldwork. It should not be a ‘one-off event’ that occurs only at the end. Assessment activities may be approached with increasing tolerance of critical reflection and can be viewed as a tool to serve and motivate learners (Cooper 1994). The provision of continuous opportunities for both field educator feedback and self-assessment can lead to a sense of accomplishment and personal development as a student proceeds through the fieldwork experience. During this consolidation phase, the student may experience conflict between their need for their field educator to be powerful and in control, and their emerging sense of professional autonomy. Ideally, during this phase, the student is able to experience some independence while tolerating the field educator’s professional oversight of their work. At this point, it is useful to consider the dimensions of authority and power, as they are significant during this phase of the relationship.


48

140 × 215


49

Issues of power and the management of authority are inherent in the supervisory relationship within a field placement. The field educator derives power and authority from dual sources. The host agency requires the management of the student’s work within the agency and this may extend to legal responsibility in many settings. In addition, the educational institution requires the management of the student’s learning tasks. Issues of power are present in this relationship both at an interpersonal level and in the systems and institutions of the wider social context. The life experiences and perspectives of both field educator and student are brought into the supervisory relationship. Each may have experienced personal, cultural, structural and institutional inequalities in previous situations that may be reflected within their relationship (Brown and Bourne 1996). Student and field educator may have more differences than similarities across a number of dimensions. These differences can be linked with, and added to, the more obvious power issues inherent in the student– field educator relationship. Thus the supervision ‘room’ may be a mirror of external realities with hidden but powerful agendas and difficulties, or it may be the location of genuine efforts to develop anti-oppressive practice. The conditions are such that many inequalities may exist in the supervisory relationship. It is crucial, therefore, that the participants understand that growth and development require commitment and skill to transform a potentially oppressive relationship into a constructive experience. There are six crucial conditions necessary to ensure that fieldwork supervision is empowering and non-discriminatory: •

•

•

•

recognition of the limits of legitimate power—understanding that any authority exercised is derived from the field educator’s formal role as fieldwork supervisor and the contract between the participants in the fieldwork arrangement; understanding that this power will be exercised ethically and constructively to ensure the safety of participants and service users in the context of a two-way relationship between two adults of equal worth; recognition of the field educator’s role as a positive model of the exercise of authority and understanding how this can have a potent effect on the student’s perception of the use of authority in practice; recognition of the value of the student’s contribution to the


49

140 × 215

50

•

•


relationship and that the student is an equal participant, not just a recipient of the field educator’s expertise; recognition that the management of difference within the relationship may reflect issues inherent in practice with clients and service users and that these issues may need to be dealt with explicitly in order to promote growth and development; recognition that the field educator may not be able to meet all the student’s needs and that the student may seek support and consultation from other individuals and groups. These sources may share common cultural perspectives or life experiences and may fulfil important functions for the student. This should be perceived as complementary to the supervisory relationship, not as an alternative or a threat (Brown and Bourne 1996; Morrison 1993).

Once the supervision relationship is established, planned supervision sessions should be held on a regular basis. The requirements may vary among the human services professions and may be determined by the duration and intensity of the fieldwork period. As a general rule, sessions would be scheduled for one to two hours per week. Further consultations may occur as required. Some field placements may require a daily session if client-based practice is very intensive. Both classical and contemporary supervision models often fall short of providing the space and opportunity for students’ learning, as these models are constructed to address the clinical supervision of qualified professionals. Such models tend to focus on continuing professional development and case management rather than on the initial acquisition of the knowledge, skills and values needed for practice in the relevant discipline. In consideration of how a student supervision session is constructed, it is necessary to base this on an understanding of how adults learn and how the supervision relationship can be used to build a safe context in which to model and develop reflective practice. Kolb (1984) provides a useful theoretical foundation for a reflective supervision process. His ‘Experiential Learning Cycle’ outlines a learning process that includes the central elements of experience, reflection, conceptualisation and finally active experimentation. The supervision session should be a time for open reflection in which the field educator facilitates the student’s journey through the learning cycle as they process the experiences encountered during fieldwork. Each session needs to begin with agenda-setting


50

140 × 215


51

and achieving engagement and focus. Similarly, the session will end with a reflection on how the session has worked and an acknowledgment of the work done. These beginning and ending processes may utilise specific cultural processes to acknowledge the participants’ emotional and spiritual needs. The field educator needs to remain highly conscious of the extent to which their behaviour in initiating, managing and participating in this reflective process provides a modelling experience for the student. Ford and Jones (1987) identify four stages of supervision: • • • •

descriptive; clarification; evaluative; implementation.

In the first stage, the student may describe their experience in their own words and with minimal interruption. The act of retelling can highlight issues and assist the student to become aware of their emotional responses to the content of the work. The field educator’s listening skills are utilised to assist the student to express their experience. As the student gains confidence, the field educator may gently guide them to focus more on process than content. During the clarification stage, the problem or ‘issue’ comes to centre stage and is explored via the two perspectives present. A reflective focus may be engaged here as the student is encouraged to explore their responses to the work in question. Key questions might include: • • • • • •

How did the student recognise, express and accommodate their feelings? What judgments were made and on what evidence? What can be learnt from these feelings for future practice? What connections can be made to theory and practice wisdom? What gaps in knowledge and skill have been identified and how might these be addressed? Can a strategy be devised for appropriate experimentation in future practice?

The evaluative stage provides the opportunity for feedback. This can be a mutual process in which the student assesses their own performance and identifies gaps and deficits. The field educator may give specific, behavioural feedback of a critical nature but may also affirm good work and the process of learning undertaken within the session. Using all opportunities for giving


51

140 × 215

52


constructive feedback assists in the consolidation phase by building trust. Planning future work takes place during the implementation stage, as both participants consider further action to be taken. They may undertake rehearsal of the strategies devised and may identify particular information and knowledge they will need prior to the next action. At the conclusion of each supervision session, opportunities should be provided for checking that the student is ready to move on. This process should also highlight the learning journey undertaken. Attention may be paid to an evaluation of the process within the session and how the participants have experienced it. Sessions in which time is taken to evaluate both the content and process of the supervision ‘work’ encapsulate the two perspectives outlined earlier in the chapter. Each session provides the vehicle for learning and critical reflection, and the opportunity to experience and reflect on the relationship itself as a focus for learning.

Termination phase—closure The final or ‘termination’ phase of the supervision relationship involves tasks of closure and evaluation. The spectre of the final assessment is most dominant during this phase. The supervision relationship revolves around the expectation that the field educator will be responsible for an assessment of the student’s readiness to proceed to the next stage of their professional training or enter the workforce. This is what clearly differentiates fieldwork supervision from the supervision process with employees. The field educator’s role in assessment, which may differ among the human services professions, is a powerful one, and this aspect of the supervision relationship must be clearly stated. Towards the end of the fieldwork, there is a tendency for the assessment to dominate the content of the student–field educator relationship. As stated earlier, ensuring that assessment is a continuous process throughout the fieldwork can reduce anxiety. It may be useful for the field educator to make some effort to balance this preoccupation with some attention to locating the assessment as a milestone in the student’s development. While the assessment may be ‘summative’ in the fieldwork context, the student is engaged in continuous learning and will take this assessment experience into their future practice. Students will experience many evaluations throughout their career. This fieldwork process provides the opportunity to learn the skills of receiving and managing feedback.


52

140 × 215


53

During this phase, the field educator, while continuing to provide emotional support, needs to honestly assess and report on the student’s achievement according to the fieldwork’s formal requirements. The field educator has two further tasks to undertake to complete the fieldwork. The first is an evaluation, with the student, of how well the supervision relationship has assisted their learning. This process should include mutual feedback about how the relationship has advanced the achievement of the learning outcomes, including the supervision experience itself. The second task is to undertake farewells. Fieldwork is often a major experience for the student practitioner and shapes some of their perceptions of the profession and its conduct. The ‘ending’ is as important as the ‘beginning’—it can model good practice in the management of change-oriented relationships. The student and field educator may wish to mark the ending formally in a meeting, or a social farewell may be undertaken involving other colleagues in the agency. Many agencies have social rituals to complete this process.

THEORY INTO PRACTICE The supervision relationship within fieldwork is vital to the student’s successful learning outcomes. It needs to be developed quickly as fieldwork is usually time-limited. Four key ideas have been identified as crucial for explorative discussion in the first few meetings between field educator and student: • • • •

appropriate self-disclosure; establishing an understanding of each other; the exploration of issues of professional identity and learning; mutual expectations about the purpose of the supervision relationship.

New fieldwork supervisors may find it helpful to use the questions in Table 4.2 as a guide for the relationship-building process. Why not try the following strategies with students: •

In your first meeting, work through the questions in the first two sections of Table 4.2: ‘self-disclosure’ and ‘establishing an understanding of each other’. Use this as an opportunity to acknowledge your own thoughts and feelings about the responsibilities of supervising a student.


53

140 × 215

54 •

•


In your second meeting, work through the questions in the other two sections of Table 4.2: ‘professional identity’ and ‘learning and mutual expectations’. This provides an excellent opportunity to explore the student’s emerging professional identity as you share with them the elements of your own professional journey. A discussion of mutual expectations at this time will enable you to ‘clear’ any baggage the student may bring with them from previous supervisory relationships. Agree to start afresh and treat this new relationship as a new and exciting learning opportunity. Clearly define the boundaries. Explain what you expect to happen in supervision and what the focus will be. Put in place an expectation of feedback. Ensure that regular reviews are timetabled to evaluate both the student’s progress and how well the relationship is serving their learning. At the end of the fieldwork, get the list of questions out again and review them with the student. Ask the student whether any other issues or questions could be usefully added. Undertake an honest review of your own performance in the fieldwork. Accept any feedback from the student and consider any changes you might like to make to the relationshipbuilding process next time.

SUMMARY The supervisory relationship occupies a central place in fieldwork in human services. While the nature and focus of the relationship may vary between the professions, there is a core requirement to build a trusting relationship in which the student can be open to feedback and may explore their fieldwork experience with honesty. This chapter has identified some core principles for the establishment of constructive relationships between students and their field educators. A three-stage developmental process for the supervision relationship has been identified, involving tasks of construction, consolidation a n d closure. It has suggested that an approach to supervision that emphasises adult learning processes to foster reflective practice provides the best environment for learning in the contemporary human services context. Issues of power and difference have been explored and some crucial conditions identified which ensure that the supervisory relationship is empowering and non-discriminatory.


54

140 × 215

5

The competency approach

John Hopkins and Lesley Cooper THE COMPETENCY APPROACH

Over the past decade, there has been an increase in the use of competency-based approaches in human services education. While competency-based approaches may be part of a national training system, they are also used as part of field education within conventional curriculum-based programs. This chapter briefly discusses competency-based systems, defines the term ‘competency’ and examines some positive features of a competency-based approach. The value of competency-based approaches can be found in the emphasis on standards for fieldwork and their impact on the learning contract, and incorporation of assessment principles in the assessment of those standards. This chapter does not detail all of the arguments for and against competency concepts, but selects some specific issues relevant to the human services. Suffice it to say that people within curriculum-based systems looking outwards are generally those who critique competency-based systems. Typically, they do not turn the same spotlight back on their curriculum-based system.

COMPETENCY-BASED SYSTEMS While the competency movement has a long history, it has gathered pace in many countries over the past 20 to 30 years. This 55


55

140 × 215

56


recent impetus for competency-based training can be traced to the US Department of Health, Education and Welfare, which encouraged colleges to reform their curriculums to include competency-based approaches in the 1970s (Ashworth and Saxton 1990). The United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia have now established competency-based systems. Each of these nations has established a central coordinating agency to provide a framework against which competency standards and qualifications can be compared and assessed. Industry peak bodies, employers, employees, professions and occupational groups, in partnership with these agencies, then define competencies and qualification requirements. The resulting national assessment standards and frameworks provide a variety of pathways for learning and a base for coherent post-compulsory education. These frameworks provide access to learning, measurement against clear standards wherever that learning takes place, and recognition of job skills. There has been a power shift in national competency-based systems of education and training over the credentialling agenda. Power has shifted from training providers to industry, with ‘industry’ becoming a euphemism for ‘employers’. As a consequence of this transfer of power, the competency movement has been characterised as another expression of managerialism. The New Zealand Council for Education and Training in the Social Services—the predecessor to Te Kaiawhina Ahumahi—was aware of this and battled for a different view of industry to include all interested parties. The national assessment standards and qualifications were developed through input from all stakeholders, not just employers.

COMPETENCY ‘Competency’ is a much-misunderstood term. There are different models of competency that are used interchangeably and people often debate the value of a competency approach without realising the debate is proceeding on the basis of different assumptions. Andrew Gonczi (1993: 1–2) characterises three main approaches to competency: •

•

task-based or behaviourist approach—competence is defined in terms of ‘discreet behaviours associated with the completion of atomised tasks’; general attributes approach—‘concentrates on underlying attributes


56

140 × 215

THE COMPETENCY APPROACH

•

57

such as knowledge or critical thinking capacity, which provide the basis for transferable or more specific attributes’; integrated approach—this ‘seeks to marry the general attributes approach to the context in which these attributes will be employed. This approach looks at the complex combination of attributes (knowledge attitudes and skills) which are used in combination to understand the particular situation in which professionals find themselves’.

The terms ‘competence’ and ‘competency’ have developed negative connotations for many critics. Competence is often equated with minimum standards, and thus is seen to be the pursuit of mediocrity rather than excellence. This view assumes that minimum standards are low standards, when they may in fact be higher than those acceptable in a curriculum-based system. It is possible to have mediocre minimum standards within any system of education and training. The assumption that minimum standards in a competency-based system will be a lowest common denominator is untested. In terms of assessment, it can be argued that the common pass rate of 50 per cent of a sample of the curriculum in a curriculum-based system is a poor—even hit and miss—minimum standard, especially when compared with a competency-based system that demands 100 per cent attainment of all competence standards. It is sometimes asserted that students in a competency-based system will no longer strive for excellence compared with students in a curriculum-based system that typically provides for grading of student performance. This argument is superficial at best. It assumes firstly that grading is not possible in a competency-based system, and secondly that student motivation to excel is driven solely by grades. In fact, a provider can choose to incorporate grading into its program and most students exceed the minimum standard whichever system they are working within, as evidenced in curriculum-based systems that use a pass/fail or pass/resubmit system rather than grading. It is common for field education not to be graded, yet students who strive for excellence in a graded system appear to do so even where they are not given more than a pass/fail/resubmit result. Experience suggests that the converse is also true. A student who does not strive for excellence in one system probably will not strive for excellence in the other. It may be argued that, in fieldwork, the contents of the field educator’s


57

140 × 215

58


report and the student’s own self-assessment are more meaningful than grades. It is also argued that competency is a mechanistic concept, incapable of dealing with the values and attitudes central to human services. Jill Wilson has outlined these arguments in Chapter 3. Emotions, values and attitudes are of central importance to practitioners’ competence in the human services. Chappell and Hager (1994), using the youth sector and residential care as examples, show how values and associated attributes can be included in competency standards. Standards can be written so that work practices are not trivialised or converted into narrow behaviourist statements. Many of the arguments against competency rest on the assumption that a provider working with competency standards will adopt a competency-based training approach. This is by no means necessary. This argument proceeds on the assumption that competency standards are also the curriculum, modules or programs. They are not—they are assessment standards only. Training providers decide how they will develop their teaching programs, enabling students to learn and to prepare for assessment against these standards. Providers may use the standards as a checklist to ensure coverage of all curriculum material. They are free to include additional content and to choose appropriate assessment methods. It is often asserted that competency standards will create so much work in assessment that there will be little time left for learning and reflection. This may be true if a provider has little capacity to design effective, integrated approaches to assessment. A provider who adopts a checklist approach to assessment based on the competence standards will fulfil this prophecy, and assessment will dominate learning. A poor provider in this context will probably remain a poor provider whatever system they are operating within. A creative, skilled provider, on the other hand, can design fair, valid and consistent assessment activities that elicit evidence which can be used to assess common aspects of many standards. It is important to recognise that competency-based systems in general only provide a set of assessment standards, and that these may be: • •

well or poorly written; specific or general (finely tuned or fuzzy);


58

140 × 215


• • •

59

standards for mediocrity or excellence (or anywhere in between); behaviourist, atomistic or integrated; national, or provider-specific.

These features may apply equally to assessment within a curriculumbased system. The standards may be superb, but program design and assessment practices may be poor, preventing achievement of the standards’ potential advantages. Competency standards may not provide anything for an individual provider that could not have been achieved within the curriculum system if that provider was skilled in program design and assessment methodology. The introduction of a national competency system may be of positive or negative value to students, depending upon the provider’s skills and vision to make the best use of them to enhance program design and assessment.

COMPETENCY APPROACH TO FIELDWORK The competency approach to field education is manifested in three broad ways: •

• •

the use of competency-based approaches in field education within programs characterised by a traditional content-based curriculum; the use of competency-based approaches within programs that are based upon national assessment standards; workplace assessment based upon national assessment standards.

All three approaches are currently in use around the world. The first approach may be used within field education where the training provider is offering content-based curriculum. An important distinction is that the provider establishes assessment criteria without reference to national assessment standards. All aspects of the student’s learning and assessment within the provider setting are curriculum-based, but the provider may use a competencybased approach for field education. Providers who are offering competency-based programs—either through their own choice or because they are operating in an environment where national standards of assessment based upon defined competencies have been established—use the second


59

140 × 215

60


approach. In New Zealand, the New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) has accredited many providers to assess students against social service unit standards registered on the National Qualifications Framework (NQF). The competency-based approach is therefore applied both in the classroom and in field education. The third approach, which is just beginning in New Zealand, is work-based. ‘Students’ are workers already employed in a social service agency or organisation. They are assessed against national competency standards as part of their work. The familiar locus of learning and assessment has shifted from a provider setting to the workplace. In the provider setting, the student is placed out in a fieldwork setting for their practical experience, while in the workplace, the student learns and is assessed ‘on the job’, and may be placed in an education and training provider setting for theoretical input. The human services industry training organisation, Te Kaiawhina Ahumahi, has been accredited by NZQA to register assessors qualified to assess people against the human services unit standards registered on the NQF. Students will be workers, assessed during the course of their work. Te Kaiawhina Ahumahi has prepared detailed assessment guides for all of the unit standards they have registered on the NQF. Assessors may come from the same workplace as the student worker, or may be independent registered assessors in the community, contracted by a particular workplace to assess their workers. The government has established a contestable Industry Training Fund to fund workplace assessment in a wide variety of occupations. This funding supports training agreements—tripartite agreements between a worker (the student), the employer and the relevant industry training organisation. The training agreement sets out the unit standards against which the worker will be assessed, and the time scale for this process. The competency approach will have an impact on field education whichever form it takes. It is argued in this chapter that the vital issue for field education is not ‘curriculum versus competency’, but that measurable standards be established, with assessment based on evidence and fair, transparent assessment principles.

ASSESSMENT STANDARDS Assessment standards define the competencies expected of workers, and the standards and criteria to measure competency. Standards


60

140 × 215


61

are typically expressed as outcomes. They do not define curriculum or teaching delivery and assessment systems. They reflect, to some extent, essential theory, values and skills. It may be obvious from a standard that knowledge of human development is essential to achieve a particular outcome, but the standard will not typically define a particular theory. The provider will define the curriculum they use to assist students to achieve the standards. The provider will also define the delivery system—the way in which they enable learners to learn or be assessed. Assessors should design assessment methods on the basis of fairness, validity and consistency. Assessment should be moderated, especially where assessments are made against national standards to ensure national assessment consistency. Assessment standards can integrate aspects of theory and practice. When considering field education, standards should clarify: • • • •

where it is best for people to learn this aspect of the standard; who can teach the standards; where it is best to assess this aspect of the standard; who can assess this aspect of the standard.

The integrated nature of competency standards and the need for learning and assessment to take place in both ‘classroom’ and workplace necessitates an educative and assessment partnership between providers and agencies.

IMPLICATIONS FOR FIELDWORK There are a number of implications for fieldwork arising from competency-based systems. Competency-based systems challenge present paradigms of human services education and training. Their introduction means that field education is becoming an even more important area of education, training and assessment. There may also be dangers ahead. In a competency-based system, fieldwork may provide a more significant location of learning and better demonstration of competence than the classroom. Theory input may appear relatively less important than demonstration and assessment of outcomes. There may be a shift from reliance upon theory input to recognition of practice wisdom. If competency standards are not well drafted and systems of assessment and moderation are inadequate in work-based assessment, there is a danger that theory may lose the significance required for professional development.


61

140 × 215

62


The potential value of a competency system may come from the fact that it emphasises the need for field educators to focus on: • • • • •

standards expected of human services workers (what is to be assessed); contractual relationships between educator and student; principles of good assessment practice; importance of evidence; methods of collecting that evidence.

The standards This chapter began with a description of three competency approaches to field education including competency-based approaches within traditional content-based curriculum, competency approaches based on national assessment standards and workplace assessment based upon national assessment standards. Competency-based approaches within each of these have potential to provide field educators, students and workplace assessors with clear and specific statements about: • • • •

what is to be assessed in the field or workplace; how it is to be assessed; the criteria or standards against which the student’s performance will be judged; who will be involved in the assessment.

A standard is an acceptable level of performance in an area of professional competence (Masters and McCurry 1990). Many field education programs do not use clearly defined standards. The training provider may not state clearly what is evaluated in much fieldwork. This may not be explicit to the student or field educator. This lack of specificity of standards has contributed to a low failure rate despite educators’ reservations (Brandon and Davies 1979). In a comprehensive study, Hughes and Heycox (1996) found that field educators used a wide diversity of standards including personal standards; university expectations; agency guidelines; the relevant code of ethics; students’ goals; and colleagues’ standards and opinions. Some of these are expanded upon in Chapter 7. A series of vignettes has been used to illustrate the lack of defined policy around assessment of students’ performance in traditional field education arrangements, and to question the consequences of this deficit for students, the university and the training agencies (Cooper 1998: 17):


62

140 × 215


• •

63

Can a student fail when supervisors resort to personal constructs to evaluate that student’s practice? Can a student fail when there is a lack of clarity about the assessment process?

Contracting A competency-based system emphasises the importance of an explicit learning contract between student and educator. There are a number of clearly recognised steps, including a specific plan that states: • • • • • • •

the learning standards and objectives; the learning activities; assessment criteria for each standard and activity; theory and knowledge base to practise competently in each agency setting; policy, practice principles and values guiding agency practice; types of evidence required for assessment of standards; criteria for assessment of evidence.

These steps are onerous but necessary tasks in field education. Providers often do not recognise this despite students spending nearly half their professional education and training in fieldwork. By failing to complete these tasks, providers are doing their students, field educators, the profession and clients a disservice. They cause immense problems for themselves if a student is ‘failed’ or disputes the assessment. While the profession, training provider or agency predetermines some objectives and standards, students will need to contextualise these standards so that they fit with their personal learning needs, the learning opportunities provided by the agency and the student’s level of competence. This beginning discussion about learning objectives, standards and criteria for assessment is part of developing the learning contract. Some important principles for contracting can be adopted from the legal context: • • • •

an offer from the educator—what will the fieldwork provide? an acceptance of the offer by the student; ‘consensus ad idem’, or a meeting of minds between the student and educator—both are agreeing to the same thing; consideration—something of value passing both ways, enabling both parties to receive some benefit from their input.


63

140 × 215

64


There must be openness and mutuality in the contracting process. The contract needs to be sufficiently clear to facilitate student learning and to provide criteria that can be used to assess the student’s competence to practise. It must also be robust enough to survive appeal and grievance procedures. The importance of a clearly defined contract is outlined in Chapter 9. Competency standards that are either part of the field education curriculum or national standards can contribute to this learning contract by providing an explicit statement about what is to be assessed and methods of assessment. Explicit standards establish the parties’ good faith and intentions, and their rights and obligations. Such standards create certainty and reduce the risk of confusion or disagreement about requirements. A set of predetermined standards can provide the mechanism for identifying other learning opportunities available to the student and a departure point for development of personalised assessment criteria, methods of assessment and evidence required to demonstrate competence.

Assessment principles Assessment is a planned process of collecting evidence, measuring ability and making judgments about the student’s ability to meet the standards. It is an ongoing interactional process between student and educator, not an event occurring at the middle and end of the fieldwork. Key principles for assessment include an open, manageable, fair, authentic, consistent, valid, sufficient process that is part of work and learning (see Table 5.1). These principles are universal and can equally be applied to assessment of clients, worker practice or skills testing.

Evidence The assessment principles draw attention to the importance of explicit assessment activities and the need to seek and specify evidence that will demonstrate achievement of standards. Evidence is the information or ‘products’ showing what a student knows and can do. The assessment process is one of gathering evidence and making judgments on it according to clear and transparent assessment criteria. There are several types of evidence, each with particular strengths and weaknesses. Direct evidence is based on direct observation—for example, through audio or video tapes—and is produced by the student


64

140 × 215


Table 5.1

Principles of assessment

Principle

Conditions to meet the principle

65

• The student knows the indicators against which they are being assessed. • The student knows when they are being assessed. • The student knows what evidence is required and how much they have to provide. Manageable • Assessment is carried out within the constraints of time, work requirements and resources. Assessment requirements should be feasible within these constraints. Fair • Assessment methods should not discriminate against any particular student or groups of students on the basis of their age, gender, race, culture or sexual preferences. • Methods of collecting evidence are fair, open and transparent. • Students’ special needs are acknowledged. • Students receive feedback about achievement of standards. If they have not met the standards, they are provided with direct and immediate feedback on what steps to take to achieve the standards. • There are reasonable opportunities for students to be reassessed if they have not met the standards. Authentic • Assessment is based on actual work conducted in the workplace and not some contrived or artificial exercise. • The student has produced the evidence for assessment without assistance from others, unless the assessment methodology provides for collaborative work. • If assessment is done as part of collaborative effort, the assessor can identify the work completed by the student. Consistent • Assessment decisions are consistent across a wide range of students. This consistency is achieved through moderation of students’ work. It can also be achieved through assessor training and use of set assessment guides. • If the student’s work was sent to another assessor, they would make the same decision if faced with the same student and same evidence. Valid • Assessment methods assess what is meant to be assessed. • Assessment methods do not distort what is being assessed. • Other factors should not get in the way of what is being assessed (e.g. hidden curriculum). For example, if a student presents written evidence of an activity, then the student’s writing style, grammar and vocabulary are not assessed unless they are specified in the assessment criteria. Sufficient • There is enough evidence to enable the assessor to make a sure and certain decision. • There is enough evidence to decide that this is not a one-off and that the student can repeat this competence in other agencies and with other clients. Part of work • Evidence can be found in the normal day-to-day work and training and learning activities of the student. It may not be necessary to set up special assessment events. However, it may be necessary to design assessment activities to support evidence obtained from everyday activities. Open


65

140 × 215

66


demonstrating what they can do in an authentic work-based situation. Direct evidence may also include the results of questioning and discussion with the student about their work. This evidence needs to be documented so that both student and educator can retrieve it. Direct evidence is by far the most reliable for the assessment of student performance. When it is not possible to observe the student’s practice, educators may rely on more indirect forms of evidence. Indirect types of evidence are about the student’s competence rather than evidence of what the student knows and can do. Indirect evidence is less reliable than direct evidence. Typically, it is gathered from the student’s self-reporting, third-party reports from co-workers or other records from which competence can be inferred. Many students coming to fieldwork can produce historical evidence of prior experiences in the human services. This can include work reports or employer references. Recognition of prior learning is an assessment process based on historical evidence. Many day-to-day activities completed by students provide for naturally occurring evidence. In community development fieldwork, for example, naturally occurring evidence might come from the student producing a community profile or assisting a local group to prepare a submission. These events provide a rich source of evidence about the student’s competence in achieving standards or objectives. Finally, evidence can come from assessment activities specially designed for fieldwork. These can include simulations, written tasks and projects.

Methods of collecting evidence Stakeholders demand a wide variation in standards across the human services. Whatever the standards, evidence must be linked to the standard and criteria. Skills should be assessed through a process of demonstration and observation. Attitudes and values could be assessed through discussion and questioning around controversial issues. Knowledge about practice might involve a written paper and problem-solving suggests a written or verbal account of strategies used to resolve problems. Educators can directly observe practice; co-work with students; set written assignments; and use pencil and paper tests, documentation provided by the student, any form of work documentation or formal and informal oral assessments based on questioning and discussion with the student.


66

140 × 215


67

Deficits in traditional forms of fieldwork assessment include using personal constructs instead of uniform standards, an opaque assessment approach, over-reliance upon student self-reporting in field education, and failure to collect any evidence. These deficits point to the importance of explicit standards in the learning contract, use of universal assessment principles and the collection of evidence demonstrating competence. When these features are present in any assessment system, assessment is more objective and transparent, enabling students to contest the process and outcomes of assessment in the field.

THEORY INTO PRACTICE One issue for field educators, in either a traditional agency or one using a competency approach, is how to write a fieldwork contract that clearly states: • • • • •

learning objectives and outcomes; assessment criteria or performance indicators; evidence required to demonstrate competence; how evidence will be gathered; how assessment judgments will be made on the evidence.

This theory-to-practice section outlines some basic rules for writing the assessment aspects of the fieldwork contract. The first task is to write a description of the performance standard or assessment criteria using the following guidelines. The performance standard: •

• • •

•

is an essential part of the competence required of a human services worker in that field of practice, according to general agreement amongst professional peers; is written in language that is precise, unambiguous and consistent with normal usage in the human services; describes outcomes that can be demonstrated, observed and are measurable for assessment purposes; avoids terms that could be open to alternative interpretations by other assessors—‘appropriate’, ‘develop and apply’, ‘have an awareness of ’, ‘develop appropriate professional relationships’; clearly defines terms that may be subject to agency variation— ‘culture’, ‘self-awareness’, ‘self-determination’;


67

140 × 215

68 • •


openly expresses everything that is to be assessed so that there are no hidden assessment standards; is appropriate to the level of student—first-year or final-year.

Educators should always ensure that standards and assessment practices are consistent with the assessment principles outlined in Table 5.1. The contract should be based upon these standards, and outline: •

•

•

how evidence is to be collected. This may involve naturally occurring sources of evidence or assessment activities designed to elicit evidence; any instructions to the student on what they are to do, the conditions under which evidence will be collected and the resources that will be available to the student; an assessment schedule that sets out evidence requirements and qualitative and quantitative judgment criteria.

These factors could be included in assessment guides appended to the contract. Once the student has gathered the evidence, assessment follows. The educator makes a fair and consistent judgment on the evidence, using the following process: • • •

Does the evidence meet all the qualitative aspects of the assessment criteria? Does the evidence show that the student has consistently met the assessment criteria—is there sufficient evidence? Would another field educator have made the same decision when faced with the same evidence?

SUMMARY The place of field education under a competency-based system is no less important than within a curriculum model. In fact, under a system of qualifications established according to national outcome standards rather than curriculum guidelines, field education’s role may be clearer and standards of assessment may be more explicit and transparent to all parties. Whether or not a provider is part of a competency-based system at a national level, it is possible for a provider to adopt a competency approach to field education. Such an approach may be useful.


68

140 × 215


69

The central issue here is not ‘curriculum versus competency’. It is the vital importance of the learning and assessment process, and the use of fair, valid and consistent methods of field education assessment based on clear, explicit standards and a process that is transparent to all parties. A method that may be adopted to achieve this is the use of specific assessment guides. These set out what a student is to do in fieldwork to meet a particular standard (whether or not that is framed in competency terms); the evidence that is required; and the quantitative and qualitative judgment criteria applied by the assessor.


69

140 × 215

6

Two pedagogical approaches to group supervision in the human services

Sue Maywald PEDAGOGICAL APPROACHES TO GROUP SUPERVISION

This chapter outlines two approaches to group supervision. The first is a practice-based model, utilising group work theories. It describes an expert-led, field educator-centred learning approach. The literature on group supervision discusses the field educator’s role, selection of students, group dynamics and learning activities. The second approach—‘cooperative learning groups in fieldwork’—draws on cooperative learning theory and feminist pedagogy. This is based on an understanding that deep learning occurs when students are assisted, encouraged and supported to take risks with their learning, which can happen in an environment of peer collaboration established for this purpose. It is assumed that students will construct and reconstruct their own theories of practice based on their experiences, and that learning results from structured interaction. An understanding of group dynamics is also essential in this model. Alternative structured learning activities are undertaken to counter potential difficulties caused by group dynamics, and to facilitate learning for each group member. Students actively practise new skills and roles in these activities. The theory into practice section of this chapter describes the practice of these skills and roles in the context of developing a cooperative learning group. Each approach is developed from theories used in other contexts. Theories underpinning supervision and group work are 70


70

140 × 215

PEDAGOGICAL APPROACHES TO GROUP SUPERVISION

71

utilised in group supervision. Cooperative learning theories developed for use in classrooms are utilised together with feminist pedagogy to develop the cooperative learning group in fieldwork. This approach, however, is developed with group supervision practice and knowledge embedded in it. The preferred model outlined in the second half of the chapter is therefore a composite of group supervision theory and practices, feminist pedagogy and cooperative learning theory.

GROUP SUPERVISION The primary model for teaching and learning in fieldwork is a one-to-one model of instruction, management and support. This model’s effectiveness for students and field educators is questioned. Group supervision is an alternative most suited to facilitate student learning in the complex human services environment.

What is group supervision? In much of the literature, the term ‘group supervision’ describes a range of group activities including staff supervision, peersupervision, peer-group supervision, field integration seminars and small-group supervision. This latter approach is used with a group of no more than six participants—ideally three or four—who meet with a field educator on a regular basis during the course of their fieldwork. The educational and practical rationale for developing group supervision is to: • • • • • •

provide supervision for a group of students in the field; learn the practice of a task-centred group; facilitate peer feedback and review; develop interpersonal skills for use in practice; secure fieldwork opportunities; provide an economical use of field educators’ time.

Approaches to group supervision While the literature frequently refers to group supervision, few specific models exist. Numerous attempts have been made to juxtapose existing models of one-to-one field education and supervision of staff groups to supervision of a group. Kadushin (1985)


71

140 × 215

72


transferred his model for individual supervision—with a focus on administration, education and support—to group use; Shulman (1993) adapted the Mutual Aid model; and Getzel and Salmon (1985) drew on organisational theory to develop an approach for work groups. Tebb et al. (1996) utilised the role, apprentice, systems and growth models (Kaplan 1991; Wjinberg and Schwarz 1977) in combination with the Mutual Aid model, and proposed an educational model of group field instruction. This hybrid model outlines a range of teaching methods and group processes that assist students to find necessary supports to stay within the program, or to withdraw if unable to meet the learning requirements. The literature clearly identifies factors that provide a better focus for educating the student, particularly with skill-development and problem-solving strategies. However, group supervision does not presuppose better learning and cooperation.

Advantages and disadvantages of group supervision The advantages of group supervision noted in the literature depict a broad array of positive experiences for student, field educator, university and agency. Group supervision is valued for promoting opportunities for the student, including: • • • • • •

actively taking responsibility for their learning and problemsolving; providing new insights through a wider forum for feedback; normalising their feelings of anxiety; having a means of developing lateral relationships; deepening identification with a profession; minimising issues of power.

Noticeable advantages for the field educator and the agency are time- and cost-minimisation factors. The university is advantaged with students experiencing mutual support and broader problem-solving and learning possibilities. Group supervision provides a forum for promoting and understanding the value of difference in culture, opinions and approaches to learning. Disadvantages associated with group supervision include frequent concerns that the individual may lose direct assistance because the group does not provide for individualised learning. Specific requirements may be diffused through the group. Problems with maintaining a focus, group dynamics and the potential for unequal group contributions are noted. Clearly heterogeneity of


72

140 × 215


73

group members’ opinions, cultures and approaches is an advantage, but some differences—in particular, age, gender and motivation— can be disadvantageous if not addressed. Lack of confidentiality is seen as a disadvantage because some students initially feel threatened at having their work exposed. Another disadvantage is the tendency within a group to agree with, and conform to, the group view. On the positive side, all of these disadvantages can be countered with clear contracting and group management, and mentoring of the students on a day-to-day basis to address specific issues.

The field educator’s role The field educator’s status is addressed in each approach. In contrast to individual field education, it is suggested that the group field educator will be more helpful, less controlling and more willing to cooperate and share tasks with students. The emphasis in developing a model for group supervision leans frequently towards a growth and development perspective that considers therapeutic, personal growth and affective factors. Particular emphasis is placed on learning group work theory. In all cases, these models are based on field educator-led and managed groups. Many roles are attributed to the field educator, from quasitherapist helping the student confront their fears, to educator maintaining the educational purpose, modelling, teaching and discussing theory. This approach recognises the dimension of power and authority between field educator and student, and advocates the potential enhancement of the learning posed within a group context. The role of the teacher, however, is taken as the repository of wisdom. Group-maintenance tasks are frequently shared between field educator and student (supervisor and supervisee). These include setting agendas and ensuring the group process is maintained.

Selection of students The literature frequently discusses the selection of individuals into a group for supervision purposes. On the whole, the consensus is that participants should at least agree to favour the concept of group supervision. Groups established in the workplace present a more ideal environment for active selection by participants. The literature on group supervision for students, however, suggests that university and agency field educators usually make the decision to


73

140 × 215

74


proceed towards a group approach. In most cases, students are selected by meeting with the field educator and university field coordinator, who provide information about the approach and interview the student to ascertain their interest. It is important that students are well informed about the arrangement and process, and essential that they are actively involved in establishing the contract and the parameters guiding the way the groups work together. Factors including age, gender, culture and approach to learning need to be considered. If this model aims to truly address oppressive practices, diversity of age, gender, class and cultural mix is necessary. This will enhance the students’ learning. An opportunity for a rich source of learning arises when students from different agencies participate. However, group supervision is most effective when the students are engaged in similar fields of practice, ideally in the same agency. This enables a deeper learning approach and maximises administration and teaching practicalities.

Group dynamics Every group harbours the potential for some of its members to prevent effective cooperation by arguing against the group’s focus and processes. If the group is developed from a pre-existing group of students, that group’s dynamics may be transferred. Pre-existing alliances or antagonistic relationships between students can deflect the process. Similarly, differences of opinion, attitudes to work and cultural differences can cause schisms within the group. Issues of the group leader’s authority and intimacy with other group members also need to be addressed. Implementing good small-group work skills and re-contracting the group parameters as the group proceeds, based on the initial contract, can address problems created by negative group dynamics. An advantage of the group approach is that it caters for a heterogeneous mix of students, and can facilitate further learning about difference of opinion and diversity.

Learning activities in group supervision Group supervision offers the opportunity to use a diverse range of teaching techniques: • •

case presentations and discussions; development of counselling and communication skills using techniques such as role-plays and reflecting teams;


74

140 × 215


• • • • • •

75

learning about group dynamics and practising group work techniques such as sculpting and role reversal; didactic presentations on theory; sharing stories and listening to others; debating and encouraging different views; giving information about the organisation, resources and policy developments; students sharing roles within the group, thus learning and practising different roles as leaders, summarisers and minutetakers.

In summary, group supervision is widely practised in fieldwork. There are diverse approaches to the group’s organisation, the curriculum and educational activities. The practice-based model indicates an approach that combines the practice of group work and supervision. The primary weakness of this pedagogical approach is that the student’s growth, containment and management, rather than facilitation of their learning, is the group’s primary focus.

COOPERATIVE LEARNING GROUPS IN THE FIELD The second approach to group supervision outlined in this chapter has been developed using core insights from the theory and practice of cooperative learning groups and feminist pedagogy. This approach utilises much of the practice already described, in particular the practice of selecting students for a group, knowledge of group dynamics and diverse learning activities. The educational and practical rationale for developing cooperative learning groups in the field has been to: •

• •

•

facilitate a forum for students to critically reflect and analyse their own and their peers’ learning in an environment that supports and expects a diversity of views; develop a pedagogical focus that moves the field educator’s role away from that of the expert to one of facilitator or guide; provide a context for learning in fieldwork, based on cooperative learning theory, to enable students to critically examine the political and social milieu; secure fieldwork opportunities where one field educator can facilitate learning for a number of students.


75

140 × 215

76


Fundamental to this approach is a model for learning in field education that is developed with the learner firmly centred in their own learning process, rather than being based on a transfer of learning from expert to novice.

Theories underpinning cooperative learning groups in the field The theory informing cooperative learning in small groups draws on key assumptions from cognitive, social and behavioural learning theories that emphasise the effects of students working together (Pressley and McCormick 1995). Three key concepts drawn from Vygotsky’s work (Miller 1993) and used to develop an approach to group supervision in the field include: • •

•

the conception of knowledge—learning is an interactive and social process; the ‘zone of proximal development’ (Miller 1993: 37) that is defined as the distance between a learner’s actual development and their potential to obtain knowledge, with the guidance and prompting of a more knowledgeable person and with their peers; the role of discourse in learning—the purpose of peer interaction is to make implicit learning explicit through students interacting and talking with each other ( Johnson et al. 1993).

When using a cooperative learning approach in group supervision, students work together to theorise, solve problems and discuss case material. In so doing, they work to enhance each other’s learning as well as their own. The fundamental difference from the previous approach to learning discussed in this chapter is that the students assume an active role in teaching the group, and as the group matures the field educator’s role decreases (Miller 1993). Students are encouraged to engage in ‘interpersonal’ problemsolving and thinking. This enhances ‘personal’ problem-solving and thinking skills. Interaction in collaborative learning groups increases mastery of critical concepts, as groups perform more advanced problem-solving and critical thinking than could be performed by a purely task- or support-focused group. Thus, as each individual engages in the elaboration of material and in explaining it to someone else, they are more likely to increase their own knowledge. Argument and debate generated among peers develops a climate for change.


76

140 × 215


77

Key academic advantages of cooperative learning (Pressley and McCormick 1995: 118) include: • • • •

•

‘intrinsic motivation’ as the learning becomes more meaningful; a higher expectation of success; mutual benefits for each group member which provide incentives to learn; an increased interest in the topic that may extend beyond the group. This is identified as ‘cognitive conflict’. Students are challenged by each other and pursue wider parameters of a problem; ‘high task persistence’.

Cooperative learning has been developed as a paradigm shift from the idea of teachers transferring knowledge to students to conducting education within a context of interpersonal relationships so that the ‘group performance is mutually caused, [there is] mutual responsibility and mutual obligation’ ( Johnson et al. 1993: 15).

Feminist pedagogy Feminist pedagogy challenges prevailing discourses in field education. It challenges the dominant paradigm in society of powerful/ powerless, worthy/unworthy, expert/student. This approach is supported by critical learning theory that encourages students to acknowledge the complexities and inconsistencies in their learning, and to engage in strategies where students actively seek out knowledge and test hypotheses in a spirit of cooperation. In a field education approach from a feminist perspective, students are encouraged to develop skills to name, confront and identify aspects of their own personal experience of race, class, gender and culture as a source of knowledge and oppression. Such a feminist approach to teaching (Luke and Gore 1992) uses strategies to reduce the teacher’s power and authority in the group, including: •

• •

giving students tools to examine power relationships and to reflect on ways of sharing the power and authority in the group; the teacher assuming the role of learner; teachers being explicit about their power and the imbalance in the relationship.


77

140 × 215

78


Feminist pedagogy, like cooperative learning, also involves a paradigm shift. It challenges prevailing power relationships and gives students and teachers tools to analyse and respond to inequities in the learning group. Combined with much of the specific knowledge and expertise of group supervision—in particular, many of the practical tools that facilitate students working in groups— cooperative learning groups in the field provide a viable pedagogical approach.

Principles and processes for cooperative learning groups in the field How does this theory transfer to fieldwork and what can be drawn from the approaches to group supervision and peer group learning outlined so far? This section describes an approach using the theory of cooperative learning, feminist pedagogy and group supervision. For the purposes of this chapter it is assumed that the university uses a formal field curriculum that to some extent guides the student’s and the agency’s learning activities and requirements. All stakeholders—students, field educators and university coordinators—need to be aware of the following processes to establish a cooperative learning group in the field.

Structuring positive interdependence It is important that positive interdependence is structured into the group to ensure success. This requires each student to see their own achievement and success as inextricably linked to those of the others in the group ( Johnson et al. 1993: 6). Interdependence is structured into activities from the first session, where a program is negotiated, to later assessment sessions. In the first session, students work together to agree on outcomes to assist their learning on complementary roles and tasks where a division of labour requires each member to complete specified responsibilities. These tasks may include recording supervision sessions, organising group meetings and projects, and researching and presenting an agreed topic. Presentations may include case studies, role-plays, models of practice or research material. The focus is negotiated with input from each student from the beginning, so individuals become dependent on each other for their learning. Specific group learning tasks may include group investigation techniques used with a research project, or ‘jigsawing’, which requires each student to bring a different piece


78

140 × 215


79

of information to make a complete presentation (Slavin 1990). As the group members develop trust in and commitment to each other, this objective is enhanced to the extent that the field educator can withdraw, except for providing support and assistance with specific issues. Group assessment is advantageous in developing this process further. If a student is perceived as not achieving successfully, the group will be asked to ‘recontract’ to assist the student, reinforcing positive interdependence and success for all.

Negotiating the basis for the group Students join the group because of their interest in the field of practice where group supervision is facilitated, and in learning in groups. Negotiating the basis for the group involves one or more interviews. As students are ‘contracted’ into the group, they become partners in setting up the supervision arrangements. All parties—including location manager or supervisor, individual field educator, group coordinator and students—establish an outline for communication. Interdependence within the group is a key process; therefore, some field educators may raise concerns that the students will not address the agency’s requirements in supervision, and become separated from others in the organisation. A discussion of the group process and the educational and philosophical basis for the group in supervision is required. As part of this discussion, agreement should be reached on the fundamental belief in students’ abilities to direct their own learning in a process of collaboration, debate, dialogue and reflection. It should also be agreed that students use examples of their practice for discussion in the group, and that students be encouraged to approach the public and private dimensions of their learning from a critical perspective. Students will raise concerns about their feelings of vulnerability, the boundaries of confidentiality, roles and responsibilities, allocation of work and assessment. Given that the tutorial model is still the primary approach to supervision, students need to discuss what they may lose and gain from a group approach. Individuals in the group begin to appreciate their peers’ different perspectives through exploration of these issues. Where a student disagrees, the facilitator/field educator supports them and encourages them to outline their concerns. The process of validating the student’s voice is modelled from the beginning.


79

140 × 215

80


Individual and group accountability The group must be structured with clear goals, as well as ways of evaluating group and individual achievements. Individuals are accountable to the group, provided each is committed to actively promoting interdependence and mutuality. In an instance where this has not developed successfully in the group’s establishment phase, the field educator and other students may question a student who is not motivated to be accountable to the group about their commitment. The overall group goals can then be renegotiated or the student given the choice to leave. Similarly, if one student is committed to taking on a greater share of the workload than the others, the group may also meet to renegotiate members’ goals and expectations. In the group’s beginning stages, the field educator frequently clarifies the focus on mutual accountability.

‘Face-to-face’ interactions Students are required to work together ‘face-to-face’ ( Johnson et al. 1993) in the small group, and to promote each other’s success by explaining, helping, encouraging and supporting efforts to achieve. Ideally, students should be located in a student room. If this is not possible, it is useful for them to arrange for the peer group to meet regularly, preferably for half an hour each day, to provide support, encouragement and debate. Each student must have a commitment to these arrangements. Where students are located in the same team or ward, an approach fostering communication and support is further developed. In the field, students provide each other with specific help, exchange information about resources and challenge each other about group decisions. The developing commitment to mutuality and interdependence enhances this face-to-face interaction, and provides the forum for debate and peer learning.

Interpersonal and small-group skills Most students in the human services sector will have been taught interpersonal and small-group skills. However, Johnson et al. (1993) have identified specific skills that teachers and students need to learn and practise for use with cooperative learning groups. Participants review their successes and failures as the group proceeds.


80

140 × 215


81

Group processing Group processing requires group members to analyse the activities, successes and difficulties the group encounters. At the end of each session, group participants are asked to reflect on and analyse its processes, patterns of communication and success. The field educator can do this by: • • • •

reviewing with students the purpose of establishing the group and the tasks and roles assumed by each member; noting who has spoken and for how long, and drawing this to the group’s attention; rewarding members who are actively engaged in the process; identifying the times the field educator has spoken and responded to questions. As this is done, the field educator clarifies aspects of the process from which they will gradually withdraw, thereby establishing a ‘norm’ for student-to-student dialogue ( Johnson et al. 1993).

Field educator and colleague authority In order to develop this interactive group dialogue model, the field educator needs to recognise their power and authority and work openly to minimise this aspect. Negotiating these elements requires openness, cooperation and confidence amongst the key stakeholders. Students tend to defer to the field educator, as they are used to an approach based on the field educator as expert. The skills required to facilitate the teacher minimising their power, and students taking a critical and cooperative approach to learning, need to be outlined and clarified at least once in each session. During the group’s early stages, these need to be outlined several times per session. From a feminist perspective, the learner and teacher identify, discuss and challenge the teacher’s authority and power, as the students identify aspects of their personal knowledge and oppression.

THEORY INTO PRACTICE This section describes interpersonal and small-group skills used particularly when establishing a group. Johnson et al. (1993) identify specific skills from literature on group work and learning in groups. These skills are used to address behaviours that may


81

140 × 215

82


emerge from negative group dynamics, and to facilitate learning from a cooperative approach. Teachers and students need to apply the skills in practice in a cooperative learning group in the field. Essential skills include leadership skills—as summariser, directiongiver and generator of ideas and options. These are used when the group develops an outline for specific tasks and group presentations, and as each student takes on a primary role of leading the group or time keeping. Forming skills are group-management skills that are identified in the first meeting as ‘group norms’. They are the ‘bottom-line’ skills where a commitment is given to group process, taking turns, and respecting and listening to each individual’s contribution. Most students in the human services professions will practise functioning skills such as sharing ideas and opinions, asking for clarification, paraphrasing, describing feelings, energising the group and using humour. Drawing on a feminist approach, the field educator also uses these skills, and models their use in the group’s early stages. The field educator frequently draws attention to the group’s mutuality by clarifying that each student is to have the opportunity to describe their ideas and feelings in the safety of the group. These skills are also used when the group begins with a ‘round’ of news, views and key learning achievements that have occurred since the last meeting. This is particularly useful in the group’s early stages as individuals get to know each other. Formulating skills provide students with learning processes that will deepen their understanding of material. Students and field educators learn to demonstrate these skills which include summarising, checking for understanding, asking and seeking elaboration. In the group’s establishment phase, the field educator models these skills while clarifying the group’s purpose, which is for students to move into the role of facilitator as the field educator withdraws. Fermenting skills are needed to ‘engage in academic controversies’ ( Johnson et al. 1993: 8). These skills include probing, questioning and extending answers by considering other pieces of information that connect with another student’s view. Once the group is established, the field educator again models these skills, outlining the process by which students move into direct dialogue with each other and the field educator withdraws. The field educator provides scaffolding skills by prompting, giving clues, guiding, modelling, asking leading questions and encouraging learners as they attempt to recall, organise and internalise their knowledge (Slavin 1990).


82

140 × 215


83

While it is recommended that all of the skills noted above are taught, it is useful for the field educator to model them. Students are encouraged to gradually take primary roles and use the skills. Some skills—leadership, forming and functioning skills—will be used more easily in the group’s establishment phase.

SUMMARY Agencies where students complete their fieldwork provide an organisational context frequently bounded by constraints. Group supervision, on the other hand, provides the student with a setting in which to articulate a range of alternatives to a problem, to re-conceptualise the issues and ultimately to make informed decisions according to the many parameters impacting on the work. Can a cooperative and critical approach be applied to all groups in the field? The approach requires considerable planning and negotiations between all stakeholders, with agreement on the approach and clear goals agreed to by all participants. It also requires considerable input in the establishment phase, which requires time for stakeholders to voice and examine concerns. The other time and management commitment is facilitating the learning of specific skills by students and field educators. Clearly the initial time commitment is a significant disadvantage, but this is outweighed as the group develops and students take on primary roles. Once students and teachers have learned the underlying philosophy, core characteristics and skills, the group can function as an independent whole. The maturity reached by participants in problem-solving and approaching the learning from a critical perspective, and their commitment to mutuality and interdependence by the middle stages of the group, can be outstanding. At this stage, the field educator moves to guide and support the group, as the students are clearly experts in the active process of their learning.


83

140 × 215

7

Assessment of performance

Lesley Hughes and Karen Heycox ASSESSMENT OF PERFORMANCE

Some field educators may see assessment as an extra burden imposed by the educational institution—a burden that interferes with the otherwise smooth flow of the fieldwork. It is argued, however, that if fieldwork is taken seriously, and regarded as a valuable component of preparation for working in human services, thorough assessment is essential. In this view, assessment has the potential to be a means of promoting learning and professional growth as well as ensuring adequate standards for entry to the human services professions, thereby protecting human services clients. Ultimately, no matter what is achieved in terms of personal and professional growth, by the end of the student’s course of study, the partners in assessment—those in educational institutions and those in human services practice—need to be able to answer the question: ‘Is this person a competent beginning practitioner?’ It is necessary to clarify what is meant by ‘assessment’ before examining its nuts and bolts. It can be ‘formative’—an ongoing process of feedback, reflection and continual adjustment of learning goals and strategies—or ‘summative’, referring to a defined event using pre-set standards or criteria to arrive at a decision about student achievement. In this chapter, it is seen as both an ongoing process and an event. Topics for discussion include the rationale for assessment, differing conceptions of assessment, the processes and tools that may be used in carrying it out, and some of the 84


84

140 × 215

ASSESSMENT OF PERFORMANCE

85

debates and dilemmas associated with assessment of student performance during fieldwork. It is argued that assessment is an essential component of fieldwork in the human services, being necessary for the promotion of learning and as a means of maximising professional competence.

WHY ASSESS? Field educators may be assessing students for a variety of reasons. It may be solely on the basis that it is a requirement of the educational institution or that it is a professional industry requirement. Even where there is no external requirement to assess a student, field educators may still wish to assess them in order to assist the learning process or systematically monitor the student’s ability to practise. Assessment may not necessarily be straightforward if it is carried out solely because external bodies require it, and the potential for its use as a means of enhancing the student’s professional development will not be fully exploited. Many field educators need to monitor students’ impact on clients and colleagues in order to minimise any potential harm to the former and to one’s own reputation and credibility with peers. These are all good reasons for assessing student performance. If assessment is agreed to be a key component of fieldwork, the next step is to think through what is being assessed and how to go about it. The remainder of this chapter explores each of these questions in turn and illustrates some of the issues and complexities that field educators may face.

WHAT IS ASSESSED? What is assessed depends on the fieldwork’s aims and objectives in general terms for all students, and in terms of the individual student’s particular goals in the context of the agency setting. Optimally, the educational institution will provide some guidelines. The field educator and the student will be able to discuss their application in their particular setting, using their respective personal characteristics to negotiate and articulate a formal learning plan. It is useful to write these down in as much detail as possible to enable their use as a reference point for planning and reviewing during the fieldwork.


85

140 × 215

86


Most branches of the human services will have disciplinespecific areas of knowledge and skills deemed necessary for competent practice. Examples of these learning areas might include: • • • • • • • • •

working in organisations; communicating with service users and colleagues; practising a range of skills and techniques; utilising theory and knowledge in practice; demonstrating appropriate levels of autonomy; managing time and planning work; practising in an ethical manner; critically reflecting on self; taking responsibility for one’s own learning in the field.

In addition to emphasising what may be seen as core assessment criteria, it is important to acknowledge the diversity of clients in human services by emphasising other criteria such as: • • •

demonstrating an awareness of cultural differences; using an anti-oppressive approach; showing specific competencies for rural and remote practice (Young et al. 1996).

Apart from the educational institution’s standards, the professional associations and employing bodies may demand specific competencies. There may be additional or altered requirements associated with work in specialised areas of practice or with work that involves specific populations or communities. Other knowledge and skill areas beside those explicitly articulated by the institutions or service agencies may sometimes be utilised more implicitly. These might be based on a field educator’s or colleague’s own standards. Notions of ‘how it is done here’ can come into play. It is important to reflect on what is desirable for the student to learn and where this comes from, and to articulate this to the student so that all expectations are made explicit. This is necessary in terms of acknowledging the links between self-awareness and personal/professional growth. It is also fairer and may minimise possible disputes in assessment later in the fieldwork.

HOW TO ASSESS? Many courses have developed a statement on the objectives of the field curriculum and how that curriculum fits within the overall


86

140 × 215


87

course program. How the assessment of the fieldwork component of the program will be done depends on whether it is a ‘formative’ or ‘summative’ assessment.

Formative assessment Continuous assessment requires a sound teaching/learning relationship between student and field educator. This entails honest, open communication, mutual respect and the field educator’s ability to give balanced, constructive feedback. If these elements are present, it will not only assist the learning process, but will provide an opportunity to identify and address areas of concern earlier rather than later. In this sense, formative assessment is a process of continuous feedback and reflection on the student’s progress—their strengths and areas for further development—which should occur throughout the fieldwork. This allows for the development of strategies to promote learning (such as appropriate support), as well as promptly alerting the student to areas requiring more intensive attention. This type of assessment is not structured or formalised, thus making it easy for it not to occur. However, to be effective, such formative assessment needs to take place frequently from the fieldwork’s early stages. Research has shown that field educators do far less assessment than they think. Nichols and Cheers (1980) found that students received feedback on their progress in only a third of supervision sessions (which were nominated by field educators as being focused on assessment). There may be a tendency for feedback in supervision to become overly task-focused, particularly when projects are a component of the fieldwork.

Summative assessment In summative assessment, on the other hand, the educational institution usually sets assessment ‘events’. It also specifies how assessment and reporting should be carried out, and how all parties will be involved. These assessment events usually require that a judgment be made—either that the student’s progress is ‘satisfactory’ or ‘unsatisfactory’, or that a certain level of performance has been reached. Many courses utilise a number of events in the assessment—mid- and end-of-fieldwork reports, liaison visits, student presentations, and perhaps written student assignments and journal-keeping. While field educators may acknowledge the significance of such events, these can sometimes be viewed as a burden requiring an inordinate amount of time and resources. It


87

140 × 215

88


can be an advantage to have a number of occasions of formal assessment because they provide an opportunity to review the direction, pace and progress of learning in the fieldwork. Without such occasions, it is easy for everyone to be busy ‘doing’, but not necessarily reflecting on what has occurred in terms of learning. The other benefit of formal assessment events that require some written documentation is that there is a permanent record of discussion and decisions. This can then be used as a basis for further learning. It is of little use to conduct all the assessment events at the end of the fieldwork because there is no further time to address any shortfalls or gaps in learning. The increasing legalisation of assessment has seen it become increasingly common for educational institutions to require field educators to undertake summative assessment in some prescribed fashion. Educators may be required to give specific feedback to students mid-placement if their performance is not satisfactory. Often all parties are required to record and acknowledge this because students may successfully appeal against ‘fail’ grades given at the end of fieldwork on the grounds that they were not told at an earlier assessment about the way in which their performance was unsatisfactory. Although many courses have standards and assessment criteria to assist field educators, many dilemmas arise in judgment of performance in both formative and summative assessment. In a skills-based program, for example, the standards might require students to have a particular set of skills. If students do not achieve all those skills but are highly critical of their performance and willing to put in extra time to learn, should the field educator pass them as having achieved that standard? Many educators are tempted to give students the benefit of the doubt, particularly when it is the first field placement in the program, and presume that any deficiencies can be remedied in subsequent fieldwork (Hughes and Heycox 1996). However, it is much harder for a student about to complete their course to be confronted with the possibility of failure on the same issues raised in an earlier placement. Educational institution administrators are also more reluctant to allow a ‘fail’ grade when a student has satisfactorily completed all other course requirements for graduation. One final dilemma facing field educators is who makes the ultimate decision on the student’s performance in fieldwork—field educators or classroom educators—and what accountability is there to the profession, other practitioners and clients? Field educators need to know whether


88

140 × 215


89

they alone are concerned with professional standards, or whether their educational institution feels it too has a role as a potential gatekeeper to the profession rather than focusing solely on the academic program’s parameters. Field educators may find it helpful to clarify these matters before embarking on a relationship with an educational program. Research has indicated that, at times, educational institutions have not heeded field educators’ concerns about poor student performance. This can have a negative impact on the educational partnership (Hughes et al. 1994). Whether viewing assessment as process or event, the key questions the field educator can help the student to address are: •

• • •

•

What is the student expected to achieve: – university standards; – professional standards; – agency standards; – industry standards? Are these standards written and explicit to the student, field educator and agency? Has the student achieved any of these standards in previous fieldwork or in the workplace? What are the student’s objectives in this fieldwork in addition to these standards, and can this be accommodated? – What stage is the student at now in relation to these objectives? – How might the student achieve them? – What is the time scale required to achieve them? How will the student know if they have achieved the explicit standards and personal goals?

Furthermore, field educators need to answer the following important questions: • •

How can the educator gain access to the student’s work? How does the educator know when the student has achieved the stated objectives?

Apart from examining these aspects of the ‘how’ of assessment, a crucial issue is who is involved in assessment and in what way. It could be argued that educational institutions with a philosophy of ‘student-centred’ learning tend to focus on student selfassessment, while others that are perhaps more concerned with the gatekeeper to the profession role are likely to insist on field educator input. Others may try to combine both. Where institutions


89

140 × 215

90


encourage both field educators and students to participate jointly in completing the formal written assessment reports, it is important that this be done with maximum participation from both parties because even formative assessment should not ignore all the preceding assessment processes. In terms of the practical tools that can be used in assessment, there are several main choices. One commonly used method is that of ‘criterion referencing’, which measures student progress in terms of a particular task or set of skills to be mastered (Brown 1990). The educational institution develops specific criteria that provide the basis for the behaviours, skills and attitudes expected in fieldwork. Other guidelines for assessment utilise individual referencing in which the student’s learning is compared to their previous performance level (Cooper 1994). The challenge is how to become aware of what criteria are being used—those of the educational institution, the field educator, the professional association or agency norms? Previous research has shown that, in assessing students, a large percentage of field educators use personal criteria as much as, if not more than, those devised by the educational institution (Hughes and Heycox 1996). In answering the question ‘What does the educational institution expect of field educators in assessing student learning?’, there is also a need to ask ‘Are field educators going beyond what the educational institution deems appropriate? If so, on what basis is this decision being made and can this judgment be defended?’ In terms of grading fieldwork subjects, the norm is that a ‘pass/fail’ or ‘satisfactory/unsatisfactory’ result is awarded. Sometimes a grade may not be given at all. Instead, the student receives a statement indicating that all standards have been achieved. Even where courses have used rating scales for assessing performance levels on particular criteria, the overall result is still usually given merely in terms of ‘pass/fail’. This perhaps bears testimony to the difficulties of making a precise assessment of the learning that takes place in fieldwork. There are, however, a few exceptions to this dichotomous classification of results (Wilson and Moore 1989). More recently, under the influence of the move to competencybased assessment and field educators’ demands for simpler and quicker assessment tools, attempts have been made to differentiate levels of achievement using performance indicators and a threepoint rating scale. The three levels of performance range from ‘negative performance’ (inappropriate) through ‘beginning


90

140 × 215


91

competence’ to ‘satisfactory competence’. There is also a neutral rating to be used where there has been no opportunity for assessment of a particular aspect. Although such a tool provides greater efficiency, feedback from students and field educators suggests that a need remains for additional qualitative comment in such ‘event’ assessments.

COMPLICATIONS IN ASSESSMENT Many of the matters affecting the assessment of student performance in fieldwork have been mentioned earlier in this chapter. So far, the why, what and how of assessment has been considered, but these may be impinged upon in various ways that make assessment a complex matter. Some considerations include the individual’s involvement in assessment, the resources available to them, their relationships to each other, their roles and the contexts in which they each operate. It is perhaps simplest to approach this topic via consideration of the various parties involved in the assessment process and their interrelationships. Time, energy, resources, expertise and commitment to field education are significant for the field educator and university staff involved. Any factors that impinge on the fieldwork also impact on the field educator in the assessment process. If a recent graduate is acting as field educator—and perhaps covering two positions in an agency undergoing restructuring—it would not be easy to feel confident, competent and supported in the complex new role of educator/assessor (Hughes et al. 1994; Coulshed 1980; Rosenblum and Raphael 1987). If there are difficulties in student performance, the field educator may not feel able to cope with the heavy demands of an educationally appropriate response. Even when the field educator has sufficient personal resources to deal with the situation, the assessment infrastructure—including accessible, clearly articulated criteria and support from colleagues at the agency and the educational institution—may be lacking (Hughes et al. 1994; Hughes and Heycox 1996). Other difficulties the field educator may have in assessment relate to the possible blurring or conflicting of roles. There are several roles for the field educator—supportive, administrative and educative (Kadushin 1985). There is a major shift from being a human services practitioner to being an educator. While there may be less of a jump from being a ‘helper’ with service users to being


91

140 × 215

92


a nurturer and facilitator of learning with students, the judgment aspect of assessment in the educator role may not be so easy to adopt. It can be argued that human services workers are not generally oriented to finding fault, judging and constraining the objects of their activities. Such a lack of ease with this aspect of assessment can result in assessment being delayed or otherwise avoided. Sometimes field educators are afraid that giving negative feedback will harm the student (‘she’s too fragile’; ‘it will affect his self-esteem’) or damage the student–field educator relationship (Kimber 1982). An example of this reluctance to assess is the previously mentioned study by Nichols and Cheers (1980), which found that, even in supervision sessions that were meant to be focused on assessment, field educators made very few assessment comments. Aspects of the relationship between student and field educator can, of course, be a major influence on assessment as the entire fieldwork learning experience is dependent on, and takes place via, this relationship. It is in this realm that all ‘personal’ elements come into play (Eisenberg et al. 1996). Personality has been recognised as an important factor in that it exerts ‘an influence on the outcome of student fieldwork assessment in some settings’ (Mackenzie 1997: 63). It has also been found that the differing ways people think and learn (cognitive styles) are a strong predictor of practice competence. It has been suggested that all parties to the assessment process need to be aware of the influence of personality and cognitive type in fieldwork. ‘Supervisors need to be aware of their own personality type and how this may impact on their supervision. Students also need to be aware of their own personality type in order to help them identify their own strengths and weaknesses’ (Mackenzie 1997: 64). An example of this would be where a field educator who learns by experience ( jumping in, doing, then reflecting later) finds that they have a student who likes to be fully briefed in terms of background reading, understanding and a detailed preparation (observation of other workers, role-plays). This field educator may assess the student as reluctant, lacking initiative and underconfident. Such an assessment may translate into sub-standard performance. It is the student’s ability to be open to feedback from the field educator and to engage constructively with the learning environment that makes the difference to the effectiveness of assessment. Factors such as life experience or age do not impact on this. Maturity of years does not guarantee smooth progression through


92

140 × 215


93

the fieldwork (Hughes and Heycox 1996). Further, students’ ability to engage fully in learning can be enhanced by regular feedback on their progress from the field educator. This feedback should include both strengths and areas for future growth. Research has shown that students value supervision which includes regular reviews of their learning (Fernandez 1997). Most students are concerned about some aspect of their own performance, regardless of whether educators perceive them as strong or weak performers in fieldwork (Hughes and Heycox 1996). This surprising finding suggests that there is a greater need for field educators to convey positive feedback about student strengths and achievements, to try to ensure that the student hears this, and that in turn students can articulate these strengths and achievements. The impact of the changing context of human services provision also needs to be acknowledged as a factor impinging on assessment (Beddoe and Worrall 1997). Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, there has been a shift to privatisation of services and a shrinking of the government sector. Consequently, the public sector has experienced organisational restructuring, reduced funding and pressure towards increased accountability through processes of quality assurance, and time and motion studies. The focus has increasingly been on outcomes. The above contextual changes have resulted in the need for more accuracy and refinement in assessment of students in fieldwork. Educational institutions are keeping a closer eye on their ‘product’. Field education is an expensive commodity and students, as ‘customers’, expect ‘value for money’. Moreover, students expect a quality product in fieldwork, but not ‘harsh’ treatment in the form of negative final assessments that result in them having to repeat the subject, thus incurring further financial hardship. Field educators, faced with their own constraints, want fieldwork—including the assessment component—to be made easier for them, with maximum support for their various roles (Heycox and Hughes 1997). Writing about these challenges posed by economic rationalism and managerialism, Ife (1997: 26) emphasises the importance of not simply seeking to adapt to the present, but ‘also trying to anticipate the future, and to educate students to be adaptable, flexible, and able to see possibilities beyond the constraints of the present practice context’. It seems, therefore, that effective fieldwork education is essential for the future of the human services, but will be even harder to achieve.


93

140 × 215

94


THEORY INTO PRACTICE A key issue in assessment—whether as process or event—is giving feedback to students. As already noted, giving feedback can be as difficult for the field educator as receiving it is for the student. This is particularly so when the substance of the feedback concerns aspects of performance linked to personal style and characteristics. Probably the most common student reaction when negative feedback is received is that the field educator has been biased because there has been a personality clash. This term could cover anything from differences in cognitive style, world views and values to differences in class, gender, culture or life experience. Field educators and educational institution staff report that the most frequently occurring reasons for concern about student performance are associated with criteria to do with ‘use of self’ (Hughes and Heycox 1996). Students typically feel that the field educator is biased against them and sees their progress in learning very differently from their perception of it. Assessment per se is going to be difficult enough when the field educator likes the student, but it becomes even more difficult when there is no affinity or, worse still, a positive dislike of the student or aspects of their personality or style. Therefore, before giving feedback, the field educator may need to know what it is based on. They also need to be aware that it is not a generalisation based on the student’s personal characteristics. This is not to deny that some personal characteristics do contribute to deficits in students’ performance or learning. The task, however, is to identify and comment on instances of the student’s actual practice in terms of the agreed standards and criteria such as performance indicators provided by the educational institution. Certain steps can be taken to minimise such reactions to feedback, particularly concerning matters linked to the student’s personal aspects: • • • • •

Give students adequate work on which to base feedback. Have regular contact with the student throughout the fieldwork. Have access to the student’s work so that the feedback is informed. Give students increasing autonomy so that feedback is not a reflection of induced anxiety. Be aware that feedback may be affected by personal characteristics (field educator’s or student’s).


94

140 × 215


• • • •

95

Give feedback immediately, or at least with minimum delay. Be specific and relate feedback to practice. Give constructive feedback that is balanced with positive as well as negative comments. Ensure that feedback is ‘heard’ by the student—acknowledged by them through means such as verbal/written communication.

SUMMARY The current climate may make field educators less enthusiastic and more reluctant to take on the extra burden of assessment of the fieldwork. However, it is more important than ever that future human services practitioners are able to practise in a way that challenges and extends social provision to those most affected by the current changes in the services. Such effective practitioners can only be produced by a fieldwork environment that promotes optimum personal and professional growth while ensuring accountability to the professions and the clients they serve. Sound assessment practices utilising a considered philosophy, welldeveloped and articulated criteria, and adequately supported educators are essential in the development of competent human services professionals. Thus, in summary, it is useful to consider the following: • • •

•

Be clear on why there is a need to assess. Articulate what to assess. Consider how the assessment should be done: – Will there be an ongoing process of assessment via regular feedback to the student? – Will there be formal assessment ‘events’, and when will these occur? – How will field educator and student maximise their respective inputs? Be aware of the factors that may affect assessment: – Time, energy, expertise, experience; – The relationship between field educator and student; – Personal characteristics; – Conflicting or blurring roles.

If all the above are implemented, assessment ‘becomes an integral part of placement—looked forward to and considered important by all parties’ (Bradey 1993: 27).


95

140 × 215

8

Working with cultural difference

Rosemary Smart and Maurice Manawaroa Gray WORKING WITH CULTURAL DIFFERENCE

Nothing can be understood until differences and distinctions are evoked. (Bateson 1980: 16)

In an increasingly pluralistic society, diversification is occurring so rapidly that students undertaking fieldwork, and their field educators, are increasingly likely to work with those who are racially, ethnically and culturally different from themselves. A field educator may be involved in many different cultural combinations; students, field educators and agencies may be from a dominant or minority group, while institutions for which they work are most often monocultural. Current Western theories, practices and training in the human services do not adequately explain, predict and deal with cultural difference and best-practice approaches for field education. This chapter discusses some of the values, biases and assumptions about human behaviour that underlie human services fieldwork. It examines their relevance for working with those who are racially or ethnically different. It also outlines how to assist students to work with clients, the necessity for linking the personal and political, and minority students’ special needs. The core of working with cultural difference is understanding self and the importance of respect for others. The authors—a Maori male and a ‘Pakeha’ (white) female— 96


96

140 × 215

WORKING WITH CULTURAL DIFFERENCE

97

have used their life experiences, values and beliefs to produce this chapter, which focuses on working with Maori (the indigenous people of Aotearoa—New Zealand).

KNOWING ABOUT BELIEFS, VALUES AND ASSUMPTIONS Although the authors’ world views differ, both believe humanity has a set of universal values that different cultures express uniquely and distinctively. They value difference and share an abiding respect for people, a deep commitment to redressing inequalities and injustices in society, and a commitment to working together to find a workable solution to the inequalities confronting them. These values are central to learning in field education. Challenging the appropriateness of theories and practices that have been taught and internalised by field educators and students is part of working effectively with cultural difference. This process is evident at all stages of learning and continues throughout professional life. Thus, in challenging beliefs, values and assumptions, field educators need to take the following factors into account: • • • •

individualism; spirituality; family; boundaries.

Theories comprise different world views and contain values, biases and assumptions about human behaviour. Social sciences theories are based largely on white, middle-class, Western-gendered values. Often they are not relevant to culturally diverse clients. When ethnocentric students (who believe their world view is shared by their culturally different clients) naively impose practices based on these theories, it can be inappropriate, culturally oppressive and even harmful (Corey 1996). All individuals are socialised within the context of a particular culture, thus assuming unconsciously that their way of thinking and acting is superior to that of other social groups (Daniels and D’Andrea 1996). It is important for field educators and students to understand that people from other cultures may not share the values and assumptions underlying their practice. Increased respect for, and acceptance of, different world views is a major educational goal in human services fieldwork.


97

140 × 215

98


Individualism Concepts of individualism and the separate existence of self are integral to the socialisation and education of human services professionals in the Western world. These concepts stem from theories of human development espousing individuation as the basis of maturity and healthy functioning. Individuation is reflected in practice by working ‘one to one’; believing that a problem resides within an individual who is thus responsible for changing it; and working towards increased independence and self-realisation. The separate self, independence and personal goals may be at odds with the value and importance of family, community and tribe in many cultures. Some societies and cultures do not perceive the individual as the psychosocial unit of operation. They have a more collective notion of identity (Sue and Sue 1990). These cultures may perceive individualism not as a positive orientation, but as a hindrance to attaining enlightenment and spiritual goals (White and Parham 1990). Self-transcendence, a harmonious relationship with nature and integration into a social reality may be more important than self-assertion. Indigenous cultures—for example, Maori and Samoan—see family, community and ancestors as being inherently intertwined with the individual. The state of self-sufficiency or self-realisation does not convey a sense of health for Maori. In fact, the opposite applies, since an ‘insistence on being overly independent suggests a defensive attitude, while a failure to turn to the family when the occasion demands is regarded as immaturity not strength. Interdependence rather than independence is the goal’ (Durie 1994: 73). Western professionals have largely neglected the family and tribal systems. They have pathologised individuals as sick, disturbed or weak if they require a system of supportive interdependent relationships. Ethnocentric field educators may label students who have a collective world view as excessively dependent; avoiding responsibility; needing to break away from their family or group; and not taking control of their own lives (Sue and Sue 1990).

Spirituality In order to assist students from different cultures, field educators need to acknowledge and respect their healing practices and spiritual beliefs. Field educators and students need to be aware that their own spiritual beliefs may differ from each other’s and their clients’.


98

140 × 215


99

In Western society, human services practice is based on scientific notions of human behaviour and personality. It is characterised by objectivity, rationality, empiricism and deductive reasoning, whereas many non-Western cultures’ healing practices and wellbeing are part of a subjective realm involving intuition and spirituality. Religious and spiritual beliefs define what is considered normal in many of these cultures. Problematic behaviour or psychological distress may be perceived as spiritual possession related to family dynamics, or a violation of religious practices. Healing often involves religious or spiritual rituals that invoke higher powers or forces to assist in the process. Healers journey to other levels of reality to find answers for people with problems (Lee 1996). Rationality and the scientific method may be field educators’ and students’ practice base, but indigenous healers hold a cosmological perspective that is part of their world view. They may make little distinction between religious/spiritual and secular life. When viewed from a Western perspective, human services practice in many non-Western cultures may be perceived as ‘primitive, unsophisticated, superstitious, unscientific and potentially harmful to people in need of help’ (Lee 1996: 87). Neither Western nor non-Western view should be seen as right or wrong. Each is based on different perceptions of the world. Field educators need to assist students to appreciate the spiritual dimensions of different cultures. Maori health, for example, has four major dimensions that are necessary for strength and balance, the most essential of which is spirituality: • • • •

taha taha taha taha

wairua (spirituality); hinengaro (thoughts and feelings); tinana (the physical aspect); whanau (the family).

Taha wairua encompasses religious beliefs and practices but is not synonymous with adherence to a particular denomination or regular churchgoing. It implies a capacity to have faith and to understand the link between the human situation and the environment: ‘Without a spiritual awareness and a mauri (spirit or vitality, sometimes called the life force), an individual cannot be healthy and is more prone to illness or misfortune’ (Durie 1994: 71). Physical features of the environment, such as mountains, lakes and reefs, also have a spiritual significance and are regularly remembered by song, tribal history and formal oratory. The natural


99

140 × 215

100


environment is considered integral to identity and fundamental to well-being. Tribal elders regard a lack of access to tribal lands and territories as a sure sign of poor health (Durie 1994).

Family In working with difference, field educators and students will be exposed to family structures, relationships, interactions and hierarchies which challenge their own assumptions about family life and the meaning of ‘family’. Independence is valued in Western culture. Dependence on the family into adulthood is regarded as a sign of immaturity. In many non-Western cultures, however, dependence on the family is strongly grounded in the support and health of the whole group. Individual health is built into the wider system in Maoridom. The boundary between personal and family identity is frequently blurred (Durie 1994). Taha whanau (the extended family) is the primary support system for Maori—physically, culturally and emotionally. The strongest sense of personal identity is derived from the family. Credibility in a Maori setting depends on an individual being able to make links to family and tribal groupings, and to demonstrate and actively participate in whanau and tribal life. When working with a student from a non-Western culture, the field educator needs to appreciate this difference and understand familial rules and protocol.

Boundaries Students working with a Western human services orientation have a set of practice rules that establish boundaries or demarcations between professional and non-professional behaviour. Maintaining clear boundaries and divisions between practitioners and clients, students and field educators is regarded as good professional practice. While these boundary issues are readily apparent in one culture, they differ in other cultures. This can be a source of confusion and raises important supervision issues such as: • • •

physical contact; time; social contact.

Physical contact is frowned upon by most Western human services professionals. It may be perceived as unethical practice. Most Pakeha professionals in Aotearoa–New Zealand touch


100

140 × 215


101

infrequently compared with people from many non-Western cultures (Gamby 1997). Pakehas define communication primarily in terms of verbal expression, whereas Maori and Samoans communicate much more with body language (Metge and Kinloch 1978). Touch is a normal part of the greeting ritual for many Maori. It involves an embrace and a kiss on the cheek, or a hongi—a handclasp, a pressing of noses and an exchange of breath. The awhi (a touch or an embrace) is part of encouragement, caring and support when people are distressed. Time is also perceived differently among different cultural groups. Western time is perceived as ‘monochronic’ or linear, whereas other cultures have a ‘polychronic’ or non-linear perception (Highlen 1996). The 50-minute therapeutic hour is not appropriate for many people from non-Western cultures. When working with a traditional Maori family, there may need to be a time allowance for protocol or ritual and, in some cases, until the problem is solved. However, this may not apply to Maori who have been raised with a Western world view. Social contact through attending community events and social gatherings is an important part of being involved as a student and practitioner with minority group clients. It shows respect for their culture and enables the student/practitioner to gain knowledge, understanding and credibility (if they are perceived as trustworthy) with minority group clients. Students may interact with clients and their families much more closely than prescribed in their code of professional ethics, due to the communities’ relatively small size and customs. A Maori hui (meeting) may last three days and require sleeping on a mattress in the whare nui (meeting house) next to current or past clients and their relatives. This activity involves a very different set of personal and spatial boundaries than working with clients in a traditional agency with Western cultural values.

ASSISTING STUDENTS TO WORK WITH CLIENTS Some minority students will be working in agencies where students and clients share the same cultural background. It is likely, however, that the majority of students will work in dominant cultural institutions with clients who are different by virtue of their race or ethnicity. This raises many important issues. A student undertaking fieldwork in a culturally different agency needs to be sure why they have chosen such a placement. If the


101

140 × 215

102


fieldwork was arbitrarily allocated, the student may need to question its appropriateness and understand the political implications. Field educators need to raise these issues with their students as part of orientation. Minority group clients may work with students from a dominant culture when the referral is mandatory, when there is a lack of ethnically matched services, or when the client has chosen to do so. Where treatment has been imposed mandatorily for remediation or punishment, clients may perceive it as cultural oppression and social control. Students need to be aware that clients may be suspicious and distrustful in these contexts. Clients may choose a practitioner who is racially or ethnically different from themselves solely because there are no culturally appropriate services available. Students need to be aware of this and the important advocacy role that is needed to push for resources and support to facilitate the development of autonomous parallel services. Nevertheless, even when appropriate services are available, some clients choose to work with someone who is culturally different. Self-identification, racial identity development, social class and cultural commitment all influence client preference. The worker’s perceived trustworthiness and cultural sensitivity have been found to be more important than cultural similarity. Even when a student comes from the same racial group as their client, there is no guarantee that the client will view them favourably, as there are more major differences within cultures than between them. Thinking that all people from a particular group will act, think or feel in a similar way is cultural stereotyping. Therefore, the field educator’s support is vital when students work with someone from a different culture. Students need assistance to approach their clients as unique human beings with their own history, experiences and behaviours, and to feel validated in the process. Students should also be aware of clients who are culturally different. They should inform them of culturally appropriate services and the possible dangers and limitations of working together. Students, with their field educator’s support, should take responsibility for any difficulties that may arise in achieving understanding. Perhaps the most important attribute for a field educator or student working across cultures is acknowledging what they don’t know. This is very difficult. Field educators need to be alert to nuances and issues related to the student’s awareness, sensitivity and knowledge. When working with someone from a different


102

140 × 215


103

culture, it is important to receive cultural monitoring and to be accountable to a person or group from the client’s culture. This person or group will need to have their community’s respect and endorsement. Their beliefs, knowledge and wisdom must be respected in all work that is undertaken.

LINKING POLITICAL ANALYSIS WITH PERSONAL RESPONSES Ideally, before the fieldwork begins, students will have an understanding of the historical and contemporary inter-racial relationships. These relationships are often based on conquest, colonisation, exploitation and oppression. As part of their training, students will gain a political and structural awareness of society and the mechanisms of oppression. Their personal awareness of how they contribute to these discriminatory practices—albeit unwittingly—may not be evident. Students need to recognise that culturally different clients’ behaviour is often an understandable response to political and economic factors and the multiple cultural oppressions of race, class, gender and sexual preference. Students need to understand the necessity to focus on the interplay of the personal and political for change to occur. It is important that students feel safe discussing feelings and experiences. Their social identity and the extent to which they have internalised society’s dominant ideologies and values will determine how they respond to issues of privilege and oppression. It is likely that the student will feel guilt, shame, loss and confusion as they analyse social status and power, re-evaluate their world views and perceive their identities in the context of racist power structures. The student will need the field educator’s support in moving from self-blame to alternative beliefs and behaviours. Minority group students will also need support when they experience feelings of depression and anger, and as they become increasingly aware of societal oppression (Lago and Thompson 1997).

MINORITY GROUP STUDENTS The expertise and knowledge of minority group students studying for the helping professions is a ‘hidden curriculum’ that enriches


103

140 × 215

104


the learning of dominant group students (Nuttall et al. 1996). Minority group students, however, often suffer discrimination, stereotyping and hostility from educators during their training. The minority–majority power differential leads many of these students to ‘play the game’ rather than challenge cultural stereotypes, racism and cultural oppression. Such a challenge may put their professional survival at risk. Playing the game can be exhausting and disempowering. Promising careers may be compromised or destroyed by fieldwork that is culturally oppressive. Students may struggle with unrealistic and contradictory peer and faculty expectations and the associated conflict of operating in different cultural milieux. It is vital that field educators be sensitive to minority students’ needs. They may require support from culturally different mentors and the wider system to enable them to confront racism and cultural oppression, and enhance their professional careers (Nuttall et al. 1996).

Understanding self Fear of difference, disempowerment and the unknown are obstacles to achieving respect for others. Overcoming these requires increasing self-awareness and acknowledgment of one’s vulnerability. Vulnerability is generally regarded as a weakness, not a strength, and is difficult to overcome. Matheson (1986) gives a clue to overcoming it by noting vulnerability’s paradox: the instant a person experiences vulnerability they conquer whatever forces pose a threat. These forces may include fear of losing power, control, position or property, cultural baggage and the safety of the familiar and other aspects such as fear of change and a backlog of anger, suspicion and frustration over past encounters with difference.

Respect Human services practitioners working with culturally different clients need to hold double frames or ‘truths’ simultaneously (Gilligan 1996). If a field educator or student perceives differences in behaviour, beliefs and attitudes as unreconcilable opposites—one way is right and all others are wrong—this intellectual and emotional position invalidates anyone who is different and makes working together impossible. If there is a deep respect for people and difference, however, it is possible to hold double frames or opposite realities. Lou Matheson’s paper ‘How can you treat an Indian if you are not an Indian?’ (1986) discusses the respect needed to work


104

140 × 215


105

with someone from another culture. Once fear, hostility and resistance are relinquished, there is no longer anything to fear or feel hostile toward. Only then can a person truly respect another’s otherness and make space for their story.

Listening Cultural oppression in the human services is the imposition of one individual’s values and beliefs on culturally different clients. Field educators can reduce the chance of imposing their values and goals on their students by declining to take an expert role, instead focusing on, and listening intently to, what the student is expressing and requesting. The supervision process is best guided by each student’s particular goals and values, not by what the field educator thinks is best. Western thinking distinguishes between words and emotions, generally emphasising the importance of words. When working with students from another culture, it is important to listen deeply to what is being said—not only with the mind but also with the heart. It is necessary to attend deeply to non-verbal communication. Body language conveys many different meanings in different cultures. For Maori, eye contact is not necessarily made when telling a story or listening intently. Emotional communication can be as meaningful as an exchange of words. A subtle gesture, eye movement or bland expression may convey unspoken signals. Tears, not words, frequently convey condolences (Durie 1994).

Practice principles The ability to fully engage and work successfully with culturally different students will depend upon the field educator’s: • • • • • • •

openness, flexibility and sensitivity to cultural diversity; recognition of the limits of their cultural knowledge and skills; personal awareness and understanding of their own cultural heritage and how it informs their world views; respect for the student’s values, attitudes, beliefs, history and healing practices; awareness of their student’s ethnic identity, level of acculturation, colonisation and urbanisation; appreciation of spirituality and holistic healing; understanding of racism, oppression and the socio-political forces that shape their students’ lives;


105

140 × 215

106 • •


ability to liaise and consult with appropriate people from the client’s culture to whom the client is accountable; ability to question traditional models of supervision and be open to developing alternative approaches.

THEORY INTO PRACTICE There are many differing beliefs and practices in New Zealand relating to working with cultural difference and the most appropriate models of education and training for human services workers. ‘Field Te Runaka ki Otautahi o Kai Tahu’ is one approach to putting theory into practice. It evolved from the authors’ experiences and illustrates how the practice principles are applied in the field. It was chosen to illustrate specifically how two different cultural groups—Maori students and Maori organisation, Pakeha field educator—worked together to develop deeply satisfying, challenging fieldwork to fulfil the requirements of a largely monocultural university.

Field Te Runaka ki Otautahi o Kai Tahu The fieldwork evolved because three Maori women undertaking human services training felt their learning needs would best be met by having at least one of their fieldwork experiences within a Maori setting. They were the only full-time Maori students in a class of 25 and at that time no Maori fieldwork options were available. They wanted to learn more about their own culture, their people’s needs and how they might respond to this challenge. Each student had different knowledge and experience of the language and culture.

Negotiation The students were encouraged to negotiate fieldwork with Te Runaka ki Otautahi o Kai Tahu (the local Tribal Council for Christchurch). In consultation with the kaumatua (elders) and members of the Runaka (Tribal Council), they organised nine weeks of fieldwork at the end of their first year of training. The Maori terms used here reflect the local tribal dialect—‘ng’ is replaced by ‘k’. No accredited Maori field educators were available. Community demands prevented the only member of the Runaka with a formal human services qualification (whom they had hoped would


106

140 × 215


107

supervise them) from attending some of the training sessions for accreditation as a field educator. The tertiary institution therefore deemed him ineligible for that role. The students then approached an accredited Pakeha woman field educator (one of the authors) to supervise their practice.

Accountability When writing this chapter, it was important for the author to consult with the students about their experiences to ensure she did not impose her interpretations of the fieldwork. The students indicated that they had felt no barriers around cultural difference. They felt comfortable with her supervision because she had some experience of Maori life, some understanding of Maori tikaka (customs and practices), and had spiritual connections. From the field educator’s point of view, her knowledge and experience felt like a drop in the ocean. The fieldwork was very much a two-way learning experience. Her role involved some uncertainty in facilitating cooperatively a unique field placement to fulfil the requirements of both the university and the Runaka. It developed, however, into a rewarding learning experience for everyone who participated in the fieldwork. The fieldwork contract The students and kaumatua formulated a clear contract delineating the students’ learning needs and objectives. Students kept a dayby-day diary of their activities, attended supervision as a group with their Pakeha field educator once a week, and had regular (often daily) teaching sessions involving Maori tikaka with members of the Runaka. The contract stipulated attendance at takihaka (funerals), and that iwi-based (tribal-based) development hui were to take precedence over other aspects of the program. The students saw their accountability as being to the Runaka, from the earliest planning through to evaluation. The importance of identity in fieldwork All the students were of Kai Tahu (the tribe of the area and the Runaka) and other tribal descent. Strong genealogical ties linked them to each other, the Runaka, their iwi (tribe) and their tipuna (ancestors). They were bound by whakapapa (genealogy), history and tradition. They worked within Maori lore which they saw as strict at times, but which laid down a challenge they rose to meet. They knew they represented the Runaka and all Kai Tahu, and


107

140 × 215

108


that they had the mana (status) and integrity of their iwi to uphold in everything they did. The students worked both collectively and individually. They supported and challenged each other, utilising different strengths from their different backgrounds to work as a group. The students felt they were taught by their past, supported and guided by a lifetime of learning from their kaumatua and tipuna. This was particularly so in regard to their place in the universe. One student summed this up, saying: ‘Knowing who you are and talking about your whakapapa encourages clients’ whakawhanaukataka (family belongingness).’ One of this chapter’s authors is a tohuka ahurewa (priest of sacred rites). As an elder, he taught the students about cosmology, the holistic nature of oraka (health) and particularly of taha wairua. Karakia (prayers) were said daily in response to a variety of situations. Taha wairua, an inherent part of Maori kawa (protocol) and tikaka, was an integral part of the fieldwork. Kawa and tikaka were observed in all situations on the fieldwork.

Networking The fieldwork involved networking with organisations that were committed to a Maori kaupapa (agenda) and provided services for Maori. Some of these groups worked with Maori within dominant institutions. Others worked autonomously with their own people. It was here that the knowledge the students had learnt on the course relating to macro-social policy and legislation proved to be most pertinent. The analysis of theory and how it related to the practice of the organisations they observed raised many challenging questions. Evaluation The kaumatua and members of the Runaka conducted the evaluation of the students’ fieldwork. The Pakeha supervisor was also present. The evaluation was much more challenging than the usual university process. It began with greetings and an acknowledgment of the tipuna and all who were present. Karakia were said. Then, in accord with their oral tradition, each student stood up in turn and gave their presentation. They began with a mihi (speech) and waiata (song) in the reo (Maori language), telling of their ancestral links to the land and the people. They spoke of their experiences in the field, how they had met the Runaka’s goals, the knowledge and skills they had acquired, and what the fieldwork meant to them personally in all aspects of their lives.


108

140 × 215


109

The students, although anxious, glowed with pride. The changes they had made in such a short time were evident—physically, intellectually, emotionally and spiritually. It was a moving and learning experience for everyone involved. The students have continued to develop their own unique ways of being and are now all employed in senior human services positions.

SUMMARY Working with someone from another culture is an ongoing challenge for any professional. It is particularly so for the supervisor of a student who is confronted by a multiplicity of new experiences and learning situations in fieldwork. For the neophyte human services worker, fieldwork is generally the most anxiety-provoking, challenging and rewarding aspect of their training. This is intensified when working with cultural difference. A sensitive and knowledgeable supervisor who is both mentor and role model enhances the integration of practice and theory in action. The degree to which a field educator is sociopolitically aware, values the richness of pluralism and appreciates the strengths of diversity will have a profound effect on their students’ practice. He puawaitanga no te harakeke; he rito whakaki I nga wharuarua. (The flax flowers; new shoots fill the empty gaps) (tribal oral saying)


109

140 × 215


110

140 × 215

SECTION 2 THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF FIELDWORK MANAGEMENT


111

140 × 215


112

140 × 215

9

Overview of responsibilities of fieldwork management

Lynne Briggs and Lesley Cooper THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF FIELDWORK MANAGEMENT OVERVIEW OF RESPONSIBILITIES OF FIELDWORK MANAGEMENT

Fieldwork is situated in the middle of three intersecting systems: the university, the fieldwork setting and the students’ world. There are three key people at the core of these systems: the student, the field educator and the university coordinator. Each of these people comes with a particular set of responsibilities and obligations, and interacts with the others as part of the field education process. The field educator is the core person, so it is useful to examine their specific responsibilities. The field educator is responsible to: • • • • •

the student for their learning and their practice experience; the agency for the provision of services to clients; clients for competent, safe and quality student practice; the university for student learning and assessment; the profession for the socialisation of students to professional practice.

Changes to higher education, legislative and common law requirements, and the structure and management of the human services make management of fieldwork more complex. The challenge for all field educators is how to manage these complex interacting systems on a daily basis. In most Western countries, higher education is undergoing rapid change. It is now expected to contribute directly to the national economic effort by producing well-trained, highly 113


113

140 × 215

114

THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF FIELDWORK MANAGEMENT

competent specialists to meet business and industry needs. Greater efficiencies are expected in an increasingly competitive global environment. Each institution competes within and outside its own country for a distinctive image, intake of students and placement of students in off-campus fieldwork. Over the past decade, universities have made the transition from a selective, elitist approach to a system of mass higher education, leading to a change in the student profile. There are more students and there is a greater diversity among those requiring field education. These students have legal and educational entitlements that need consideration in fieldwork management. Universities and field educators are required to comply with specific legislative requirements to ensure that students do not suffer discrimination based on race, religion, gender or culture. All students have a right to study, to be provided with fieldwork and to be encouraged to succeed in their chosen area of practice. The university and the agency have a ‘duty of care’ in relation to the student. The university should ensure that students have a knowledge of the fieldwork agency before finalising the fieldwork contract. It is part of the field educator’s duty of care to identify hazards, take steps to minimise risk to students, and to foresee any likely dangers. All parties involved need to take steps to ensure that this duty of care is exercised, as ignorance provides no excuse in law. Most students now pay for their education and therefore have a contractual relationship with the university and field educators for provision of practical learning. Students are becoming increasingly knowledgable about the university’s and human services agency’s responsibilities to them, and are asserting their contractual rights to ensure that a quality fieldwork education and assessment are provided. Given the diverse responsibilities of field educators, a recurrent theme is the extent to which they should respond to the myriad of ethical dilemmas that surround field education. Field educators become de facto ethics counsellors to their students. Ethical problems range from the trivial to serious transgressions involving incompetent practice, boundary transgressions and the coercion and manipulation of students. It is unfortunate that, in the context of scarcity, these ethical infringements are under-reported. Nevertheless, the management of ethical problems is an important consideration in all fieldwork. Human services agencies have been experiencing a crisis in


114

140 × 215

OVERVIEW OF RESPONSIBILITIES OF FIELDWORK MANAGEMENT

115

rapid change similar to that in the universities. Agencies in the human services industry also require greater efficiencies, with resources focused on quality of services to achieve outcomes. There have been shifts in public-sector employment, including reduced public-sector involvement in direct service delivery, agency restructuring, tendering out of services to the non-government sector and increased use of contract employment. Such changes in the workplace immediately impact on fieldwork. There is a scarcity of placements. In some cases, the quality of available placements is compromised. Many experienced field educators have taken redundancy packages, and have been replaced by inexperienced contract workers, uncertain of their future working arrangements and reluctant to take responsibility for student education. Agencies and training providers across many countries have responded positively to these challenges. Many human services agencies are working with higher education institutions to form partnerships and develop innovative ways to meet the experiential needs of human services fieldwork students.

OVERVIEW: SECTION 2 Steven Shardlow provides an international perspective on legal responsibility and liability in fieldwork in Chapter 10. He outlines the nature of the relationship between the student and the university, specifying the university’s responsibilities to the student. Some of these responsibilities include access to fieldwork and the provision of equal opportunities and information to students, especially with regard to health and safety risks. He goes on to examine the complex issue of transfer of information between training providers and field educators, and the responsibilities to the student’s clients. The chapter concludes with an exercise to explore the legal complexities of human services fieldwork. A discussion of ethics in the human services fieldwork follows in Chapter 11. Lynne Briggs and Raylee Kane argue that ethics is about the individual’s or group’s collective value system and the study of principles on which these systems are based. The authors outline these ethical principles and some of the current tensions surrounding them. The ultimate purpose of ethics is also discussed. Two vignettes incorporating cultural issues are presented. The authors then use the outlined ethical principles to unpack these


115

140 × 215

116


issues. The chapter concludes with an outline of a problem-solving process for ethical dilemmas. Chapter 12 takes a step away from ethics and law to look at maintaining the partnerships between educators and practitioners. June Allan explores the concept of partnerships between educators, practitioners and employer organisations, and the extent to which these relationships can be fostered and expanded. She examines the reasons for, and benefits of, such partnerships, and argues that partnerships not only embody a response to market forces but also a response to new ways of thinking about human services fieldwork. This new ideology incorporates reciprocal arrangements. At the end of the chapter, June outlines a strategy that educators and practitioners might adopt to develop teaching and learning partnerships. Innovation is a necessity in the rapidly changing world of human services and education. In Chapter 13, Helen Cleak, Linette Hawkins and Lew Hess extend June Allan’s work and describe some innovative fieldwork. The chapter begins by discussing traditional fieldwork placements and a history of innovations in human services fieldwork. The authors explain their own interpretations of ‘innovation’, arguing that innovative approaches require flexible learning approaches. The chapter concludes with an outline of some innovative approaches to the structural dilemmas practitioners face when planning student field education.


116

140 × 215

10

Legal responsibility and liability in fieldwork

Steven Shardlow LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY AND LIABILITY IN FIELDWORK

‘If the law supposes that,’ said Mr Bumble . . . ‘the law is a ass—a idiot.’ (Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist, Ch. 51) ‘Laws grind the poor, and rich men rule the law.’ (Oliver Goldsmith, ‘The Traveller’, line 386)

More and more aspects of life today are regulated and subject to laws. The injured, discriminated against or just plain disappointed are more likely to be litigious, as witnessed by a growing interest in liability issues in relation to human services practice in the United States. Yet recent publications on field education give little attention to the legal issues involved in providing fieldwork. This neglect is regrettable and potentially serious. Students, field educators, field liaisons and university staff ignore liability issues at their peril and to the detriment of all students and clients. This chapter identifies aspects of fieldwork that might, and do, generate legal responsibility or liability. Examples from Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States are used most frequently to illustrate these aspects. Once the legal issues have been identified, the relevant people need to ensure that policies and protocols are devised, developed and deployed with humanity and justice to meet fieldwork legal liabilities. For the most part, it is not practical to attach responsibility to roles, given the plethora of fieldwork roles and differing terminology used around the globe 117


117

140 × 215

118


to refer to them. Attempting to identify where central liability issues could be located might seem to contain a presumption that there is a common and shared legal framework across nation states. This is not intended. Rather, the approach is to suggest issues that might need to be considered within any particular legal and cultural context. Nor is any claim made that the points identified provide a comprehensive ‘list’ of such issues that might arise during the fieldwork.

INSTITUTIONAL LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY Universities have two fundamental legal responsibilities: •

•

an obligation to provide a ‘duty of care’ in respect of all individuals and organisations with which the university has dealings. This obligation should be exercised with ‘due diligence’—the university must take reasonable steps to take account of information received, using it to identify and act on hazards, thus minimising risks to students, agencies and staff; an obligation to comply with any specific legislation governing citizens’ behaviour, including occupational health and safety and anti-discrimination legislation, and equal opportunity and confidentiality provisions in the workplace.

The university can fulfil its obligations through formal contractual relationships with agencies that provide student fieldwork. Some Australian universities have a formal contract between themselves and the fieldwork agencies, setting out the legal framework including intentions, obligations and rights of all parties for the fieldwork. For example, at the Flinders University of South Australia, this contract refers to the: • • •

•

university’s responsibility to provide fieldwork; university’s responsibility to liaise with agencies, assist field educators, and inform students of their role and responsibilities; agencies’ responsibility to orient students to the agency, provide supervision, evaluate performance, provide written reports and provide the university with access to facilities to assist student supervision and teaching; students’ responsibilities, especially observation of the agency’s rules, regulations and protocols, and to keep information confidential;


118

140 × 215

LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY AND LIABILITY IN FIELDWORK

•

•

119

insurance coverage provided for students. Professional indemnity and public liability are provided. The university indemnifies the agency for any financial loss arising from damage or personal injury suffered by the agency as a result of any negligent acts or omissions of staff, students or authorised contractors and agents working for the university; dispute-resolution procedures and various discipline-specific assessment schedules.

Such contractual relationships lead to a requirement that complaints or grievance procedures exist and that universities’ actions with respect to all aspects of education, including the fieldwork, are subject to judicial review. The nature of the relationship between university and student, whether specified by formal contract or not, determines the university’s responsibility for the student’s experience during the fieldwork. Human services students will almost always have reached the age of majority. It can be assumed, therefore, that the university is not in loco parentis (in the place of parents). Hence human services students are responsible adults who have a ‘contractual relationship’ with the university for the provision of human services education. The precise nature of this relationship will determine liability issues (Farrington 1998; Arrowsmith and Hart 1998; Kaplan 1995). In US law, if the field liaison’s function is to ‘refer’ students to agencies providing a potential field placement, then the university has no responsibility for any injury the student might sustain while on the fieldwork (Wuerffel v. Westinghouse (1977)). The fieldwork agency would have sole responsibility for satisfying itself about student suitability, and sole liability of all aspects of the fieldwork experience. This type of relationship may be the case in some states, whereby university staff would have minimal legal liability for students’ fieldwork experiences. In the majority of states, however, the fieldwork will more likely be regarded as an integral and required part of the student’s education—an essential element of professional training, not an extra-curricular activity. Therefore the fieldwork will be provided according to rules similar to those of the course’s class-based elements. Failure to provide a suitable placement or any placement at all will most likely leave the university open to a liability action, even though it does not provide the placement directly. Regulatory bodies in different states define and provide different levels of guidance or prescription about field education’s


119

140 × 215

120


content, form and length. The proportion of field education to class-based work varies greatly—certainly across European states (Brauns and Kramer 1986; Cocozza 1989; Lorenz 1986). Sometimes these rules and guidance emanate from national government. This gives them the formal status of law or decree—for example, in Italy, ‘Decree 25 March 1998 signed by the Minister of Labour’; or France, ‘Decree 80–334, 6 May 1980, regarding the training of social workers’. They may also emanate from regional government, as with the Berlin ‘Sozialarbeitsberufeanerkennungsgesetz’—law of state recognition of state professions, 28 March 1998. Governments may not be directly involved when bodies such as the Central Council for Education and Training (CCETSW) in the United Kingdom issue regulations. CCETSW is a ‘quango’ (quasiautonomous governmental body) that was set up and given responsibility to regulate human services education and to issue national regulations (CCETSW 1995). Finally, national law may not specify any regulations. In Sweden, individual university regulations prescribe the fieldwork’s form (see, for example, the University of Gotëborg’s Sweden regulations, adopted 1993). The nature of the body that issues the regulations will greatly affect the student’s rights if they are dissatisfied, thus creating a range of different liabilities.

ACCESS TO FIELD EDUCATION: RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES TO ALL Most states will have some legislation that protects the rights of certain groups who have experienced discrimination or social exclusion due to age, gender, race or sexual orientation with regard to lack of employment rights and reduced access to social goods such as education and health. Hence the university and the fieldwork agency share an obligation to ensure that equal access to human services education is provided for all groups in society. Similarly, there should be equality of access to the various opportunities for field education. Cooper (1995: 40) argues that there is evidence that a field placement shortage means the allocation of placements ‘is similar to the rationing of health and welfare services that permit and encourage bias as the most important factor in determining services’. Unfair allocation creates the possibility of liability actions. In the United States, disabled students must be given equal opportu-


120

140 × 215


121

nities to learn (Americans with Disabilities Act 1990 and the earlier Rehabilitation Act 1973, in particular Section 504). This legislation (see Cole et al. 1995) requires that a person with a disability must both establish the existence and extent of the disability and, further, that the disability is responsible for significantly limiting a major life opportunity ( Jasany v. United States Postal Service (1985)). Students cannot be denied access to fieldwork because of disability. Some states have grounds on which students may be denied access to fieldwork. In the United Kingdom the Home Office (1986, 1993) has introduced national procedures to restrict those (including students) with criminal convictions for paedophilia or violence from being employed in service work with children (other groups are not so protected). The state of Victoria, Australia, adopts a similar approach, restricting the right of access to fieldwork for those with criminal convictions. In the United Kingdom, all staff working in the human services who have direct contact with children must undergo a ‘police check’—an investigation of their conviction record. The police give the employing agency a statement of the individual’s conviction history. The employing agency must then determine whether the person’s conviction status is sufficiently serious to deny them access to children. There is evidence of variation between agencies in the interpretation of these requirements with respect to the offence’s nature and seriousness. If universities deny a student access to fieldwork, they may face a liability action. The ground on which a university might decide to restrict access depends on to whom the university owes a duty of care. The existence of a duty to care can be established when ‘the person or organisation who is deemed to be negligent owed duty of care to the plaintiff ’ (Gleed 1996: 99). If the duty of care is owed solely to the student, then there appear to be very few grounds on which students could be denied access to fieldwork. This is the case in Australia where the Commonwealth Equal Opportunities Legislation (EEO) imposes a duty on universities not to discriminate against students according to age, race, gender, disability, sexual orientation or criminal background in respect of the provision of education. Thus, even if a university knew that a student might present a danger to clients during the fieldwork and accordingly denied that student the learning opportunity, the university could face a liability action from the student. The contentious issue here is whether or not the university owes the client a duty of care, and whether the state law allows such a duty to be considered and balanced against the duty of care


121

140 × 215

122


owed to the student. If the university does owe the client a duty of care, then it must act accordingly. It may face a liability action from a client for failure to protect them. Likewise, the agency also has duty to care for its clients. Therefore human services agencies have a duty to select students who have the level of competence necessary to work in that agency. If a student were negligent during fieldwork, the resultant costs might be shared between agency and university. These issues are very complex and depend upon the particular state law.

PROVIDING INFORMATION TO STUDENTS Field liaisons, university staff and field educators have a joint responsibility to provide students who are about to undertake fieldwork with a great deal of information about personal safety; harassment, discrimination and abuse; health; and insurance. Failure to provide some types of information may not only adversely affect the student’s learning opportunities during fieldwork, but could lead to student or client liability actions against the fieldwork agency and university. During the fieldwork, students may be physically assaulted, sexually harassed or verbally abused. They may be subject to threats of personal abuse or violence or harassment from clients, or may actually be the victims of assault, harassment or abuse. There is little literature on the prevalence of violence, abuse or harassment experienced by students in the field. There appear to be only two recently reported empirical studies on students as victims of violence during fieldwork (Grossman 1990; Tully et al. 1993). Students need information about agency procedures for the management of potentially violent situations. They should be given the same guidance as newly employed staff. Universities also have an obligation to develop risk-minimisation strategies and to set up effective strategies to deal with reported cases (Allen 1995). Failure to do so may lead to liability issues for the university or the fieldwork agency. Students must also be advised about any known health risk during fieldwork. This is currently a neglected area of liability. Certain fieldwork experiences may carry unusual health risks— students may be infected by clients and vice versa. Students have a right to be given the health advice and medical examinations normally given to new employees in that agency. Students may


122

140 × 215


123

then choose, for example, to be inoculated against diseases such as hepatitis (if their field placement is an agency with chemical abusers where likelihood of contact with this particular disease may be high). HIV/AIDS has brought the matter of health to the forefront in field education. In the United Kingdom, CCETSW has issued guidance for human services students. Students must be advised about who is responsible for the provision of various types of insurance. In Australia, human services agencies are responsible for occupational health and safety issues and are required to brief students about the particular procedures that apply in each workplace. Health risks, safety with clients, home visits and working with domestic violence are some of the issues that fall under this heading. Insurance issues about which students need to be given information are: • • • •

personal accident or injury insurance; public liability insurance; professional indemnity insurance; transport insurance.

Personal accident or injury insurance This provides insurance if students are injured while performing required duties as part of the fieldwork experience. In the United Kingdom, all employers are required to provide insurance for employees under the Employer’s Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969. In Australia, some student unions provide insurance cover for all enrolled students for any injury sustained during university activities. Public liability insurance This provides indemnity cover for loss or injury to a person (on or off campus) resulting from negligent acts or omissions of the university, including actions of students in ‘approved’ work experience or fieldwork. In Australia, the university’s insurance covers public liability issues for fieldwork. In Italy, however, some universities may have problems in providing insurance for work done off their premises. Professional indemnity insurance This provides indemnity cover against liability actions that clients may take out against students on account of the student’s actions during work with the client. The nature of this provision is nation


123

140 × 215

124


state-specific. Coverage for students may be under public liability insurance. In the United States, however, some students must have indemnity insurance of at least $3 million (Gelman and Wardell 1988). In the United Kingdom the employer provides the cover. Additional cover may be provided through trade union or professional association membership. If students are regarded legally as full employees, they will enjoy the same protection at law as employees. If not, it is the field liaison’s responsibility to advise the student and, if necessary, help the student make appropriate arrangements.

Transport insurance This provides third party insurance for any injuries to clients that may result from students’ negligence if transporting them in the student’s vehicle in the course of the student’s work. Hence the student must have insurance (of the type specified by the state and the agency) to cover this liability. In Australia, it is the student’s personal responsibility to ensure they have the correct insurance if using their own vehicle to transport clients during work.

PROVIDING INFORMATION TO FIELD EDUCATORS Students have rights to confidentiality. In the United States the Federal Privacy Act 1984 protects students’ rights. The Act requires that students and/or their parents must give written permission before disclosure (oral or written) of information from students’ records. This and similar legislation in other states generates a range of potential liability issues—is there a need to reveal information about the student such as illness, disability, mental illness or chemical abuse? Providing such information to field educators may be in conflict with students’ rights to privacy, even if it is to help provide adequate learning experiences; take account of students’ learning needs; provide remedial help to achieve learning objectives; protect clients; or alert field educators to potential problems. In a recent empirical study, Reeser and Wertkin (1997) compared the views of students, field liaisons and field educators on whether students’ personal information should be shared with field educators in circumstances where that information might protect the agency providing the student fieldwork against potential


124

140 × 215


125

liability risks. They found that 68 per cent of field educators, 18 per cent of faculty liaisons and 29 per cent of students thought the information ought to be provided (based on a sample of 573 field educators, 232 students and 63 liaisons). Interestingly, 37 per cent of students who did not think information ought to be shared gave the reason that to do so might result in a lawsuit from the student for releasing that information! There may be legal limitations on the information that may be passed to, or sought by, field educators. In respect of disabilities, Reeser and Wertkin (1997) state that the Americans with Disabilities Act 1990, s. 1026, limits the questions that can be asked of students, since these laws prohibit ‘inquiries about the existence, nature, severity, cause, prognosis of disability’ (1997: 359). Hence they suggest that students can be asked whether they are able to undertake the fieldwork’s required tasks. It is essential that an environment of trust is created that allows disabled students to feel secure enough to respond to such questions honestly and without fear of prejudice. The human services programs also need to have a very clear set of statements about student requirements for completion of the fieldwork. Other countries will have similar laws, although the emphasis may be different. What is not immediately apparent is the distribution of responsibilities among the fieldwork coordinator, the faculty liaison, the academic tutor, the field educator and the student. Different problems may arise where students refuse to grant permission for disclosure. Serious difficulties arise where the university takes the view that this information must be revealed if the quality of service to clients is not to be prejudiced. Such circumstances can only be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the level of risk and the possibility of developing strategies for risk minimisation (School Board of Nassau County, Fla v. Arline (1987)). In an overview of the literature about sharing sensitive information, Reeser and Wertkin (1997: 34) suggest that: ‘programs should delineate the rights of students to privacy, of clients to have their welfare protected, of agencies to make informed choices and have relevant student information, and of schools to make educationally sound student–practicum matches’. A series of questions to be asked at the point of disclosure should be developed—probably by field education coordinators—to ensure that the liability issues involved in the sharing of sensitive information have been recognised. Such questions may be:


125

140 × 215

126 •

• •


Is there a legal requirement to provide this information (are there certain types that must be provided and others where there can be some discretion)? Have others been consulted for guidance (in doubtful cases)? Is the person providing the information acting in what they believe to be the best interests of students and/or clients?

DUTY TO PROTECT CLIENTS Employers are generally vicariously liable for employees’ work when this is part of the employees’ duty. This is often known as the doctrine of ‘respondent superior’—let the person-in-charge respond. This doctrine should not be taken to imply that employees have no responsibility for actions committed in the course of their employment. Rather, both employee and employer may have legal liability. The precise ‘distribution of accountability’ is likely to vary according to the state’s particular configuration of laws. If the student enjoys an equivalent legal status with that of an employee, then ‘respondent superior’ applies to students and field educators. There are two potential problems with this position, however. Firstly, it cannot be assumed that human services agencies are in the general category of employers and have similar liabilities to other employers. In the United Kingdom, it appears at present that it is not possible to sue a local authority (as a human services provider) and that the employer cannot be held accountable for damage caused. In 1995, the Law Lords (the highest court in the United Kingdom) determined that the parents of three children, who claimed to be the victims of child abuse that Bedfordshire Social Services had failed to prevent, could not sue Bedfordshire because it would be against the public interest. The ground for this decision was that it was in the public interest for money allocated to the local authority to be spent on providing human services, not on paying damages or defending lawsuits for liability brought by aggrieved parties in respect of liability issues! The European Court of Human Rights will consider this decision. Secondly, the student’s status during fieldwork may not be certain. They could be regarded as employees, with full employee rights, or as volunteers. This latter status might well be the case where students receive no payment from the agency for work done


126

140 × 215


127

during fieldwork. In the majority of states, students’ status during the fieldwork is unlikely to be determined unless, and until, a contentious case is brought before the courts. There is an increasing emphasis on ensuring the quality of work done with clients in all aspects of the human services. Liability for student quality may rest at organisational or individual level. Individuals who supervise others face numerous areas of potential liability within the organisation. Reamer (1989: 445–6) suggests the following examples involving failure of the supervisor to: • • • • • • •

provide information necessary for supervisees to obtain client consent; catch supervisees’ errors in all phases of contact, such as an inappropriate disclosure of confidential material; protect third parties, or defamation of character; detect or stop a negligent treatment plan before it is carried out beyond its effectiveness; determine that a specialist is needed for the treatment; meet regularly with supervisees; review and approve of the supervisees’ decisions and to provide adequate coverage in the supervisees’ absence.

In addition, a potentially liable situation exists if a supervisee is involved sexually with a client or exerts unnecessary treatment influence on the client and conceals it from the supervisor, or the client’s record is inadequate and the supervisor does not improve it. Over and above these general liability issues for all supervisors, field educators have additional potential liability issues: • • •

•

placing a student in an appropriate position and expecting them to carry out work without adequate preparation; giving excessive responsibility to students—responsibility of being the sole person in charge of a facility; not taking reasonable steps to ensure that the quality of practice is maintained—not directly observing a student’s practice with clients; failing students unjustifiably, depriving them of a career and earnings.

The field educator has potential liability for all actions performed in the line of duty by a student during the fieldwork. This includes acts of both commission and omission. The field educator is


127

140 × 215

128


responsible for ensuring that students maintain set human services standards. Failure to do so may lead to the field educator being held accountable at law. In Australia, if a student fails to act satisfactorily with clients, that student must be withdrawn from the fieldwork as soon as possible and the fieldwork agency’s insurance company informed of a potential claim.

THEORY INTO PRACTICE The university’s field education coordinator is responsible for ensuring that protocols exist for the program to meet national legal requirements, specific regulations concerning field education as prescribed by competent agencies, and other foreseeable legal requirements. Similarly, within the human services agency, the senior manager with overall responsibility for fieldwork delivery should ensure that explicit policies exist for the organisation and management of the fieldwork within that agency. These should include statements about student expectations, and make explicit liability issues for the benefit of student and field educator. Where a partnership between agencies and a university (as in the United Kingdom) delivers human services education, it is possible for the partnership to develop a common set of protocols. Whatever the organisational arrangements, it does not seem reasonable to expect that individual field educators should be left with the sole responsibility for determining the nature of the particular liability issues for any particular human services agency. The following is an example of an exercise that can be modified for use in different contexts. Yolanda, a field educator working in a multidisciplinary health resource centre for people with HIV/AIDS, decided early in the fieldwork to help Marie (a student on her first field placement) become aware of the fieldwork’s liability issues. She gave Marie an exercise—the Liability Lottery (see Table 10.1). Yolanda carefully explained the notion of legal liability, then asked Marie to think about the possible legal liability issues and statements. She also asked Marie to rank (1–10) who she thought was most liable for the particular aspects of her fieldwork, and to note down any contentious issues that she identified. Yolanda read Marie’s completed exercise. At the next tutorial, she and Marie discussed Marie’s views. This highlighted Marie’s


128

140 × 215

129


Table 10.1

The ‘legal liability lottery’

Legal liability statements—who has liability for the following? Quality of face-to-face work completed by a student with clients Accidental needle injury leads to student contracting HIV Students do not inform educators of mental health problems Ensuring that records of work are maintained Student is seriously assaulted by a client—learning he is HIV+ Student reports breach of law by doctor to educator Failure by a student to complete an agreed program of work A client is injured in a crash while driven in the student’s car Student contracts hepatitis B during the fieldwork Provision of information from earlier fieldwork Student will not advise AIDS patient of risk to sex partners Student does not have regulations for fieldwork To provide a suitable environment for the delivery of fieldwork Students do not discuss sexual harassment by client Student sued for giving client inappropriate information

Student 0

Field Medical educator University staff 7

3

0

Legal liability—contentious issues 1 2 3 4 5 6

confusion about the relationship between her personal liability and that of the fieldwork agency. As a consequence, Yolanda gave Marie some suggested reading, advised her about existing policies and initiated discussion with the field liaison about the general principles.


129

140 × 215

130


SUMMARY The provision of fieldwork for students in human services courses generates a number of legal liability issues for university staff, field educators, field liaisons, students and clients. It also generates broader institutional considerations for universities, human services agencies that provide fieldwork and the relevant competent bodies that have jurisdiction over the rules and regulations governing the fieldwork (see Gelman et al. 1996; Zakutansky and Sirles 1993). Different states will have different national laws in respect of data protection, educational requirements, prevention of discrimination and privacy. Taking account of both the likely locus of laws and the fieldwork process, it is possible to identify key points of legal liability: • • • • •

the responsibilities of competent national authorities; the duty of care owed by universities; the maintenance of access to the fieldwork; the provision of information to field educator and student; the field educator’s liability for the work done by the student during the fieldwork.

Key individuals in universities and human services agencies are responsible for ensuring that protocols exist to provide guidance on these liability issues. Many of these liabilities remain untested in law but, as the litigation seems to be increasing, no doubt many contentious points will be tested in the future.


130

140 × 215

11

Ethics in fieldwork

Lynne Briggs and Raylee Kane ETHICS IN FIELDWORK

Ethics refers to the systematic exploration of questions about how we act in relation to others. (Rhodes 1986: 21)

This chapter considers the teaching of ethics as an integral aspect of field education, taking the complex context of fieldwork into account. It: • • •

•

outlines the ethical principles underpinning both practice and ethical areas; looks at student supervision as a forum for ethical dialogue, identifying some key problem areas; discusses examples of ethical dilemmas associated with the student, the field educator and the client, identifying several key themes; concludes with a discussion of suggestions to assist field educators with ethical issues in fieldwork.

ETHICS: THEIR PLACE IN FIELDWORK Ethics are about an individual’s or a group’s collective value and belief systems and the study of the principles and moral rules on which these are based. Ethics involve moral decisions in practice and specific procedures for decision-making in various contexts. 131


131

140 × 215

132


Professional ethics are used ultimately as tools for analysing issues and deciding how to act. The latter requires practitioners and educators to take account of ethical theories, ethical principles, practice principles and codes of ethics. Professional ethics are the foundation of the human services, directing professionals to achieve certain values through their practice. Ethics are the major building blocks of the professional paradigm. Thus it is important to pay attention to them in field education, which provides an arena for learning the professions’ values and ethics. Ethics and ethical understanding have a multifaceted place and role in fieldwork in the human services that involves a complex set of relationships. Ethics and ethical issues are at the core of the student–field educator relationship. The very nature of this relationship, with its inherent power imbalance that is further complicated by the field educator’s contracted role with the education and training provider, demands close attention to ethical issues arising within it. An essential aspect of the field educator’s role is the transmission of ethical knowledge and guidance in ethical decision-making. The field educator is also accountable for client work and the effective resolution of ethical issues.

THE FIELDWORK CONTEXT Fieldwork is generally acknowledged as the forum in which students turn classroom learning into practice. Fieldwork is undertaken away from the training institution and involves a complex series of relationships, all of which are directly or indirectly related. In most cases these can be identified as relationships with, and between, the student, the training provider’s field coordinator, the field educator and the client. Each of these relationships is critical to the development of competent human services workers. It is essential that all involved parties keep professional, legal and ethical issues to the forefront of the fieldwork.

ETHICAL PRINCIPLES UNDERPINNING SUPERVISION The process of student supervision is threefold for the field educator, who is responsible for teaching professional knowledge and skills, helping the student acquire professional competence, and ensuring that students fulfil the agency’s administrative require-


132

140 × 215

ETHICS IN FIELDWORK

133

ments. Field educators are also responsible for their students’ clients. The supervisory relationship is a reflection of a human services worker–client relationship. Thus some of the ethical principles and dilemmas that apply between a human services worker and a client are also relevant to the student–field educator relationship. Corey et al. (1998: 12–13) outline six basic moral principles that form the foundation of functioning as a professional at the highest ethical level: • • • • • •

autonomy; non-maleficence; beneficence; justice; fidelity; veracity.

Autonomy refers to the promotion of self-determination—the freedom of clients to choose their own direction. Respect for autonomy entails acknowledging the right of another to choose and act in accordance with their wishes. In field education, this means the field educator behaves in a way that enables the student to fulfil the right to make informed choices about their practice. The field educator’s legal and ethical obligations to their agency and clients limit this principle, however. Ethical dilemmas arise when the principle of autonomy is applied to students who may not have the experience to make sound autonomous choices. Kitchener (1985) argues that, although university students are accorded the same status as adults and evidence suggests that the choices they make are no worse than those of other adults, in most cases they still have their lives before them. This means their judgments may not be totally mature, and situations or emotional factors may limit their competence. Field educators have an ethical responsibility to assess their students’ competence to practise carefully. However, competence is difficult to determine. There are no absolute criteria for defining competence and incompetence. Autonomy is based on concepts of individualism. Western culture places great emphasis on individualism, independence, selfdetermination and the ability to make choices for oneself. Other cultures do not necessarily have the same respect for individualism, however. Family and community needs may override an individual’s rights. Field educators working with students and clients from


133

140 × 215

134


different cultural groups are exposed to a range of dilemmas. Family and community rights may override the rights of an individual student. Some of these issues have already been addressed in Chapter 8. Non-maleficence means doing no harm. This principle applies both to field educators in their work with students and to students in their work with clients. It includes refraining from actions that either intentionally or unintentionally risk hurting clients or students. All human services workers have a professional responsibility to avoid engaging in practices that cause harm or have the potential to cause harm. Educators have a responsibility to take steps to avoid harm, and to minimise it where it is foreseeable and unavoidable. Students are expected to adhere to the same levels and standards of care as other professionals. Therefore, field educators should not permit students to practise outside their level of competence and training. Where students may be at risk because of inexperience or work with potentially dangerous clients, field educators have a specific responsibility to ensure their safety. Beneficence refers to promoting good for others. Ideally, this includes promoting the growth of both client and student. In reality, however, the concept of ‘doing good’ creates difficulties. Any specific view of what is good can be culturally and professionally determined, and thus not shared by others. A potential hazard with this principle is that different cultures have different values. Consider the consequences of a student who, when working with a young person from an indigenous background, encourages them to behave more assertively with their parents. Questioning decisions made by their elders would be seen as culturally inappropriate. Thus the student may have unwittingly encouraged a course of action that could have negative consequences for the young person concerned. Justice means providing equal treatment to all people regardless of age, sex, race, ethnicity, disability, socioeconomic status, cultural background, religion or sexual orientation. Sometimes, though, in culturally diverse populations, services may not be just and fair to everyone, as can be seen in traditional mental health services. If intervention strategies are not relevant to some segments of society, justice is being violated. Field educators should not engage in practices that discriminate against others based on differences. They have a responsibility to be aware of their biases in working with oppressed groups, especially


134

140 × 215

ETHICS IN FIELDWORK

135

considering the power balance in the student–field educator relationship. In field education, justice also means consistent, impartial and fair treatment of students. This is particularly relevant in the assessment of students who are in danger of failing their fieldwork. Fidelity means that human services workers and field educators make honest promises and honour their commitments to those they serve. This principle is basic to many professions and involves fulfilling one’s responsibilities of trust in a relationship. In the supervisory relationship, it means that students and field educators have a commitment to ensure that certain obligations are met. Potential problems arise when a student has an expectation that a field educator will provide a solution to a particular problem. Consider the consequences of a field educator who, for a variety of reasons, is unable to meet a student’s expectations. What impact might this have on the supervisory relationship? Veracity means truthfulness. If field educators are not truthful with their students, the trust required to form a good working relationship will be missing. Informed consent is part of being truthful with students. Information is powerful. At times students are not as fully informed of their rights as they might be. Students need to be aware that information about their performance will be shared with the field coordinator and the training provider. It is important for the student to participate as much as possible in the supervisory relationship so that the power imbalance can be reduced. The same can be said of the student–client relationship. Respect for dignity and people’s rights is contained in most codes of ethics. Many human services workers assume that what is discussed in supervision will not be shared with the client. However, it is now accepted that clients should be informed about the supervisory relationship, its purpose and its limitations in terms of confidentiality. Corey et al. (1998: 14–15) point out that, although these principles are a good starting place for determining ethical practice, it needs to be remembered that ethical decision-making is not a purely cognitive, linear process that follows neatly step by step. It is crucial to acknowledge the important part played by emotions in the way ethical decisions are made. Feelings can influence the field educator’s interpretation of their own and their student’s behaviour. If the field educator feels uncomfortable with an ethical decision and does not deal with that discomfort adequately, it will certainly influence their future behaviour with the student. Equally


135

140 × 215

136


significant is the likelihood that students and field educators will have different values, understandings and interpretations of the principles. These differences may be cultural, gender- or classbased, or arise from different theoretical perspectives. Writers with feminist and postmodern perspectives question some of the assumptions contained in moral principles. Walker (1998) argues that moral principles are a particular set of institutional arrangements and social practices that tell us what to do. She asserts that these moral theories contain biases, especially around issues of gender, race and class, and suggests the need for an expressive-collaborative model of ethics as an alternative to the theoretical-judicial model. A number of writers in the human services have questioned the security practitioners tend to feel with the modernist rules that are encapsulated in most codes of ethics. Making a forthright judgment becomes more and more difficult in a world where the view that there are no absolutes (Hugman and Smith 1995) increasingly dominates intellectual and moral discussion. Students in most human services in Western countries are exposed to a range of critical theories and frameworks. Many incorporate a postmodern analysis that focuses on a wider concern for diversity and recognition of ‘otherness’ (Briskman and Noble 1998).

PROVIDING A FORUM FOR ETHICAL DIALOGUE As has already been noted, the relationship between field educator and student is of critical importance in the development of competent human services workers. Although the human services literature has paid considerable attention to the purposes, skills and processes of supervision, the subject of ethics has been virtually ignored. Supervision is a complex interpersonal process in which the field educator is responsible for student education and competence, client services and administrative tasks. A plethora of issues may arise, among which power in the student–field educator relationship can have a major impact on ethical decisions. Jacobs (1991) argues that the supervisory relationship is complex, as it is here that the powerful person (the field educator) is entrusted to work with the well-being of the less powerful person (the student). Power and powerlessness operate simultaneously, and the issue of power is a key concept in understanding the supervisory relationship. Field educators are vulnerable to using their


136

140 × 215

ETHICS IN FIELDWORK

137

positional power for their own needs. Students are unlikely to protest because of the power differential. In working with students, field educators need to ensure that they are clear about ethical practice and that they observe all professional and legal regulations of practice, including professional codes of ethics. Field educators need to be careful to use supervision properly, ensuring confidentiality and the right to informed consent. Students also have responsibilities to observe all the legal and professional regulations of practice. When working with clients, for example, students need to ensure that clients are aware of their student status. They also have a responsibility to use supervision appropriately and to obtain informed consent for the use of any case material for classroom or research purposes. Clear contracts and the establishment of good working relationships between students and field educators can minimise some of the risks in fieldwork. Mathews et al. (1997) note that contracting is a familiar concept to everyone. Contracts are taught in the classroom and practised in field education. Contracting holds the promise of accountability and clarity for all concerned. From a student perspective, clear contracts allow students to develop personal as well as course learning objectives, and aid considerably in removing the mystery from the supervisory relationship. It needs to be remembered, however, that, given the complex nature of fieldwork, contracts can be vague, particularly in the area of ethics. Mere reference to a code of ethics as a guide when ethical dilemmas arise is not enough. An open forum such as supervision, where a broad range of ethical dilemmas can be openly discussed, provides the best atmosphere for education and practice. Such discussion requires field educators to have a broad knowledge and understanding of ethics in terms of ethical principles, theories and issues, and the ability to actively debate these with their students. Two vignettes demonstrate the potential for conflict and the need for care and understanding of ethics in the field educator–student relationship.

Vignette 1 A young Maori social work student working with a New Zealand generic family care agency was assigned a young Maori woman about her own age who had returned recently from Australia with her three children. This young mother was drug dependent and maintained on methadone. She and her children were living in poor circumstances with very little money and few household possessions.


137

140 × 215

138


They all had health problems. The doctor referred them for help. The student proposed to her client that she contact the woman’s whanau (family) in another part of the country. The client refused this proposal adamantly. She said they had rejected her because of her drug taking and hadn’t helped her when she was desperate in Australia and had begged for help. She had not had contact for eight years and wanted none now. The student sought the permission of her field educator, a Pakeha (white) New Zealander, to contact the whanau anyway. The field educator did not feel she could support the student, taking the view that the client had the right to determine her own course of action.

Vignette 2 A 14-year-old (Amy), who had just found out she was pregnant, was referred to a social work student undertaking fieldwork in a women’s health service. Amy’s uppermost concern was that her parents not find out. She was sure they would be really upset and angry with her, ruining her forthcoming plans for the next weeks. The student, aware that in this circumstance the law would allow Amy to make her own decision with regard to the continuation of the pregnancy, felt strongly it was Amy’s right to determine how she handled this and whether or not she decided to tell her parents. The field educator disagreed, however, and was of the opinion that, while Amy was legally able to make a decision about the pregnancy, it was not in her best interests to manage this alone. The field educator made it clear that a responsible adult needed to be involved.

In both cases, the ethical principles of autonomy and veracity are at issue. The first case hinges around a cross-cultural issue, the second around a practice issue. The principle of autonomy is the basis for several ethical rules found in most human services codes of ethics. These rules include the right to self-determination, the right to privacy or confidentiality, and informed consent. The right to privacy follows from the assumption that autonomous people have the right to make free decisions about their lives. Self-determination and confidentiality are never absolute principles. They always require contextual qualification and usually some decision-making about where the limits fall. The debate about limits centres most typically around the client’s capacity to exercise self-determination, which is certainly at issue in both of the vignettes, more so in the second one. Confidentiality likewise requires that the worker respects the client’s privacy and holds in


138

140 × 215

ETHICS IN FIELDWORK

139

confidence information obtained in the course of professional service. Discussions on confidentiality usually revolve around questions of law and the recognition of a balance between these and professional ethics (Shardlow 1995). It may also be argued that the principle of non-maleficence is at issue here. Most contemporary moral philosophers and professionals writing in the area of applied ethics argue that moral principles in themselves are not a sufficient guide on how to act. They may be prima facie binding—they establish an obligation unless there are circumstances or other obligations that are stronger. They are more than convenient guidelines, but less than absolutes (Kitchener 1985). Conflicts that cannot be resolved by appeal to ethical principles occur frequently in the practice situation. Such understanding within human services professions has led to the development of codes of ethics which have become the essential underpinning of professional practice, assuring accountability and professional status, and offering some protection from malpractice and abuse to human services users. Reference to a code of ethics is a typical and useful way to resolve ethical issues and will guide the field educator in a number of ways in the situation described in the first vignette. In the New Zealand Code of Ethics, there is a clear injunction to assist students to develop high standards in ethics (NZASW 1993, clause 4:4 p. 13). This Code is also clear (Section B: clauses 1:8; 1:13, pp. 10–11) on the principles of self-determination and confidentiality and working in the best interests of clients and students. However, the New Zealand code is typical of professional codes, tending towards prescription and consequently a good degree of comfort in making moral judgments about ethical issues and dilemmas. However, current understanding, both experientially and theoretically, challenges such certainty. Postmodern criticism in particular challenges any security that may have been felt with modernist rules. Postmodern social and political discourse is not well reflected in professional codes, established as they are along modernist lines. This raises considerable tension for field educators and students. Much of the recent literature, and the authors’ own research into ethical issues in the New Zealand context, confirms that ethical decision-making must be contextualised. Codes of ethics are not necessarily a sufficient guide in themselves, tending as they do towards an individualistic orientation and denying social dependence and structural issues (Rhodes 1991; Rossiter et al. 1996; Briskman and Noble 1998; Briggs and Kane 1998).


139

140 × 215

140


Where, then, does this leave field educators and students? For example, while the NZASW Code of Ethics might give quite specific guidance on self-determination and confidentiality, it also contextualises the interpretation for Aotearoa/New Zealand in a Bi-cultural Code of Practice. In this way, the code sets out to reflect the beliefs and values of more than one tradition of thought. Using this as a guide, then, how could the field educator and student resolve the impasse in the first vignette? A strict application of the code would lead to the conclusion that the field educator was acting ethically in respect of the client in insisting the student follow the client’s expressed wishes. To do so, however, would deny the student, who had a different view of self-determination, her own right to have a voice—to have her world view and cultural understandings included. This student’s view was inclusive and collective, with the individual’s best interests being inseparable from those of the whanau. Ideas such as confidentiality are nonMaori constructs, yet the context here was Maori (Selby 1994). NZASW recognises that it has a responsibility in regard to the principles of protection, partnership and participation. These principles offer guidance to the field educator and student. The client’s welfare must be protected. This will be achieved through recognition that, for Maori, the individual’s central location is being part of the whanau, hapu (sub-tribe) and iwi (tribe). Collective rights are paramount (Selby 1994). Viewed in this way, an interpretation of self-determination such as that desired by the supervisor in the first vignette disadvantages and potentially brings harm to both client and student. The student’s desire to reconnect her client with her whanau comes from her Maori understanding of the centrality of the collective. The second vignette also focuses on an interpretation of the client’s right to self-determination and the student’s ability to assess that. It raises questions about confidentiality and privacy, and balancing the legal and ethical interface in these matters. While the student wanted to make a strict interpretation of the rules, the field educator, drawing on her greater practice wisdom and experience, assessed such a course of action as having the potential to do harm. The client’s best interests would not be served by allowing her unconditional autonomy to exercise self-determination in strict confidentiality. Resolution of these complex but everyday ethical dilemmas requires that both field educator and student are encouraged, and have the tools, to examine the issues in a non-threatening, inclusive


140

140 × 215

ETHICS IN FIELDWORK

141

way. Bringing ethics and ethical issues to life in fieldwork involves all parties concerned in the field education enterprise in an understanding of the importance of doing so. The place of ethics and ethical teaching and learning in fieldwork remains underdeveloped, however, in comparison with other topics.

THEORY INTO PRACTICE Mathews et al. (1997: 104) suggest several reasons for the discrepancy between the need for ethics education in fieldwork and the relative silence in both literature and curricula. In doing so, they refer to the ‘soft ground’ of social work values, in which the profession has yet to clearly enunciate the ethical precepts of social service work. They also mention that most human services professionals have a stock answer when it comes to ethics, and that is to state that they adhere to a code of ethics and consult this when ethical issues arise. It could be argued that this has the effect of closing the discussion rather than stimulating debate and encouraging the development of professional judgment. Teaching compliance with a code rather than ethical discussion and reasoning may stifle competence in this area (Mathews et al. 1997). Human services professionals may also argue that both of these factors influence the field educator–student relationship and have mitigated against more open discussion, exploration and understanding of the ethics involved in fieldwork. A thoroughly professional and ethical relationship between the field educator and student will provide the student with a good model of the nature of professional relationships in practice. Open discussion and debate need to be as integral a part of the field education process as reference to a code of ethics. It is important to recognise that human services have many diverse views, and that it is inevitably misleading to try to apply only one set of values and views. Thus reference to a code is not always enough. An alternative way of addressing ethical debates and issues in fieldwork is what Mathews et al. (1997) refer to as the ‘competing values model’, based on dialogue, debate and exchange. It has the potential to aid the process of learning to live with moral ambiguity and ethical decision-making in a complex environment, always ensuring that the context is accounted for. Ethical dialogue, as developed by Margaret Rhodes (1991), is based on this competing values model, which allows for the presence of conflicts and


141

140 × 215

142


recognises the impossibility of resolving these in neat, clear ways. A five-stage process is suggested: 1 Construct a moral dilemma. 2 Address the question of responsibility. 3 Clearly identify the focus of control—intra-psychic, interpersonal or environmental, or some combination of all three—to achieve a resolution of the dilemmas. 4 Act on the dilemma. 5 Justify the action. (Fleck-Henderson 1991) Cooper and Forward (1997) suggest a guide for ethical decisionmaking in social work field education. This provides a tool that can be used in any human services setting, as indicated by the following processes drawn from it.

Assessment •

• •

•

• • • • •

• •

•

Clarify the problem—collect the facts, consider all factors. What are the crucial facts? What is the organisational context? What are the main features of the present situation? Identify rules and principles. Identify any rules or governing principles that exist. Review the entire range of applicable principles. Identify which moral principles are at issue. Identify to whom they are applicable. What are the rules? Who makes them? With whom does ‘the buck’ stop? Who is responsible and accountable to whom? Who are the relatively more and less powerful? What is the client’s role? What are colleagues’ views? What is your role? Who has the power? Is the client primary? Examine both (or all) sides; articulate differences and similarities; identify areas of agreement, disagreement and irrelevance. Generate possible and probable courses of action. Consider various hypothetical outcomes on both a thinking and feeling level. Assess risks and consequences of each course of action—immediate, short, medium and long-term. Who is likely to benefit or suffer? Order priorities. What considerations and values are sufficiently compelling to supersede others? Give higher priority to interventions with maximum ethical and practical relevance. Explore your personal motivation for action.


142

140 × 215

ETHICS IN FIELDWORK

143

Planning •

•

What ends or objectives are desirable? What is possible? What contingencies must be taken into account? What are ethically appropriate means to reach the goal? Elect the best (least detrimental) course of action.

Implementation • • • •

Commit to decisive, responsible action. Act—begin, continue and finish the process. Have strength of your conviction. Obtain support if required. Assess costs and benefits of action. What provisions and precautions are required to cope with the consequences of action? Monitor success and failure in the process.

Evaluation • • • •

Evaluate the process. Review pros and cons for action taken. Have you used the ‘right’ means? Justify actual outcomes. Is there a reasonable ethical justification for action taken? Is the end a ‘good’ one? Accept and assume responsibility for the consequences of the chosen action. Learn—debrief, solicit feedback, review learning.

The field educators and students in the illustrative vignettes may well have avoided the tension and conflict that occurred if there had been ethical dialogue and if they had had access to a tool for ethical decision-making (such as the one outlined). Ethical dialogue preferably involves all parties in the field education enterprise and focuses on effective ethical learning, which includes studying codes of ethics, agency codes of practice and the requirements of the fieldwork contract. These are essential, but not total, aspects of ethical learning.

SUMMARY Ethics are complicated, challenging and puzzling, and cannot be a totally structured, carefully executed aspect of a student’s learning. However, as uneven, unpredictable and surprising as ethical issues may be, they also offer opportunities for some of the most creative and interesting learning in fieldwork. The teaching of ethics is a


143

140 × 215

144


complicated and daunting task, especially given the always-evolving theoretical uncertainty and the complex, ever-changing contemporary human services scene. Students bring to fieldwork different and diverse perspectives arising from their personal and cultural world views and their theoretical learning. One way to manage this is to encourage ethical dialogue with an honest, open debate—preferably involving all the parties in the fieldwork enterprise: student, field educator and training provider. The use of a framework for debating ethical decision-making is both helpful and beneficial for all concerned.


144

140 × 215

12

Maintaining the partnerships between educators and practitioners

June Allan PARTNERSHIPS BETWEEN EDUCATORS AND PRACTITIONERS

The concept of ‘partnership’ is not new in human services field education. However, there is a renewed emphasis on partnerships that has brought about a rethinking of the term’s meaning in human services fieldwork and about how partnerships might be developed to foster productive exchanges between educators, practitioners and their employer organisations. Written largely from my personal experience as educator and practitioner, this chapter explores the concept of partnership in field education and considers how practitioners, human services agencies and educational institutions can work together to develop effective partnerships. The benefits of partnerships for both individuals and organisations, motivations for the rekindled interest in partnerships and factors found to sustain and constrain the growth and development of effective exchange processes are discussed. Various partnership models are outlined. The chapter concludes with some practical strategies for building rewarding partnerships between educators and practitioners.

PARTNERSHIPS IN A CHANGING CONTEXT There has been a growing emphasis globally on the importance of partnerships in a number of forums—between business corporations, 145


145

140 × 215

146


governments and industry, community organisations, and the higher education sector and industry. But what does the word ‘partnership’ really mean?

Meanings of partnerships In the above contexts, ‘partnership’ is often used interchangeably with the terms ‘strategic alliance’ or ‘collaboration’. Certain characteristics are common to the notion of partnerships across these various forums, including: • • •

clearly defined goals; open and transparent relationships; the sharing of economic resources.

The development of partnerships in the delivery of human services fieldwork can be thought of as the engagement of the educational institution and the potential fieldwork site in a ‘reciprocal exchange process’ (Ruffolo and Miller 1994: 311). The sharing of power, resources, skills and benefits between member organisations in some form of mutual exchange is central to an understanding of this process. Major reasons for the development of partnerships are often seen to be the effective use of resources and, especially in industry, financial profits for the member organisations. But the impetus is greater than this. In today’s complex world of rapid change, there are a number of benefits to be gained for both organisations and individuals in partnership arrangements.

Benefits of partnerships: What’s in it for human services agencies, educational institutions and individuals? Agencies and educational institutions can reap significant benefits from the development of partnerships. Partnership arrangements can allow for better use of resources through economies of scale. Cost-sharing may occur in monetary terms or in kind. Formal financial contracts can be developed between educational institutions and agencies to provide joint funding for field education units and collaborative research projects involving university and agency staff. The availability of research grants fostering collaboration between universities and industry can facilitate the latter arrangements. In Australia, the Australian Research Council (ARC) Strategic Partnerships with Industry—Research and Training (SPIRT) scheme provides funding for collaborative research undertaken


146

140 × 215

PARTNERSHIPS BETWEEN EDUCATORS AND PRACTITIONERS

147

jointly by higher education institutions and industry (including industry associations, private or public companies, statutory authorities and community organisations). It includes grants for collaborative research projects developed by the university and industry partner, where the ARC matches funds provided by the industry partner. Several of these are currently funded in the human services sector in Australia. Alternatively, at a more informal level, arrangements in kind between educational institutions and human services organisations might involve agreements for agency staff to make guest presentations in subjects conducted by educational institutions in return for inservice training for agency staff. Partnerships can provide organisations with a means of acquiring innovation through developing research and development skills and capabilities, gaining access to new knowledge and adding value to their operations. Through student and/or university staff involvement, agencies can implement projects that they may otherwise have been unable to resource. Partnerships can also enhance productivity and quality for all parties because of the shared skills and talents of partnership members. In addition, they provide long-term beneficial effects for the partners because of the exchange of knowledge. A recently developed partnership between an educational institution and a Neighbourhood House Network in metropolitan Melbourne illustrates some of these benefits. This partnership has involved several students working on specific projects across three neighbourhood houses in the Network. The university contracted two practitioners affiliated with different neighbourhood houses to provide regular supervision sessions to the students, because parttime workers spreading themselves across many activities primarily staff the Network. The on-site task supervisors in each neighbourhood house undertook the day-to-day supervision of the students. At a practical level, this partnership has enabled the Network to pursue projects that enhance its services, such as developing the referral mechanisms used between the neighbourhood houses and the wider community. Sessional employment contracts between the university and field educators, and student–agency–university fieldwork contracts are written confirmation of the partnership. All parties are exploring more creative ways of sharing resources, leading also to more formal recognition of the organisation’s contribution to higher education and vice versa.


147

140 × 215

148


Partnerships such as this create the opportunity for valuable ongoing dialogue between human services organisations and educational institutions, enabling the dynamic interaction of ideas and practice. The involvement of students and university staff in an agency’s work can be a valuable source of stimulation and support for its mission and tasks. In the higher education sector, there is a growing awareness of the importance of educational institutions working together with their communities. Underpinning this development is the notion of the importance of community service. This can cover a broad range, from meeting the needs of a nation to active engagement with practitioners and the professions at a local level. Traditional boundaries are being removed so that, increasingly, organisations and educational institutions are borderless. There is a shift from working in isolation. This is due to the notion that combining the organisations’ and educational institutions’ resources achieves greater outcomes. No longer are educational institutions merely places for students to acquire knowledge and qualifications, remote from their communities. Instead, these institutions now play a major role in economic development and the advancement not only of knowledge, but of local and national culture (Mulroney and Badenhorst 1997). There are also perceived benefits for individuals within organisations. Individuals are encouraged to look beyond the perimeters of the organisation in which they work by working in alliances and across networks, beginning to see themselves as part of a broader sphere of activities and tasks. This contributes to collaboration and a sense of empowerment for individuals. The excitement of new doors being opened with refreshingly new opportunities and possibilities for learning, research and expanded horizons can contribute to a sense of enthusiasm and progress. Similarly, collaborating in joint research projects can bring rewards for practitioners through learning and/or updating research skills, developing writing skills, presenting research at conferences and preparing material for publication. In a recent example of collaboration, a staff member from a statewide human services organisation worked with me on a research project while I was based at the organisation during my sabbatical. The agency staff member helped facilitate the negotiation of the research process and also assisted with interviewing and data analysis. The agency staff member has been involved in writing up the research report and is co-author of a paper to be presented


148

140 × 215


149

at a forthcoming national conference, drawing on material from the research project. Learning is enhanced for practitioners, educators and students because the partnership arrangement helps to locate learning within a social, economic and cultural context, be it local, regional or national. Such contextualisation assists individuals to broaden their knowledge base and develop a holistic perspective on education, programs and services. Liaison with an educational institution can provide practitioners with access to continuing education and professional development, and to a range of support mechanisms. It provides individuals with the opportunity to influence educational curricula both directly and indirectly, drawing on their practice experience. It also provides practitioners with opportunities to fulfil part of their professional role by contributing to future practitioners’ education and participating in course and program/project committees. The partnership provides educators with access to the ‘realities’ of practice, and an opportunity to test and develop theories in a grounded way.

Reasons for partnership: A new look at an old issue There are different perspectives on factors driving current partnership initiatives involving field education in the human services sector. One view is that, with the shortage of field placements and shrinking resources in the human services sector, the onus is on educational institutions to offer research, training and consultation in exchange for field education experiences for students. However, another perspective is that an ideological shift is needed in the field and that practitioners need to rethink their responsibilities in relation to students’ education. This perspective creates a shift from seeing partnerships as simple market responses to involving the need to consider the philosophical underpinnings of notions of partnerships and their purpose. Annette Riley (1998) recently undertook a study to ascertain the types of partnerships being entered into by Australian educational institutions offering human services programs. The study reveals at first glance that partnership initiatives are indeed perceived as being driven by the utilitarian needs of both the educational institutions and human services organisations. Three particular viewpoints were evident in the study:


149

140 × 215

150 •

•

•


Practitioners perceived the education of students to be the universities’ responsibility—hence a push for partnerships was seen as merely aiming to appease the field. The reason for the development of alliances between educational institutions and the field was merely to guarantee fieldwork at a time of scarcity. There was a perception that agencies received little in return for providing field education for students, contributing to a diminishing commitment in the field to offering fieldwork. (Riley 1998)

Riley (1998) rejects the frequently held view that educational institutions’ quests for partnerships with the field are nothing more than a market response to the shortage of fieldwork. She draws attention instead to the changing pedagogy of the higher education sector described earlier in this chapter. For partnerships to develop and flourish, the challenge is for both educational institutions and human services organisations to embrace these philosophical and administrative shifts.

TYPES OF PARTNERSHIPS There are many partnership models in field education, ranging from individualised models to highly structured field units and training centres. The traditional model has provided the only point of contact with educational institutions for many organisations.

The traditional model This model involves an agreement between a human services organisation and educational institution to offer a student placement. Usually identified as the ‘field setting’ or ‘apprenticeship’ model, it is individualised and labour intensive. It generally provides few opportunities for reciprocity between field settings and educational institutions. Structured collaboration does not extend beyond the initial agreements, with inter-organisational links left to the initiative of particular individuals. Field education programs offered are dependent on the interests and competing commitments of individual practitioners, and the settings may not have a longterm commitment to an educational program.


150

140 × 215


151

Expanded models of partnership Other models broaden the notion of partnerships and move away from the individualised pattern just outlined. They enable the provision of field education in a range of innovative and creative ways, enhanced by a variety of collaborative arrangements between the educational institution and the field. In general, these models place an emphasis on four areas of partnership or collaboration: • • • •

inservice training; education in the form of professional education and teaching; research and evaluation; community service (Reilly and Petersen 1997).

Such models can be facilitated through specific structural arrangements—student units, for example—that can be headed by a person employed either by the educational institution or the agency in which the unit is based. A variation of the student unit is a structural unit comprising a cluster of agencies providing field education. The agencies may be grouped according to field of practice or geographical location.

Comprehensive collaborative models An alternative model has been promoted which expands the notion and possibilities of partnership. This cuts across the traditional separation of education and practice. It does not have field education as its primary focus. Instead, it seeks to provide a structure for making stronger links between the educational institutions’ and practitioners’ work, and client groups’ needs. Educational opportunities are developed as a component of this partnership. The Teaching Centre Model described by Bogo and Globerman (1994) is an example of such a model. It is characterised by the formal identification of education in the human services as one of the organisation’s objectives, and the formal provision of institutional support for this objective within the organisational setting. There is often an affiliation with a particular university. The organisation’s commitment to furthering the quality of education and practice and contributing to the development of knowledge in the human services is a feature of this model. It acknowledges practitioners’ expertise and supports the academic’s role of creating approaches that assist the articulation of that expertise and developing appropriate educational methods for fostering student learning.


151

140 × 215

152


The model provides: • • • • • •

appointment of an educational coordinator with an adjunct teaching appointment; individual field educators and multiple student assignments with other staff; student seminars and student teams; student participation in departmental administrative and educational events and interdisciplinary educational programs; provision of regular educational workshops and support for field educators; meetings between teaching staff from the educational institution and field educators on matters of mutual interest such as curriculum or practice developments.

This particular model has used the development of a consortium of teaching staff and several field settings to extend the notion of partnership and reciprocity beyond the field. It has made a range of activities possible, including: • • • •

research; joint sponsorship of conferences; consultation through a university-funded research office; jointly organised educational activities such as sponsorship of visiting lecturers and study tours, shared audio-visual and library collections, and employment of experts from the Teaching Centres for sessional teaching.

Another example of a comprehensive collaborative development is the Child Welfare Education and Training project at Arizona State University, in conjunction with Arizona’s Department of Economic Security (DES) (Risley-Curtiss et al. 1997). This initiative grew out of a concern to recruit and retain professionally educated practitioners in child welfare. Field education units were established as part of the project. These were staffed by university employees, hired collaboratively by the DES and university, and incorporated professional and administrative staff. The units, which serve 35 students per year, employ a shared case management model whereby the human services practitioners and their students work together on assigned cases. The collaborative efforts also led to the introduction of a child welfare specialisation into the curriculum at Arizona State University, the provision of financial assistance for students, cost sharing through a contract


152

140 × 215


153

between the university and DES, research and evaluation, and collaborative planning. Ruffolo and Miller (1994) outline a further partnership in the American context. This creative partnership developed in part out of an educational institution’s need to access professional supervision. The non-profit Christian organisation with which it developed the partnership was heavily reliant on volunteers and non-professional staff who catered for predominantly homeless males suffering from substance abuse and psychiatric illnesses. The organisation sought support in its move towards the inclusion of professional staff in its delivery of services. In this instance, the educational institution forged an agreement with the agency for a qualified practitioner from another community organisation to participate in its service delivery. The arrangement with this person, who was seeking to increase exposure to clients with substance abuse problems, was made in exchange for providing field education for students at the organisation’s site. The organisation earned remitted tuition benefits that enabled it to send more of its staff to the educational institution for a professional degree. In Australia, there are also examples of the establishment of formal and comprehensive types of partnerships between educational institutions and community agencies. Some educational institutions are providing input into the field through field education, research consultancy, assistance with preparing papers for publication, supervision of students and professional development. One educational institution, for example, has developed a Direct Partnership Model involving the establishment of Practice Research Units in which several students are placed in an organisation (Riley 1998). The fieldwork combines research and practice, with university staff supervising research projects that are designed to give something back to the agency. Writing up research for publication is a collaborative effort. Field educators have university library membership and university staff have input into staff development sessions in agencies as requested. In another partnership arrangement, practitioners teach, have input into the curriculum and assist with oral assessments of students. A more formal arrangement is apparent for another educational institution that has established several field education units in a number of different settings. A coordinator provides liaison and support to practitioners and students, with each unit catering for six to ten students. The arrangement involves transferring funds from the university to the agency, based on a per


153

140 × 215

154


capita rate. Although university staff shortages restrict staff’s availability to assist with professional development, students undertake research/project-based work for the organisations concerned. At another university, field educators are able to receive discounts for the semester-long course for field educators as part of a postgraduate Masters program.

GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF EFFECTIVE EXCHANGE PROCESSES The various partnership experiences have contributed to an understanding of factors influencing the growth or otherwise of effective partnerships between human services organisations and educational settings.

Developing and sustaining partnerships The following factors are considered fundamental to the success of various types of partnerships between industry and higher education generally: • •

•

•

Partnerships need to provide benefits which open new doors and unforeseen opportunities for all partners. Rather than being seen as a mere exchange, partnerships need to be collaborative and value-adding, with partners valuing the skills each brings to the alliance. Partnerships need to provide for mutual satisfaction of selfinterests. A successful partnership involves high levels of cooperation between parties in their attempts to satisfy the concerns of the other. At the same time they require high levels of assertiveness from all members of the partnership. The linkages between the educational institution and the agency need to be supported by appropriate structural arrangements. However, partnerships not only require formal systems of control but also a web of interpersonal connections and infrastructure to enhance learning (Cherednichenko et al. 1996).

In essence, mutual benefit, self-interest and a willingness to enter joint venture undertakings are regarded as essential ingredients for the formation of partnerships. With particular reference to fieldwork in the human services, factors identified as important to the growth and development of effective collaboration highlight


154

140 × 215


155

the significance of shared power and adequate processes for communication, cooperation and coordination. These include: •

•

•

•

Effective relationships and a shared commitment between the educational institution and agency staff. Commentators suggest that a shared history and demonstrated commitment over time between the educational institution and community organisation can develop patterns of interactions and perceptions beneficial to a collaborative relationship. Such a commitment involves not only the commitment of the educational institution to an organisation or field of practice, but also the community organisation’s commitment to education. There also needs to be commitment from senior management in both sectors. Commitment need not rely on a shared history, however. New initiatives and mutual interests and projects can inspire and foster such commitment amongst participants. Time may need to be spent soliciting staff who are willing to work to develop a cooperative and collaborative atmosphere (Reilly and Petersen 1997). Other factors that can assist the development of commitment and good relationships include clear definitions of the roles and responsibilities of university and agency staff, and effective field liaison. Shared leadership—an inclusive approach involving a range of interested parties including clients and front-line professionals in aspects such as the development of educational programs and policies. Organisational resources and supports such as time for training and flexible funding arrangements that allow for creative management including the uncomplicated introduction of new projects. Established monitoring methods such as the use of focus groups, surveys, open meetings, annual assessment of individual training needs, and the evaluation of service delivery programs and inservice training.

Constraints on the development of partnerships It is clear that, if effective partnerships are to be developed and sustained, the still-predominant apprenticeship model or ad hoc provision of student fieldwork experiences is not adequate. Administrative and ideological/philosophical shifts need to occur.


155

140 × 215

156


Obstacles to the establishment and/or maintenance of the newly conceived types of partnerships may include: • • • • •

differing organisational cultures of the partnership members; uncertainties about continued funding; lack of financial resources to support link activities; lack of commitment from senior management in both sectors; issues of control and ownership of the link.

Agency-based and university-based pressures and time constraints also play a part. Within agencies, for example, field educators experiencing growing caseloads, increasing administrative loads and less time to supervise may receive no workload credit for field education responsibilities. Reilly and Petersen (1997) identify partnerships involving multiple members as being problematic. This conclusion derives from their experience in America with a partnership incorporating two human services schools within one university but at different locations, and numerous agencies within the State Department of Human Resources. The complications brought about by having a large number of partners within the partnership, with members’ varying political and financial priorities, have required strategies such as extensive planning and negotiation, revisiting the partnership’s mission statement, and reviewing the shared vision of members. However, little attention appears to have been given yet to the issue of multiple partners. Much of the literature on the topic tends to assume a more or less exclusive arrangement between one educational institution and a community organisation or cluster of organisations. This can foster competition between universities and/or organisations and, if monopolies develop, cut across holistic and systemic perspectives on the sharing of resources. In one Australian state, there are numerous human services courses—including six social work courses—seeking fieldwork experiences for their students. Principles of collaboration and cooperation have been established between the Schools of Social Work to maximise the sharing of resources and to guard against monopolies. This collaboration and cooperation regards the allocation of available fieldwork for their students, according to agency preferences. How such collaborative principles are affected by the development of specific partnership arrangements is yet to be seen. The challenge is to develop meaningful partnerships that are not based on exclusive arrangements but allow flexibility, continue to


156

140 × 215


157

maximise the sharing of resources and foster effective relationships between the various parties.

THEORY INTO PRACTICE This ‘theory into practice’ section suggests the following processes and strategies to be drawn on in building and maintaining effective partnerships between educators and practitioners involving the sharing of power, resources, skills and benefits between the member organisations.

Developing the idea of a partnership •

•

•

Assessing commitment and potential: Practitioners may be aware of the potential in their agency for the development of an educational partnership. To get the idea off the ground, agency staff need to check out their commitment to the idea of a partnership, and how and with whom they might envisage its development. Ideas should be shared with colleagues. Identification of needs and offerings: To take the idea further, the needs and offerings of the organisation (or cluster of organisations) should be acknowledged. The diversity of learning opportunities available within the organisation should be identified. It may also be useful to canvass all staff within the organisation to determine needs for further study/inservice training as well as their willingness to be involved in the sorts of activities a partnership might entail. Educators will also need to be clear about what they can offer as well as what they hope to achieve from the partnership. A key element is that the parties involved appreciate each other’s strategic position. Preliminary consultation between the parties is suggested to test the waters. Factors such as the existing relationship between the two parties will determine which person from within the organisation makes contact with the other party. Matters to be checked include the philosophical and ideological compatibility of each party’s views.

The planning stage: Strategic analysis, collaboration and support Once satisfied that a basis exists on which to develop a partnership, agency staff need to work together on their ideas for the


157

140 × 215

158


partnership’s goals and how the partnership might work. In particular, it might be useful to undertake a SWOT analysis. Staff can use a group process to identify the strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats for them and their organisation in setting up a partnership with one or more educational institutions. Contact between the parties needs to involve staff in a collaborative process so that it is not just a top-to-top process. However, if the support of senior management has not already been secured, it should be sought. Practitioners’ workloads need to reflect the field education responsibilities they will carry as part of the educational commitment. It may be useful for contact between the partnership members to take the form of a meeting or workshop. Here participants can identify potential areas of field experience, define frameworks for grounding these experiences, and discuss the goals and expectations of each other’s contribution to the partnership.

Documentation: Written agreements A working agreement needs to be drawn up and approved by all parties. This agreement identifies the sources and amount of funding and indicates how the partnership will be managed. The agreement needs to make clear the collaborative nature of the partnership and each party’s tasks. What degree of specificity is required for the proposed partnership? Does a formal contract need to be drawn up? The partnership’s focus and content needs to be put in writing. Each partner’s unique contribution should be specified, keeping in mind the sharing of power, resources (both economic and in kind), skills and benefits. Tasks will fall into the general areas of inservice training, professional education and teaching, including field education, research and evaluation, and community service. The academic may be required to mentor and coach practitioners if research opportunities are to be provided. What does each partner expect to be achieved as a result of the partnership? Expectations of outcomes need consideration when writing up the agreement. Timelines and methods of dealing with disagreements also need to be specified. When will the partnership be terminated, and in what circumstances might it be renegotiated?

Monitoring and assessment: Evaluation Evaluation of the partnership’s success needs to be built into the process. What needs to be evaluated, how and when? Criteria to be


158

140 × 215


159

used as part of this process should relate to the partnership’s purpose, goals and expectations. It is important to stress that the member parties will need to understand each other’s issues and how they can work together to ensure achievement of the dual aims of mutual benefit and selfinterest.

SUMMARY Strong bonds between practitioners, human services organisations and educational institutions will be required for partnerships to develop and flourish into the next century. This chapter has argued that the notion of partnership not only embraces market responses, but embodies ideological shifts in ways of thinking about the purpose and goals of human services fieldwork, and about the relationship between educators and practitioners. Partnerships need to be considered holistically so that educational institutions and community organisations can each contribute to, and benefit from, the other’s activities in a reciprocal exchange process. In particular, partnerships require practitioners and the organisations in which they work to have a firm commitment to the provision of education. Through sharing resources and sharing the control of education, human services organisations will reap the benefits of new opportunities for their practitioners and client groups.


159

140 × 215

13

Innovative field options

Helen Cleak, Linette Hawkins and Lew Hess INNOVATIVE FIELD OPTIONS

The fieldwork component of most human services courses has become an increasingly expensive and complex process. There is greater competition from an increasing supply of human servicesrelated courses and a diminishing commitment from the field as they struggle with their own workplace issues. There is also an acknowledgment of changing employment patterns that require human services graduates to have a range of skills and knowledge that can be utilised in a wide variety of positions in human service settings. The gradual entrance of innovative fieldwork as an alternative to the traditional one-to-one supervision arrangement has been one way in which the university and the field have worked creatively to offer a useful learning experience in this current work environment. Innovative fieldwork can be categorised by both content and process issues that may or may not appear in the more conventional fieldwork model. The content aspects include the way supervision and student learning are organised and supported. The process components include communication systems to ensure open dialogue between the multiple players, and thoughtful selection and matching of student characteristics and learning with the agency. The essence of innovative field education is its flexibility in the construction of a learning plan which best suits the individual while 160


160

140 × 215

INNOVATIVE FIELD OPTIONS

161

taking into account the agency’s industrial and organisational framework. This chapter outlines the traditional fieldwork approach, then illustrates how a practitioner can conceptualise and organise a positive learning field experience that takes account of, and even capitalises on, the realities and constraints of the workplace in which the student is placed. Universities’ responsibilities are highlighted so that they also recognise the system obstacles impeding potential partnerships, as well as their own part in resourcing and enriching the fieldwork by engaging in reciprocal exchange processes.

WHAT IS TRADITIONAL FIELD EDUCATION? Traditionally, all parties have interpreted the nature of professional fieldwork in a ‘clinical’ manner, the field educator holding authority over the student who is there to be taught. This simplistic model reflects the one-to-one relationship, implying one student assigned to one supervisor in one location. A student is placed in a particular organisation in which a professionally qualified practitioner assumes responsibility for that student’s educational and associated responsibilities. This has been seen as a constraining model because it tends to emphasise the particular ‘brand’ of skills used in the agency. The agency’s functions largely determine the student’s experiences. It offers the student the opportunity to observe only one practitioner within the one-to-one supervision sessions.

DIVERSITY DATING BACK Different professionals have always offered innovative field education arrangements to varying degrees. There has been a tendency to view these as atypical or somewhat ‘second best’ to the traditional model. In the 1980s, student units reflected a movement towards more innovative fieldwork, with financial and personnel resources allowing both the universities and the field to experiment with a range of teaching styles and educational tasks. Variations upon the traditional model practised in the units were found in supervision which focused upon the task rather than the individual, and on student exposure to learning which tended to be flexible


161

140 × 215

162


and informal, limited only by the organisational framework (Creed and Flynn 1981). The 1990s have brought a changing educational and human services climate. Globalisation and privatisation are challenging all players to provide more flexible and creative fieldwork experiences that can adapt to this more competent and accountable environment. Employment opportunities in human services are no longer primarily occupationally defined. An increasing proportion of advertised positions call for appropriate but broad-ranging tertiary qualifications, multi-skills and/or relevant experience. The emergence of a flexible and multi-skilled workforce has inevitable implications for the flexibility of student fieldwork. Flexible learning is a term used to emphasise the flexibility and choice offered to students that best suits the specific individual, regional, industrial, field, professional and pedagogical learning needs at a particular point of time. Flexible learning opportunities relate to a range of factors such as nature of work, proposed time plan and access to a range of learning avenues. This approach requires universities to develop flexibility in the structure, timing and delivery mode of field education programs to enable students from diverse backgrounds and with varying commitments to plan and complete fieldwork over negotiable periods of time, in accordance with changing workplace paradigms. The collaboration needed to provide more innovative field education places greater importance on the partnership model. Managers, practitioners, students and academics are involved in fieldwork provision through their contribution to curriculum development and delivery. Evans and McDermott (1988: 6) expressed this succinctly when they referred to placing a student in fieldwork as ‘not simply an administrative task, but the outcome of a coalescing or mutuality of interests of players in a covertly disputive domain’.

WHAT IS INNOVATIVE FIELD EDUCATION? Many of the key components of innovative fieldwork are found in progressive mainstream models. These characteristics include: • •

commitment to creativity; commitment of all parties to recognising and working on the connections between key players;


162

140 × 215


• • • • • •

163

commitment to recognising the potential for student contribution; new paradigms for learning (laterally and developmentally); adopting an egalitarian adult educator–student learning relationship while acknowledging the power issues; recognising the importance of the learning agreement’s contractual nature; plans to ensure that the student learning experience is professionspecific and organisationally contextualised; multiplicity and diversity of sites, educators, strategies and skills.

Underlying these characteristics is the human services fieldwork imperative that professional values be acknowledged, observed and, where possible, applied to the practice situation. A major dilemma for fieldwork is its dependence upon the contribution of practitioners and agencies when resources allocated to this are increasingly measured in quantifiable terms. Thirty years ago, Pitale (1967, cited in Dalton 1981) identified the traditional fieldwork model as problematic. Five significant changes were considered for the reform of the traditional field education experience, four of which provide useful paradigms for maximising innovative learning opportunities: • • • •

a change in the focus of learning from skill development toward the student’s curriculum and learning needs; a widening of the range of learning experiences; the development of different teaching methods; the development of different organisational structures for field education.

Change in focus of learning toward the student’s curriculum and learning needs The student ‘consumer’ identity sweeping all educational sectors both limits and extends the opportunities for, and control of, students. With access to subjects across courses (and soon across universities), the professional bodies and universities are setting the parameters while students select options within these in accordance with their learning needs and priorities. Circumstances of this nature may be more accommodating to the current student profile, given that approximately 40 per cent of Australian university students study part-time or by distance education (Flew 1998: 36).


163

140 × 215

164


Lifelong learning has also led to an increasing proportion of mature-age students. Simone was one such student. Clare is a practitioner in a mental health institute—part of a regional health care network. Realising the wealth of experience that the student Simone brought, she was keen to engage her in a collaborative project to evaluate a consumer–staff consultation process. Clare was also sensitive to Simone’s learning needs, made more complex by her previous experience. Simone was accountable to two major organisations—the regional health care network and the peak consumer body—as well as a critical reference group with representatives of key stakeholders. Although based at the consumer organisation, space and administrative support were minimal. This necessitated Simone operating freelance from several sites, an arrangement that fitted comfortably with her professional status as well as her personal/family responsibilities.

Widening the range of learning experiences Successful previously unforeseen fieldwork has been established by starting with the learning opportunities offered by the organisation, then working out how to engage students in meaningful learning experiences. A practitioner in the migrant refugee field of practice identified fieldwork opportunities in a number of ethno-specific and migrant organisations usually denied students due to the absence of suitably qualified personnel. Students from various disciplines—interpreting/ translating, occupational therapy, social welfare, community development and theology—were placed in these settings under the task supervisors, complemented by professional supervision from the coordinating practitioner and assisted occasionally by other professionals. Some students were placed in dual and complementary sites—an Adult Migrant Education Centre and an ethno-specific organisation. Others experienced multiple sites, operating either concurrently or consecutively during the fieldwork in a Regional Peak Body, an ethno-specific agency and the Immigration Department.

Different teaching methods Innovative learning opportunities are grouped according to supervision/teaching models, organisational models and university–field


164

140 × 215


165

partnerships. The traditional one-to-one supervision tutorial can be constraining in terms of time, and limiting in its exposure to different practice styles and theories. Alternate supervisory models include: • • •

task supervision; group supervision; collective supervision.

Task supervision may be defined as teaching in some ongoing areas of a student’s fieldwork by a person additional to, alongside or, in some instances, in place of, the designated field educator, and offering alternative modes of practice. A typical model is task supervision within a single agency, exposing a student to different sections or service modalities. The task supervisor—sometimes referred to as a ‘co-field educator’—might have expertise in an area of specific interest or need for student learning. The task supervisor generally comes from an occupational background different to that in which the student is enrolled. A student is increasingly likely to be responsible to the task supervisor on a day-to-day basis, as the designated field educator is often located in a different section or agency. A regional network of community houses provides multiple learning opportunities limited mainly by imagination. A professional practitioner, qualified to meet the relevant profession’s supervision/teaching requirements but also integral to the network, is engaged to provide the educational supervisory role to students individually and in groups. Centre coordinators operate as the ‘on-site’ task supervisors, legitimising the students’ role in specific programs or as part of the centre during fieldwork. There is general agreement that placing pairs or groups of students in fieldwork is preferable, both educationally and economically, in these contexts.

The use of a task supervisor not only presents a creative chance to expand human services students’ field learning opportunities, but also dilutes dependency on single field educators and provides additional role models for students. Moreover, task supervisors may perceive student performance from a different perspective, contributing another dimension to the learning experience. Group supervision provides a group structure and process exposing the student to a variety of different practice models where individual ideas, experiences and values can be shared. It is


165

140 × 215

166


economic in terms of time, promotes peer group learning in formal supervision, and is ongoing amongst students (see Chapter 6). The day-to-day task supervision provided in the network of multicultural agencies was augmented by fortnightly group/peer supervision sessions where all the students placed within ethno-specific organisations and allied agencies were brought together for support, debriefing and the integration of theory with practice. Task supervisors allocated to particular students often attended these sessions, their presence affirming the adult and collegial models of learning. This innovative model was further developed and enriched through participation of students from other disciplines—community development, theology and occupational therapy—who were also practising within the migrant/refugee field of practice. This complemented the similarities and differences between the different human services courses, shared amongst peers in a constructive environment.

Collective supervision is possible when the agency’s philosophy and structure operate on shared processes, with no single person being solely responsible for any area. This is the situation in many agencies operating on a feminist philosophy, or in self-help groups where the student is accountable to the collective and relates to multiple clients, workers (paid and unpaid) and ‘mentors’. A situation reflecting creativity in the teacher/supervisor roles and involvement across three organisational structures was portrayed in Simone’s fieldwork. Simone’s perception of the tripartite student/supervisors relationship was as a ‘collaborative peer relationship’. The consumer advocate provided ongoing task supervision, complemented by fortnightly educational sessions with a human services worker from the network, employed by one of the psychiatric service units. The fieldwork extended part-time over four months, enabling her to operate participatory action research and community development processes consistent with the consumer organisation’s philosophy. Simone believed that ‘the most valuable aspect of this fieldwork was the opportunity to work as a peer with clients and staff in two very different organisations. This provided meaningful insights into staff and client perspectives on practice issues and the impact of the organisational context’.


166

140 × 215


167

Different organisational structures Three different organisational structures are illustrated here. The first, a more typical variation of the organisational model, is set within a single agency which exposes a student to different units or service modalities such as a fieldwork shared between three programs at one centre. This fieldwork provided the student with a number of learning opportunities within a multidisciplinary centre. It involved a mix of casework and community work experience. The student worked with a rooming house group, a child protection unit and an emergency relief program. Staff members at each program undertook supervision of fieldwork tasks. An off-site university staff member provided overall supervision.

The second organisational structure consists of a consortium of agencies collaborating to provide a primary assignment for a student in one setting and a secondary assignment in another. Sometimes these consortia involve one field of practice, such as health care, with the intention of broadening student exposure to the range of roles in that field (Rehr and Caroff 1986). Fieldwork shared between two different agencies provides such an example. One student had the opportunity of undertaking a single field placement that provided two distinct but complementary learning opportunities. This fieldwork enabled the student to explore the application of professional values and practice in the areas of policy development, social action, and community education and action with local consumer groups. The two agencies shared the student’s fieldwork time in order to gain this breadth of experience. Each organisation provided task supervision, and an appropriately qualified professional from the committee of management of one agency accepted responsibility for the student’s overall supervision.

Finally, the third organisational structure involves other consortia bringing together diverse groupings of social agencies, which may collaborate according to geographic base, common purpose or shared clients. Focus of attention may be on issues such as the impact of systems on service delivery. One example involves a network of representatives of aged and health services in conjunction with representatives of the local government community services departments from three geographically adjacent


167

140 × 215

168


municipalities. The network reflects overlapping populations in service clients. Leeanne found herself working to the network—administratively accountable to the community services section of one of the local councils and consulting widely throughout three regions—when engaged in a project to explore resources for women experiencing post-natal distress.

UNIVERSITY–FIELD PARTNERSHIPS Bogo and Globerman (1994) reviewed university–field partnerships and developed a framework for analysis of the inter-organisation models. One model is the student unit headed by a university-based field educator, probably in a setting where human services may or may not be provided. Another model is a structural unit comprising a group of agencies providing field education, with students based in the unit and participating in two or more settings during fieldwork with the coordinator taking a lead role in teaching and support functions. A third model involves a large number of common agencies—multiple hospitals, for example—that offer a wide variety of educational activities with multiple field educators, seminars and structured learning experiences. Two different kinds of partnerships have recently been developed in Victoria. One university has a contractual arrangement with the agency whereby the agency accommodates a group of students and provides supervised human services experience in direct service for approximately 50 per cent of the fieldwork. The remaining fieldwork time involves the students in a research project directed by the agency. A university lecturer assumes responsibility for consultation, overseeing the research and supervising students’ contribution. The lecturer’s continuing involvement, with university backup, enables a major project to be carried out with different groups of students undertaking different stages of the project. The other partnership model is based on a contractual arrangement whereby the university offers regular group liaison, support and educational supervision to an agency that previously took only one student/individual if they provide a group of four field placements. The network of ethno-specific agencies referred to earlier involved university, agency and peak body representatives partici-


168

140 × 215


169

pating in the Steering Committee which was established to oversee the multi-faceted approach to fieldwork that highlights the partnership of major parties.

THEORY INTO PRACTICE This section outlines, discusses and suggests innovative solutions for common structural dilemmas faced by practitioners when they confront the possibility of providing student fieldwork. These dilemmas include: • • • • • • •

agency philosophy/policy; management priority; staff commitment; legislative restraints restricting the range of fieldwork experience; organisational constraints; staff continuity; staff resources and recognition.

Agency philosophy/policy Where does one start if the agency philosophy/policy places little or no significance on the provision of student fieldwork/student learning? One way around this is for the practitioner to identify shared training needs for which agency colleagues or particular sections indicate they would appreciate university workshops. In return, the agency could provide a number of student field placements. In return for two student field placements each year with the small number of human services workers at a geriatric hospital, a university lecturer with research and practice expertise in the aged/health area provides regular workshops for paramedical staff in this unit.

Management priority How does a practitioner deal with management priority? With the managerialist focus upon productivity and ‘output’, the longer-term benefit of qualitative student supervision may be less convincing. If the agency is reasonably large, exploratory inquiry into the number of workers who began with the agency as students then graduated to work there may provide helpful background statistics. Another strategy to overcome this short-term view may be to


169

140 × 215

170


highlight resources that are beneficial to organisational research, staff development and public relations. University staff with expertise in these areas may be engaged in return for fieldwork. In exchange for practitioner-supervised service delivery learning opportunities for a group of students, a lecturer is assigned as consultant researcher to supervise students in research projects identified by the agency as priority. The research may be short or long term, the lecturer continuing with the agency, moving on to the next stage of research with each new group of students. Ongoing involvement of a university field coordinator in a youth refuge’s Committee of Management, resulting in contribution to the development of the agency, has ensured ongoing fieldwork opportunities with the refuge.

Staff commitment Staff commitment can become problematic in an environment where (almost) everything is measured and monetary reward is wanting in most courses. Practitioner commitment may therefore require some form of enticement. Some overseas universities provide positive models in this area. Field educators are rewarded for their supervisory role by being designated ‘honorary lecturers’ with access to ancillary benefits such as a ‘free’ place or reduced cost in course units, concessional admission to seminars, and/or credit points towards a higher degree. Acquisition of these benefits across universities calls for concerted action by organisations, professional associations and practitioners. As in most professions, universities are more likely to recognise extended teaching roles that were previously provided gratis when these are couched in terms of demand for some form of future ‘payment’.

Legislative restraints restricting the range of fieldwork experience Professional accountability and legal responsibility have tended to both extend responsibilty while narrowing the risk of creativity. Experiential learning opportunities with the public may be limited in some environments, such as the Family Law Court and child protection. Strategies to address this may include participant observational experience with the clients in one setting, providing insight into issues on which a project is undertaken, together with


170

140 × 215


171

the opportunity for client experience in a contrasting environment—a neighbouring or associated agency, for example. A student is placed in a relationship counselling agency that has a contractual arrangement with the government funder. This stipulates that only trained therapists can undertake couples’ counselling. The therapist/supervisor therefore engages the student as a co-counsellor, involving them in preparing briefing notes before a session, taking an active role in the counselling sessions and writing up the case notes. The student accesses experience that is otherwise unattainable: the supervisor benefits from the helpful and supportive nature of the student’s involvement as a critical participant observer.

Organisational constraints Organisational constraints exist to varying degrees in many contexts. An agency’s role may be funded and defined in terms of programs for different groups in the community, run only during a university term, or conducted during university holidays. The nature of the research project may only be effectively carried out during an extended period of time, or the service may be operating for a limited number of hours per week. Innovation can be seen in the negotiation of the terms within which student learning opportunities may be provided, within the parameters of the course’s flexibility. A practitioner who was fractionally employed at a suburban neighbourhood house supervised a student whose learning contract included experience as: 1 a group facilitator with some young, newly arrived mothers from Southeast Asia at one neighbourhood house; 2 a researcher and networker for a post-natal depression support group that met at the local family and child welfare centre; 3 designer of a training program for volunteers at another neighbouring centre.

This fitted well with the need for part-time fieldwork over an extended period of time, with the opportunity to work with multiple supervisors in diverse locations. This innovation met a range of learning needs, all of which were measurable in terms of outcomes for the participants, the student and the neighbourhood houses.


171

140 × 215

172


Staff continuity An agency may cite the employment of part-time or contract staff as a reason for not offering fieldwork. An innovative strategy would be to explore the possibility of either part-time student fieldwork or working with joint supervisors engaged in co-field teaching. This is a valuable approach where extended experience provides opportunities for developmental learning and recognises the teaching role of part-time staff.

Staff resources and recognition Limited staff resources and narrowly defined roles and responsibilities may restrict workers who are otherwise committed to field education. A suggested strategy may be to offer fieldwork conditional upon co-supervision by the university, or supplemented by co-field teaching in conjunction with a colleague in a related area. Given adequate learning opportunities, it may be particularly appropriate in such instances to take two students—perhaps from different universities—who may support and learn from each other informally. This is illustrated in Table 13.1. The Victorian Department of Human Services wanted to encourage its staff to provide student fieldwork in its Child Protection Branch as a strategy to employ and retain more experienced graduates in the service. In recognition of the time constraints and resistance to providing supervision by an overworked staff, funds were set aside to employ an experienced supervisor, with previous work in the field, to provide group supervision to students from a number of universities.

SUMMARY The challenge facing academia, industry and the community is the extent to which models previously labelled ‘innovative’, ‘alternate’ or ‘atypical’ remain so—or the extent to which these models must be integrated into mainstream fieldwork. If fieldwork is to continue as an integral part of human services education, and if it is to prepare graduates appropriately for the current and future labour market, universities and professional associations throughout the Western world may need to be more committed and more creative in their fieldwork planning.


172

140 × 215


Table 13.1

173

Practitioners’ dilemmas and solutions

Issue

Strategy

Agency policy

• Identify shared training needs for which people would appreciate university workshops. In return, provide a number of student placements. • Highlight resources beneficial to organisational research, staff development, public relations, etc. for which university may offer expertise in return for placements. • Demonstrate/publicise individual recognition/rewards offered by universities in return for supervision such as: – ‘free’ place or reduced cost in undertaking course subjects; – discount/concessional admission to seminars; – credit points towards higher degree for supervisory contribution; – library access; – honorary lecturer title. • Observational work plus the opportunity for client experience at neighbouring or associated agency, accompanied by project work. • Part fieldwork in the agency and part in a contrasting environment. • Define terms within which student learning opportunities may be provided. Negotiate according to university’s flexibility for fieldwork structure (part-time fieldwork over extended period, multiple supervisors, diverse locations etc.) • Co-field teaching by part-time staff. • Engage part-time students—especially valuable where extended experience provides opportunity for developmental learning. • Offer fieldwork for which the university may provide co-supervision or which can be supplemented by a person in a related area. • Take two students who may support each other informally.

Management

Staff commitment

Legislative constraints

Organisational constraints

Staff continuity

Staff resources

The models discussed in this chapter are not all-encompassing. Changing work patterns, increased reliance on technological teaching and practice strategies and contracting out of services are some of the factors necessitating constantly changing fieldwork paradigms. Creative fieldwork models cannot be pursued in a conforming academic environment. They are only viable in a supportive, flexible learning program. This will require universities to develop a more proactive and expanded role in interacting with the field rather than continuing to relate in the traditional episodic model comprising fieldwork identification, negotiation, liaison and


173

140 × 215

174


evaluation. Flexible learning opportunities include a range of learning avenues such as scheduled class activities, as well as negotiation for individual or small group study, supported by information technology—video relay, teleconferencing, audio-visual kits and computer linkup—where appropriate for course requirements. The focus for the field should be on its responsibility to provide student exposure to the new workplace paradigms and a wide variety of professional experiences. This necessarily creates a need for professionals to demand adequate resources and backup for those engaged in a shared learning experience that enhances flexible learning opportunities geared to suit the student’s individual, professional and pedagogical needs.


174

140 × 215

SECTION 3 PRACTICAL SUGGESTIONS


175

140 × 215


176

140 × 215

14

Overview of practical suggestions

Lynne Briggs and Lesley Cooper PRACTICAL SUGGESTIONS OVERVIEW OF PRACTICAL SUGGESTIONS

As stated in the preface, this book has been written for field educators to assist them to understand students and their learning experiences. This book’s central assumption is that students and their learning are at the heart of fieldwork. While the emphasis in the previous two sections has been largely theoretical, addressing the learner and learning, each chapter has concluded with a discussion of theory and practice links. In this section, the aim is to consider some practical issues that are of day-to-day concern to both experienced and inexperienced educators. While learning is the central focus of student placements, fieldwork takes place in an agency with a primary goal of quality service to clients. The field educator is the person responsible for making this learning possible in an increasingly turbulent and complex environment. This final section of the book is a good place to briefly describe this person and acknowledge their importance in off-campus fieldwork learning.

WHO IS A FIELD EDUCATOR? The field educator is typically a senior practitioner in the agency with several years of practice experience. Many field educators are part of the agency management, although this is not always the 177


177

140 × 215

178

PRACTICAL SUGGESTIONS

case. In many human services agencies, this person is not paid for their student work. Some universities accord field educators special status and privileges by granting associate lecturer status, however. Field educators volunteer their services as a commitment to the ongoing education of students. Field education would not exist without this commitment. Often this supervisory role is over and above the field educator’s agency workload. This is a cause of concern, as agencies are now required to do much more with fewer staff. Field educators complete a number of distinct tasks on behalf of, and with, students as part of their educational activities, including: • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • •

negotiation with the university about the placement of students; selection of a student or students for the agency; occasionally selecting and recruiting other staff for student supervision; orientation of the student to the agency, team and method of work around such issues as occupational health and safety; attending orientation sessions held at the university where they learn about course structure, assessment requirements and organisational issues; setting up a learning contract with students against which their learning will be evaluated; allocation of a suitable workload; arrangement of co-working opportunities, visits to agencies or provision of additional training; provision of supervision on an individual or group basis; mediation of any conflicts or disputes that arise in the course of the fieldwork; coordination with the university; ongoing assessment of the student’s work; being present with the student for formal university and agency visits; writing the final assessment; debriefing and saying farewells.

While this list clearly illustrates the multi-skilled nature of the field educator’s role, it also underplays the competing interests of all parties involved in field education. There are at least four competing interest groups: the university and staff responsible for the organisation and management of the fieldwork, the agency, the clients and the students. The field


178

140 × 215

OVERVIEW OF PRACTICAL SUGGESTIONS

179

educator has to manage all of these competing interests. Should conflict occur during student assessment or as a result of problems between the student and their client, this list of interest groups is expanded, becoming increasingly difficult to manage in the process. This situation exists when students struggle with learning tasks that necessitate the training body’s involvement. One of the critical tasks for field educators is teaching specific skills to students while enabling them to learn from their experiences. Some of the skills students may need to acquire include an understanding of professional roles; specific professional skills such as specialised assessment, information and data-gathering approaches, and new practice methods; or even such basic skills as writing reports, letters and case records. Although teaching some skills can be relatively straightforward, assisting students to learn from their experiences—to return to feelings generated by these experiences, to reflect on experiences and to connect personal experiences with broader political issues—can be more challenging. In direct work with clients, field educators often struggle to assist students to cope with taboo areas raised by clients; to use silences effectively; to be aware of their attitudes about gender or culture; and to be comfortable with themselves.

STUDENT ISSUES Although this chapter focuses on strategies to assist field educators, student issues might be somewhat different. Many students put emphasis on obtaining placements where employment opportunities are the greatest. This may be particularly so where employment is more competitive. Other students may desire a particular type of educator or field of practice that will enable entry into agencies that will increase their level of overall practical experiences. These different perceptions of learning objectives can lead to tense learning relationships. The editors have included this third section as a way of assisting both new and experienced field educators to deal with some of the day-to-day issues that face students in fieldwork. Chapters in this section outline a range of practical strategies to assist field educators in their teaching activities. The importance of achieving successful learning outcomes for students, ensuring quality teaching and learning and enabling the satisfaction of field educators cannot be over-estimated.


179

140 × 215

180


OVERVIEW: SECTION 3 In Chapter 15, Diana Moore draws on her extensive involvement in field education to list the stakeholders, clarify each player’s interests and note areas where conflict might exist. At the outset, she refers to the importance of the accrediting body which sets rules about fieldwork length and field educator qualifications. The university or training body is also a key player, interested in the student allocation process; resourcing of the fieldwork; monitoring of the student field experience; the integration of learning; and the fit between the practical experience and more formal classroom learning. The field educator is another key stakeholder, and last— but most definitely not least—so are the students who are the beneficiaries of this process. Chapter 16 deals with the argument that fieldwork is a potential site of struggle for many students. When these struggles occur, field educators, the training provider and student are inextricably linked. Narda Razack emphasises that, for some students, life crises or traumatic events in fieldwork can remind them of their own oppression, leading to problems. Students with emotional, psychological or behavioural problems and students from racial minorities all have special learning needs in fieldwork. Narda argues that if reasons behind such students’ struggles are not critically examined, the effects can be devastating for all involved. Educators, hand in hand with students, need to grapple with inequities, and oppressive behaviours and practices. Jane Maidment begins Chapter 17 by referring to fieldwork as the ‘heart’ of student learning in the human services. Such sentiments reflect the thinking of most students and field educators in the human services. This chapter addresses some core issues in field education: the strategies and reasons for field educator observations of student work and the importance of collecting evidence to demonstrate performance. Jane’s discussion about strategies leads to criticism of a haphazard approach to theory and practice integration. She argues for greater reflection as a way to better appreciate practice and the student’s performance. Gayla Rogers and Paul Langevin present a learning-centred, negotiated learning contract in Chapter 18. The student or educator can structure learning. It can be serendipitous or a product of trial and error learning. As a way of accommodating all forms of learning, this chapter notes four learning qualities that should be reflected in a negotiated learning contract. These include being,


180

140 × 215

OVERVIEW OF PRACTICAL SUGGESTIONS

181

knowing, doing and thinking. Gayla and Paul note that negotiation implies some degree of equality for participants. However, it also implies that the degree to which negotiation can occur depends on constraints imposed by accrediting and training bodies. The chapter ends with an outline of the process of developing a negotiated learning contract. In Chapter 19, Gwen Ellis explores reflective practice, arguing for both practical and critical reflection. She bases her arguments on the work of Schön (1987) and describes how reflection can be facilitated during field education. The second part of the chapter offers suggestions as to how field educators can put reflective learning into practice in their work with students. Gwen describes and illustrates a model of reflection, using a vignette to guide the learning process. Chapter 20 will be of special interest to male students and their field educators. Ken McMaster notes the small number of male students in the human services and emphasises the important role they have to play in taking a position against society’s dominant views of masculinity. The author provides a number of ideas for encouraging educators to assist their students. Firstly, it is important for students to understand the historical dimensions of the construction of masculinity. Secondly, both educators and students need to appreciate how this historical dimension translates into irresponsible and unaccountable behaviour in human services clients. Thirdly, he asks educators to consider how they might encourage students to take a position in the gender debate, given the impact on human services of masculinity paradigms. Such an exploration will assist beginning practitioners to challenge and rethink assumptions around gender in human services practice.


181

140 × 215

15

Managing fieldwork

Diana Moore MANAGING FIELDWORK

This chapter draws on the writer’s experience through her involvement in field education over a number of years. Fieldwork management issues are challenging because of the potential competing agendas of all parties involved—students, training bodies, human services organisations, field educators and accrediting bodies. This chapter considers these agendas and the resultant issues in fieldwork management, including the process by which students are placed in human services organisations; resourcing fieldwork; maintaining quality control; and balancing expectations for students’ learning with expectations for service delivery. Ways of managing these issues are suggested, particularly from the field educator’s perspective.

THE FIELDWORK PLAYERS’ AGENDAS All parties involved in fieldwork emphasise the need to provide a quality experience for students, but what this means, and how it may best be achieved, can vary with different perspectives. The literature gives little attention to a cohesive approach to fieldwork management (Kilpatrick and Holland 1993). Competing interests between and within the groups involved mean that fieldwork management needs to consider these potentially conflicting agendas. 182


182

140 × 215

MANAGING FIELDWORK

183

THE TRAINING BODY A training body focuses its student education to reflect its view of future developments in human services organisations. Within most training bodies, staff are delegated the management of fieldwork to meet the training body’s objectives. This involves the day-to-day planning and administration of fieldwork, as well as the broader responsibilities of ensuring quality experience in field education. The training bodies’ agendas include the following: • •

• • • •

locating sufficient quality field placements to provide for all students undertaking the training course; negotiating satisfactory agreements with human services organisations and field educators prior to students undertaking fieldwork; allocating students to suitable field placements to ensure that the learning needs of all students may be met; ensuring that the students’ educational requirements are met; assessing students’ level of performance on the fieldwork, in particular assessing whether a student has reached a pass standard; developing and maintaining a pool of experienced field educators.

THE PROFESSIONAL ACCREDITING BODY Professional accrediting bodies set the parameters and expectations for minimum requirements for student fieldwork—the minimum number of hours spent in fieldwork, the range of experience to be obtained and field educators’ qualifications. Such requirements set a standard for all parties to achieve, but they may also limit opportunities to locate fieldwork.

THE HUMAN SERVICES ORGANISATION The human services organisation’s primary focus is the delivery of a service to its clients, not the training of students. Its involvement in student fieldwork reflects an acknowledgment that providing these will assist in the development of practitioners who will perhaps make a future contribution to their organisation. It may


183

140 × 215

184


also reflect the need for an extra pair of hands. The human services organisation’s agendas include: •

•

ensuring that students on fieldwork in the organisation are able to meet the organisation’s standards for effective and efficient delivery of service; balancing the resources provided by the organisation (physical resources such as space and administrative resources, and staff time involved in the student’s supervision) with the student’s contribution to the organisation’s services.

THE FIELD EDUCATOR Field educators—the human services workers who supervise the students within the context of their employing human services organisation—have been a valuable resource throughout the history of human services education. Bogo and Power (1992) refer to the literature, which indicates that the field educator is critical in contributing to the positive learning experience of the student on fieldwork. Some of the field educators’ agendas will relate to those of their human services organisation. Others will relate to their own motivation for supervising a student—influencing another’s professional development, a desire to teach and a professional duty (Lacerte et al. 1991), and the input students can make to one’s own professional development (Pavlin 1980; Slocombe 1993). The agendas for field educators in fieldwork are: •

•

• • • •

being involved in the selection of a student who will contribute to the human services organisation’s requirements and with whom they feel they can develop a constructive relationship; developing a process with the training body about how student evaluation information can be shared between student, field educator and training body; being adequately informed by the training body about expectations for the student’s learning; negotiating support from their human services organisation and the training body in their role as field educator; organising support for the student from the human services organisation; balancing student learning needs with the needs of the human services organisation to deliver a service.


184

140 × 215

MANAGING FIELDWORK

185

THE STUDENT Students enter the course with expectations that influence their interest in, and attitude towards, the fieldwork experience. Students, like organisations, vary in the emphasis they place on learning organisation specifics or on developing broader practice frameworks. Whatever the emphasis, students place vital importance on obtaining the fieldwork that matches their expectations. Some place considerable emphasis on obtaining fieldwork in organisations where they consider employment opportunities are greatest, particularly as employment opportunities for new graduates become more competitive. These students will emphasise the acquisition of specific skills in specific fields of practice. In contrast, others emphasise such factors as choice of field educator or fieldwork that will give them an opportunity to increase the range of their practice experience (O’Connor et al. 1998). Students’ agendas include: • • • •

being involved in the decision-making about fieldwork allocation; choosing between what fieldwork they might prefer and what is available; risking being challenged in the fieldwork experience in what is a relatively powerless position; being part of the evaluation process both during and at the conclusion of the fieldwork.

ISSUES FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF FIELDWORK A number of issues arise when taking all of the different agenda into account: •

• • •

locating sufficient field placements and allocating them in as fair and equitable manner as possible for all students and field educators. This includes the development of management processes that enable field educators and students to be involved in decision-making about fieldwork allocation; accessing sufficient resources to support both student and field educator during the fieldwork; maintaining quality control over fieldwork; the field educator’s role in balancing the training body’s expectations for student learning with the human services organisation’s expectations for effective and efficient service delivery.


185

140 × 215

186


MANAGEMENT OF FIELDWORK ISSUES Training bodies will develop different approaches to organising fieldwork depending on the needs and resources of the players involved. Arrangements for organising fieldwork for distance education bodies may be quite different from the models adopted by a training body in a large metropolitan area. In the former situation, it is not uncommon for students to take the primary role in locating their own fieldwork experience within their local area. In the metropolitan area, however, it is usually the training body’s responsibility to negotiate arrangements. It is generally accepted that students should be actively involved in decision-making to ensure that their learning needs are met through linking them with appropriate fieldwork (Fook and Cleak 1994; Bogo 1983). It is suggested that how this happens may impact on the subsequent management of the fieldwork, and that the field educator’s role in decision-making about the choice of student is vital to the process. This involves negotiation between the training body and the human services organisation, and the field educator’s decision to accept a student.

Negotiating fieldwork It has been noted that the training body’s focus is on the education of students in a way that reflects its view of future developments, while the human services organisation’s focus is the delivery of a service to its clients. This difference in agendas can create conflict over expectations for student fieldwork. It is suggested that both parties be specific about their agendas when negotiating arrangements for student fieldwork in order to overcome problems in this area. The training body has a responsibility to be specific about its broad educational curriculum for the fieldwork. The organisation must be specific about the experience available for the student. Negotiation of fieldwork depends on the ongoing relationship between these two parties. A variety of approaches is available, each with its own impact on the fieldwork. The human services organisation may provide fieldwork on a regular basis. Some human services organisations negotiate formal agreements with education bodies, specifying the number of field placements at any one time. The advantage of a partnership—whether by formal contractual agreement or more informal arrangement—that leads to organisations and field educators working with the training body to


186

140 × 215

MANAGING FIELDWORK

187

provide regular student field placements is that both understand the strengths and weaknesses the other brings to the fieldwork. The training body has more opportunity to provide adequate feedback about the fieldwork to the organisation and to gain a deeper understanding of what student needs can best be met. There is also more opportunity for the human services organisation and field educators to provide the training body with feedback about their expectations for students. This arrangement expedites the negotiation of quality fieldwork. Fieldwork may be provided on an irregular basis for a range of reasons including organisational issues or staff changes, or on a one-off basis to suit an individual student’s interests. The latter involves the organisation and the training body in negotiating specific arrangements for that specific field placement. Neither the human services organisation nor the training body can be sure of the quality of the fieldwork. Field education staff develop fieldwork in new areas in the human services. Education bodies need to be proactive in locating and developing new learning experiences in these emerging areas. Ruffolo and Miller (1994) suggest an advocacy/empowerment model for organising fieldwork with emerging community organisations. The suggested process is designed not only to expand training opportunities for students, but also to support emerging services.

The field educator’s decision to accept a student for fieldwork Once the human services organisation and field educator have reached an agreement with the training body to provide fieldwork, it is important that both field educator and student have a say in the fieldwork allocation process. The field educator’s decision takes into account their assessment of their own capacities as a field educator as well as the human services organisation’s requirements. Where possible, the decision should be based on an interview with the student. It is suggested that, during this interview, field educators be specific about what experience is available in the organisation, what the student can expect in the way of a learning experience and what type of teaching will take place. They should also clarify questions such as why the student is interested in that particular fieldwork setting and what the student brings to the fieldwork by way of


187

140 × 215

188


previous experience, skills and practice framework. A suggested guideline for a fieldwork interview is as follows: •

•

•

•

Provide information about the human services organisation, including details about the organisational structure, staffing arrangements and type of work covered. Clarify the student’s areas of interest. Is the student interested in this area of practice? What are the student’s other areas of interest? Is the student interested in building on existing strengths or developing new areas of interest? Where the student has had a previous field placement, ask them to comment on this experience, in particular the use made of learning opportunities. What were one or two significant areas of learning? What were some of the challenges during the fieldwork? How were these resolved? If this is the student’s first field placement, ask them to talk about previous work situations and what they found helpful/more difficult in learning about their role in the work situation. In preparing for fieldwork, students will have considered issues about their practice, including professional values, practice methods and the frameworks that guide their practice. It can be useful to discuss these issues, and for the field educator to share information about their own areas of interest in practice and approach to their work.

Several considerations are taken into account in the field educator’s assessment of whether they are willing to accept the student for fieldwork: •

• •

Has the training body provided them with sufficient information to make an informed decision about the offer of the placement? Will they feel comfortable working with this student over the fieldwork period? Has the student demonstrated in the interview that they have a beginning understanding of what will fit for the field educator and human services organisation?

For all field educators, the challenge of managing the fieldwork relates to bridging the gap between the human services organisation’s requirements and the student’s need to build a broader framework for practice. These aspects influence the field educator’s flexibility in the choice of student for fieldwork. The field educator is more restricted in the choice of students where


188

140 × 215

MANAGING FIELDWORK

189

the weight is towards the organisation’s needs. Where the organisation is willing to accept more freedom in the student’s agendas, however, the field educator is able to take more risks in relation to students with special learning needs who can be accommodated in the agency (Moore 1995).

ACCESSING RESOURCES FOR FIELD EDUCATOR AND STUDENT The field educator has access to support from two sources: the training body and the human services organisation.

The training body The field educator can expect the training body to provide written information about its expectations, guidelines for evaluation of the student, and a field liaison person. Written information outlines the training body’s expectations for the experience to be provided for the student and the learning to be achieved from that experience (curriculum for the fieldwork). Information is provided in general terms to cover the experiences for all students undertaking the fieldwork. However, because students’ specific fieldwork experiences vary, there is usually an expectation that the field educator and student will adapt this information to fit the particular situation in their human services organisation. Guidelines for evaluation of the student’s experience include how this is to be done and by whom: the field educator, the training body or a combination of both. The field liaison person is a staff member from the training body who is able to act as a liaison between the training body, the student, field educator and human services organisation. This role has been variously described in the human services literature as a facilitator of field teaching, a monitor of the educational opportunities provided by the human services organisation and an evaluator of the field educator’s and student’s progress (Rosenblum and Raphael 1983). It is suggested that the field educator clarify with their liaison person what their role will be and how the field educator and student can be assisted during the fieldwork. The human services organisation It is suggested that the field educator clarify what support they will have from the human services organisation during the fieldwork.


189

140 × 215

190


It is important that the student has access to work in the human services organisation; that colleagues assist by providing this and sharing some of their activities with the student; and that workloads are allocated to enable the field educator time to supervise the student as part of their accepted responsibilities within the organisation.

MAINTAINING QUALITY CONTROL OVER FIELDWORK One of the challenges in managing fieldwork is maintaining quality. A major issue in this area is access to relevant information for all parties involved. One of the weaknesses in many field education programs is the lack of reciprocal feedback about the quality of both fieldwork and supervision. This is appropriately a function of the field liaison role. The process will be assisted if fieldwork curricula are clearly specified at the beginning of the fieldwork and all three participants—field educator, student and field liaison—can review the student’s learning during the fieldwork and examine how this has been achieved. It will, however, remain a challenge when evaluating the fieldwork for future students to distinguish between the impact of the human service organisation’s work, the field educator’s contribution and the engagement of the student in the fieldwork.

THE FIELD EDUCATOR’S ROLE DURING FIELDWORK The field educator’s challenging role is to set up processes that clearly address both the training body’s expectations for the student to learn to develop their practice skills, and the human service organisation’s need to deliver an effective and efficient service.

Preparation for the student’s arrival Once a decision has been made to accept a student, preparation for the student’s arrival needs to incorporate practical considerations for their participation in the human service organisation’s activities. Before the student commences the fieldwork, it is necessary to clarify: • •

who should be advised of the student’s commencement; legal requirements for their involvement in the human service


190

140 × 215

MANAGING FIELDWORK

• •

• • •

191

organisation (signing confidentiality agreements, completing a security check); insurance provided for the student by the training body and the organisation; arrangements for reimbursement of travelling expenses or for transport if the student is required to work outside the organisation; the student’s location relative to access to support services, such as telephones, computers and typing of reports; how the student will be oriented to the human service organisation; information the training body has provided about the expected curriculum for the fieldwork and how this will be incorporated with the human service organisation’s activities.

Orientation If students are placed regularly in a particular organisation, it may be valuable to develop an orientation program that can be used by each group of commencing students. The beginning of fieldwork is a very challenging time for both student and field educator, and sets the scene for the balance of the fieldwork. Students, and sometimes field educators, are anxious at this time, so it is important to establish a good working relationship. While students will need to learn about organisation policy and practice, they have generally been waiting for this opportunity to be involved in activities in the field and respond well to early involvement in action. Some helpful suggestions for field educators are: • •

• •

•

Clarify with the student their approach to learning. Provide the student with information about the organisation’s goals and objectives, and about the human service field with which the organisation is involved. Ask the student to organise interviews with other members of the staff to discuss their work and practice activities. Suggest that students visit other human services organisations and assess the services they provide. This helps students to begin developing the necessary networks within the wider human services sphere. Clarify with the student their expectations for the fieldwork and their understanding of the supervision processes.


191

140 × 215

192


Clarifying the student’s approach to learning helps establish what they will find most helpful in the first period of the fieldwork. Some students will find it difficult to learn new information unless they have been involved in, or observed, work situations. Others will be eager to read as much as possible before involvement in action. Providing the student with specific information about the organisation is important in establishing whether the student has been prepared for the specific area in which the human services organisation is engaged, or whether their training has been more generic, relying on development of more specific information during the fieldwork. Clarifying the student’s expectations of the fieldwork and the supervision process also indicates how their training body has prepared them for field education, giving the field educator an informed starting point.

Supervision sessions The tension between educational and organisational objectives is also reflected in planning field education sessions that allow the student to explore and develop their practice learning, while providing space for the field educator to monitor the quality of service provided to the organisation’s clients. It is suggested that field educators ensure selected pieces of work are covered in detail and that field education processes allow for ‘administrative’ supervision of all other work (see Chapter 3). As the field educator is responsible to the organisation for the student’s work, it is essential that adequate processes be established to keep the field educator informed of the student’s progress. This may be done through verbal reporting in field education sessions, but preferably through written documentation.

Field educator’s diary It is suggested that field educators keep a diary as a useful tool for managing fieldwork, just as students keep a diary of their fieldwork experience. The diary can be used to record the content of field education sessions (such as the agenda and activities to be followed up by student and field educator), as well as the process of the session and the field educator’s and student’s contribution. As with student diaries, it is important to clarify who has access to the information. Is it the field educator alone, or is it to be shared


192

140 × 215

MANAGING FIELDWORK

193

with the student, the training body’s liaison staff member, or the field educator’s own supervisor?

Student evaluation The field educator’s regular evaluation of the student’s performance, and sharing this evaluation with the student as events occur, are essential ingredients in effective fieldwork management. Where other staff share an evaluation with the field educator, it is helpful for the student if the staff member involved can share comments directly with them, regardless of whether these are positive or negative. Where there are concerns about the student’s performance, however, the field educator may need to facilitate this feedback to ensure it is used constructively for the student’s ongoing development. Students need to have a very clear understanding of the expectations for their fieldwork. Regular feedback is helpful in this process.

Balancing work and student commitments One of the major challenges in managing fieldwork from the field educator’s perspective is maintaining a balance between their own work commitments and their commitment to their student. The early part of the fieldwork—when the student has to grasp new information about a range of organisational and practice situations—can be especially demanding for the field educator. Opening clear lines of communication with the student and liaison person before the fieldwork, and keeping these open, can help maintain the balance: •

• •

• •

Before the student commences fieldwork and again early in the fieldwork, discuss field education arrangements and your availability for consultation on a daily basis. Set aside a regular, specified time for uninterrupted supervision (as far as possible). Clarify your expectations for field education sessions and the student’s contribution to this process. Have students provide you with written material for the sessions—it is their learning experience and they can be encouraged to take control of it. Ensure that students have access to other staff members for information where relevant. Seek assistance from the training body’s liaison person if problems arise.


193

140 × 215

194


SUMMARY Managing fieldwork in a way that balances the agendas of all parties involved is a challenging experience. It is not always possible to satisfy all agendas. It is suggested that the way forward for field educators is to be clear about decisions and why they have been made. Procedures and processes should be explicit, not implicit. This provides the basis for clear and open communication between the parties, and increases the probability of a constructive and enjoyable experience for the field educator, the student and the organisation.


194

140 × 215

16

Students at risk in the field

Narda Razack STUDENTS AT RISK IN THE FIELD

Fieldwork can be a site of struggle for many students. If the reasons behind such struggle are not critically examined, the effects can be devastating for those involved. Life crises or traumatic events during the fieldwork can remind some students of their own oppression, creating problems. Some students may also view the time allotment for fieldwork as burdensome, due to family and employment responsibilities. Others, who encounter daily forms of oppression simply because of societal labels placed on them, may also face difficulties in the fieldwork, causing significant threat and risk. Field educators struggle with students who display weak interpersonal skills, are rigid and inflexible, and have limited ability to apply conceptual skills in practice situations. The field educator, student, agency and university are inextricably involved when concerns arise in the fieldwork. This chapter focuses on three particular areas that pose potential risks for students and concerns for field educators: • • •

the mature student or experienced learner; students with emotional/psychological problems; the racial minority student.

Implications for human services are discussed and practical suggestions outlined, primarily for the field educator but with implications for staff, student and agency. 195


195

140 × 215

196


PROBLEMS AND RISKS Although the marginal or failing student in fieldwork is the focus of much debate (Brandon and Davies 1979; Bogo and Vayda 1987; Coleman et al. 1995), there is sparse research and information relating to at-risk students (Cole and Lewis 1993). Similarly, documentation regarding actual dismissal of students based on poor performance in fieldwork has been minimal (Cole and Lewis 1993). Rosenblum and Raphael (1987) state that serious problems do occur in fieldwork for students. The current climate of restructuring, downsizing and retrenchment in the human services has resulted in tense work environments. Shifting locations for human services workers have become the norm. It is therefore imperative to discuss and document ways in which students can be assisted through difficulties. Facilitating discussions around the changing nature of practice is critical so that field educators and students are attuned to current issues and can work together to minimise risk. Risk in this context denotes concerns about student performance and abilities. It also signifies student characteristics that put them at risk. Students from oppressed groups are at risk by virtue of their membership of groups inferiorised by the dominant society. These students can also put themselves at risk if they challenge discrimination and are subjected to discriminatory behaviours. Fieldwork is the place where significant issues pertaining to students’ abilities and competencies for professional practice become evident. This course can therefore be referred to as the profession’s ‘gatekeeper’. It is often viewed as the most practical site for identifying performance difficulties that do not surface in the classroom or when completing academic assignments (Coleman et al. 1995). This ‘gatekeeping’ function of fieldwork is important for two reasons: •

•

It signals the need to incorporate anti-oppression principles in field education when students with disabilities and other forms of oppression have to face major hurdles in their fieldwork. It alerts field educators to students who have difficulties because of interpersonal problems, psychological and emotional issues.

Professional monitoring and assessment of student competence can be analysed in fieldwork. When there are problems, however, the ability to fully explore options is limited. Failing a student in a field placement is complicated and not a common occurrence, due in part to the fear that students may resort to legal action:


196

140 × 215

STUDENTS AT RISK IN THE FIELD

197

the literature argues that assessment of the practicum is difficult, of marginal performance especially so, and failure of the practicum is in practice rare. Moreover, it argues that the relationship between student and field educator is not simple or transparent and is influenced by several variables. (Eisenberg et al. 1996: 34)

The following discussion highlights particular students at risk in the field and provides a context for examining and critically analysing the roles of field educators and students. Socio-political issues as well as anti-oppression principles are crucial to this analysis.

THE MATURE STUDENT Mature learners return to university for a variety of reasons. They may have years of human services-related experience but seek further qualifications. Some of them are embarking on a career after caring for children, while others wish to upgrade or change their profession. Risk factors for mature students in fieldwork include: • • •

• • • • •

fear of failure; apprehension and feelings of incompetence about practice; the expectation that they should be more knowledgeable simply because they have been around longer (Bogo and Vayda 1987); juggling home and university responsibilities; minimising their field learning because of prior experience; the age differential between field educator and student; resistance to being a student; feeling equally or more competent than the field educator (Bogo and Vayda 1987).

Some students can be particularly demanding of the field educator and subtly display superior attitudes. Others may minimise their experiences simply to complete the necessary hours for the fieldwork course, never challenging themselves fully. Students with experience in settings that have rigid guidelines and fairly entrenched and conservative practices may challenge the organisation and field educator inappropriately. All of these situations can create risk for students in the field. Therefore it is helpful for field educators to understand these changing dynamics in people’s lives


197

140 × 215

198


and assist such students to learn and practise advocacy, social action and anti-discriminatory practice approaches. The field educator needs to understand these various dilemmas and realities which a mature student may experience while in the field placement. The transition to the student role can be difficult, especially when there is loss of income, status and power (Marshack 1991). The field educator needs to be cognisant of these situations and facilitate an openness to discussing transition of roles. Many of these students face conflicting demands at home and feel guilty about going back to university. Also, significant differences in age between student and field educator may cause discomfort for both. Power and authority conflicts may arise, since the older student may find it difficult to accept direction and may feel devalued when their employment and life experiences are not recognised. The field educator can play a critical role in assisting the older student through some of these difficult situations. Recognition of the strengths and competencies mature students tend to bring to fieldwork is important from the outset. Many are highly motivated to succeed and are focused on learning and challenging themselves. Their life experiences make them more resilient to workplace demands and they may be more self-reliant and capable in the changing work environment. The field educator should read the mature student’s resumé prior to the pre-fieldwork interview to gain preliminary knowledge of the student’s skills and experiences, which should then be acknowledged during the interview. The field educator needs to be knowledgeable of different learning styles and adapt these to suit the particular student. Given age differences, the field educator may opt to facilitate a climate of openness and collaboration so that the older student feels recognised and included. However, it may be necessary to guard against encouraging a collegial relationship where the student can become too self-reliant or passive about the fieldwork. The older student, in collaboration with the field educator, needs to establish a learning contract and make connections between what is already known and new learning. The university needs to caution the mature learner to accept the student role and not vie for equal status with the other employees or human services workers. Power issues are a factor in field educator–student relationships and may become more emphasised when the student is older, mature and experienced. Mature students may also hold deeply entrenched, narrowly focused views that make it difficult for them to work from different perspectives. For some, ‘unlearning’ can


198

140 × 215


199

be challenging and difficult, and problems result from being rigid, inflexible and harsh. It is imperative that the university provides learning opportunities for field educators to recognise these different dynamics and to successfully manage different learning styles. If mature students are unsuccessful in recognising and dealing with initial fears and anxieties, or if they are too independent and authoritative, their status in the fieldwork moves from at-risk to conflictual and marginal. The field educator needs to facilitate ongoing dialogue with the student and maintain links with the university. Initial fears must be understood, acknowledged and shared by field educator and student. If the field educator is intimidated, the student will sense the discomfort. In the event of difficulty in the fieldwork, meetings are necessary to assess the suitability of the environment for the student and to facilitate ways in which individual differences can be resolved.

PSYCHOLOGICAL AND EMOTIONAL DIFFICULTIES Although our profession is deeply concerned with validating the emotional reactions of clients, we have been less comfortable addressing the emotional reactions of workers and students. (Grossman et al. 1991: 205)

Many students enter the human services field because they have had significant life experiences that have allowed them to go through a process of growth and change. Such experiences can relate to separation, divorce, physical and sexual violence, and various forms of loss. These situations may have resulted in professional intervention where the student felt the impact of the therapeutic process. Often the student, as client, is seduced into the profession to become like their therapist, or they feel compelled to assist others in similar predicaments. Students do not freely share their past experiences as clients because they fear being labelled and stigmatised. It is primarily when the student is in difficulty that past history is shared. Indicators of problems are observed through inappropriate behaviours where student performance becomes questionable. The field educator needs to be sensitive to, as well as knowledgeable about, these issues to be effective with students who have psychological and emotional difficulties. The client–worker relationship is central to human services


199

140 × 215

200


practice, and for this reason the relationship between field educator and student in fieldwork is a critical learning tool (Eisenberg et al. 1996). It is primarily through the relationship between client and field educator that issues relating to the ‘personal’ can be discussed. Students’ personal characteristics and emotional behaviours are therefore open to scrutiny. In fieldwork, worker subjectivity needs to be considered as an educational issue (Grossman et al. 1991). Reactions to clients, situations and workers are based on our assumptions, biases, knowledge skills and the influences of past events. Students therefore may over-identify with certain clients or become attached to various issues. Traumatic situations in fieldwork can also trigger past emotional issues. The field educator should be knowledgeable about potential emotional risks for students in the fieldwork and should assist students through these difficult situations. Grossman et al. (1991) suggest a five-stage framework for working through emotional difficulties: •

•

•

• •

Stage 1 is the engagement and orientation phase. This signifies the beginning of the field educator–student relationship where first impressions are formed and strengths and vulnerabilities are observed. These first impressions should be noted in order to make a decision of acceptance and to note further areas of development for the student. Stage 2 includes an assessment of students’ vulnerabilities to countertransference in their work where the field educator can allow students to discuss feelings and reactions to the assigned tasks. A female student working with male perpetrators of abuse may have emotional conflicts. Similarly, working with AIDS patients may engender fears of one’s mortality. Field educators can also share some of the initial fears they experienced in their fieldwork to assist the student through emotional difficulties. Stage 3 involves planning and formulating a contract for work. Students may also plan cases and projects in areas where they may be more vulnerable and prone to emotional entanglements, and thus may need assistance. In stage 4 of implementation, field educators can help students to handle emotional reactions by discussing coping strategies. During stage 5 (the termination stage), but also during evaluation and supervision, the field educator can gently point out


200

140 × 215


201

situations in which the student was able to manage emotional difficulties effectively. Students who wish to reveal sensitive information to their field educator need to be advised on appropriate self-disclosure procedures. Reeser and Wertkin (1997) conducted a study with students, field educators and faculty liaisons around sharing sensitive student information. They found that the majority of students were opposed to sharing such information with the field educator. A balance should be sought between students’ right to privacy and field educators’ rights to information. Others argue that sensitive information be minimally shared with field educators because of bias and future risks when seeking employment (Rompf et al. 1993). Students should not be judged and analysed because of a history of psychiatric and/or emotional issues. The field educator needs to be sensitive to students’ emotional and psychological issues. If sensitive information is shared, the field educator needs to listen empathetically and seek ways of ensuring that the student does not feel further victimised and/or labelled. Students should not have to terminate fieldwork unless their behaviours interfere with their judgments and ability to function appropriately in the setting. Alternative work duties can be assigned where possible. If the student is still unable to perform adequately, meetings between the faculty liaison, the student and the field educator are mandatory.

THE RACIAL MINORITY STUDENT Ongoing efforts to include content on oppression in the curriculum to respond to diverse populations have resulted in many pedagogical and practice challenges. While the focus towards change has been on curriculum (Morris 1993), student and faculty issues around pedagogy and learning (Van Soest 1994; Singleton 1994; Garcia and Melendez 1997), there are gaps in contributions in the area of field education (Tully and Green 1993). The emphasis of the literature and research has been on sensitising students to forms of oppression from personal and professional perspectives. Sorely lacking are appropriate efforts to ensure that field education— a critical component of the curriculum—is also meeting these challenges. There is considerable risk in fieldwork for racial minority students.


201

140 × 215

202


Agencies and field educators hold primary pedagogical responsibility for facilitating the linking of theory and practice. Students often report feeling anxious, fearful, incompetent and powerless in this learning process. Minority students face additional fears arising from historical treatment and present societal reality (Christensen 1995; Messinger and Topal 1997; Mawhiney 1995). Training should therefore include strategies that allow for inclusivity and understandings of postcoloniality, differences and changing global realities. As populations become more diverse, especially in large urban centres, particular attention should focus on how practice is being taught and effected. The findings of a study around the experiences of racial minority students in the field indicate the need for ongoing education and dialogue with all constituents in field education (Razack 1998). Students reported that their field educators initiated discussion around diversity and differences but there was no substantive effort towards more in-depth analysis of anti-racist or cross-cultural practices. Field educators tended to focus on more traditional approaches with discussions around professional values and use of self-initiatives, which are necessary field education components. One study of field educators’ responses to teaching about diversity found that: unless specifically asked to do so, few field instructors will identify issues of diversity in their educational assessments of students or explicitly refer to this data in describing a student’s learning style . . . field instructors tend to avoid addressing a student’s potential learning needs or interests when these are influenced by issues of individual or interpersonal diversity. (Marshack et al. 1994: 78)

The field educator sets the stage for the fieldwork process. The racial minority student’s learning and development as a professional are compromised if the field educator avoids discussions relating to identity and differences. During field education seminar discussions at York University, Canada, field educators shared their hesitation to introduce the topic of difference in pre-screening interviews and to discuss such issues in the fieldwork. Field educators feel that discussing race, culture and differences, especially with racial minority students, may cause discomfort and further marginalisation. Discussions around differences, racism and other forms of oppression are seen as essentialising the students on the basis of their visible difference, thus marking them further. However, denying differences and


202

140 × 215


203

adopting a ‘colourblind’ approach (equal treatment) can also be problematic. Such an approach further expands gaps of exclusion. Cooper and Lesser (1997: 333) state that the colourblind approach is inhibiting. The practitioner is unable to question the client appropriately, thus placing constraints on the therapeutic relationship. Many field educators who may feel intimidated and uninformed about ways to discuss difference adopt the ‘colourblind’ approach. Many students are also cautious about discussing their obvious differences and their expectations pertaining to subjectivity and identity. Some risk being labelled ‘angry’ and ‘problematic’ when such issues are introduced and addressed. Recognising the insidious and pervasive aspects of racism should assist the field educator/practitioner to work with students, colleagues and clients. Field educators need to learn how to initiate discussions about diversity and difference so racial minority students will not have to compromise their learning. Racial minority students seek to gain mainstream human services work skills rather than working within their ethno-cultural communities in order to avoid ghettoisation in the job market. Students have shared stories about differential treatment in mainstream settings. Many feel that if they dare contest or point out racist behaviours they will be penalised. Some students have indeed experienced forms of backlash. Students have also expressed anger and rage when sharing their observations of maltreatment of peoples from racialised minority groups. However, if they feel courageous enough to discuss such issues, these students run the risk of being labelled ‘aggressive’ and ‘confronting’ by their field educator. There needs to be a shift in field education in order to recognise and eliminate inequities and hidden struggles. Struggles in fieldwork have caused some human services students to feel silenced, tokenised, isolated and marginalised. There is a sense that internalised oppression occurs on a heightened scale for racial minority students and other minority groups (see Messinger and Topal 1997). More research and administration effort needs to go into extending training in, and understanding of, all aspects of the fieldwork site and the agency, as well as the student–teacher roles. It is important to be able to foster critical thinking on dominant relations, rather than simply relying on power differentials and dynamics on a personal level only. Students and field educators need to understand that power is not simply what one is able to


203

140 × 215

204


exert on the other; it is, rather, the constant analysis of how what we know and do is socially produced. Issues surrounding personal and professional identity for the racial minority student/worker are of concern. Field educators need to challenge privilege and domination in society. Educators from minority and majority locations alike need to be educated to understand colonisation, imperialism and the present realities for marginalised groups. It is also important to facilitate discussion with students on inequality and systemic discrimination. This will ensure a broader socio-political vision in working through issues for themselves and with clients. The field educator should have access to ongoing educational initiatives to lessen the risk and dangers that some students face in fieldwork.

SUMMARY There are several issues that can emerge during fieldwork and cause risk for students. Students face challenges and difficulties in the field for a variety of reasons. These reasons may also change when considering shifting socio-political terrains and economic factors. Fieldwork offers students the opportunity to test the knowledge and skills gained through academic courses and life experiences. Fieldwork can be dangerous for those students who are marginalised through societal inequities, and their learning can be compromised. Older students are influenced by particular factors that the field educator and the students themselves need to understand. The nature of the work involved in fieldwork can trigger past issues for other students who have faced significant trauma and overcome personal problems. The field education process should incorporate ongoing education, guidelines and policies to assist students who have difficulties. Agencies and field educators need to engage in ongoing educational seminars in order to discuss stress related factors. Faculty liaisons play a critical role in these situations and should be informed and educated about the needs of students who face risk in fieldwork. Ongoing training and education of student, field educator and faculty liaison is necessary to ensure consistency in approach and direction for delivery of this critical course. Antioppression principles need to be incorporated with strategies for understanding how life experiences and other situational issues affect students’ ability to fulfil the course expectations.


204

140 × 215

17

Strategies to promote student learning and integration of theory with practice in the field

Jane Maidment STUDENT LEARNING AND INTEGRATION OF THEORY WITH PRACTICE

Field education forms the heart of teaching and learning in the applied social science disciplines. Past students refer back to their time in the field as memorable and life-changing. Few teaching and learning encounters can match the powerful experience of working with real clients. Although fieldwork provides numerous learning opportunities, ways to make the most of these are not always apparent to students and field educators. This chapter focuses on strategies for improving the ‘heart’ of applied education to ensure its future health and vitality. Two central aspects of field education that can enhance student learning are examined. Firstly, strategies and reasons for field educator observations of student work are discussed. Secondly, ways to enrich these observations by clarifying the linkages between theory and practice are suggested for each strategy.

DEMONSTRATING PRACTICE COMPETENCE The need for students to demonstrate their practice competence is a current theme in field education literature (CCETSW 1991; Tanner and Le Riche 1995). A recent publication on practice teaching uses a memorable analogy related to assessment of student learning (Shardlow and Doel 1996). These authors liken the 205


205

140 × 215

206


Figure 17.1

Essential components for purposeful observation Purposeful observation

Assess performance

Integrate theory with practice

Facilitate critical reflection

assessment of a musician’s ability to play to the assessment of student competence to work with clients. In order to appraise the musician’s ability, it is necessary to hear the music played. Similarly, in order to assess the competence of student work with clients, it is necessary to see and hear that work first-hand. Self-reporting will not do (Shardlow and Doel 1996). Self-reporting is vulnerable to errors. The experience, values and theoretical orientation that the student brings to the interview will influence the student’s perception of client issues (Graybeal and Ruff 1995). Other factors, such as personal bias regarding what aspects of an interview are important to discuss, memory reliability and possible assessment anxiety, can also influence self-reporting. Although lack of reliability using self-reporting may appear obvious, research suggests that students are most likely to simply discuss case scenarios in supervision rather than use audio or video recordings that demonstrate aspects their work (Brodie 1993; Graybeal and Ruff 1995). The importance of students demonstrating their client work to field educators is acknowledged in British CCETSW requirements, where field educators are obligated to provide the student with structured observations (CCETSW 1991). How rigorous these observations are, or the extent to which field educators carry them out remain unclear at this stage. Making observations rigorous is an important aspect of the field educator’s role. Many would recognise the need to observe— to see how a student performs—but observations of student work are not simply a process of watching the student work with clients or engage with a team. Purposeful observation requires the field educator to link student practice with theory, assess performance and facilitate critical reflection, as illustrated in Figure 17.1. When students’ work with clients is visible to the field educator, greater opportunities exist for reflection and learning


206

140 × 215

STUDENT LEARNING AND INTEGRATION OF THEORY WITH PRACTICE

207

during supervision (Tanner and Le Riche 1995). Visible practice also ensures that student work is transparent to the field educator and models the value of professional accountability to the student. Thus, in order to create opportunities for reflective practice and to enhance accountability, teaching and learning strategies that encourage field educator observation of student practice are favourable to those that rely on student self-report.

TEACHING AND LEARNING STRATEGIES No single method of teaching and learning can adequately provide the student with all information needed to improve practice performance (Dinham and Stritter 1986). The diversity of tasks that must be learned in the clinical setting, as well as the variety of learning styles present among students, necessitates the use of multiple educational strategies in field education. Three observation strategies associated particularly with experiential learning are reviewed in this chapter: • • •

the use of structured observation and reflection; making audio-visual recordings; facilitating student presentations.

Attention needs to be given to the matter of obtaining client consent before observations of any kind are incorporated into fieldwork. The process of obtaining consent to record sessions is in itself a valuable learning opportunity for students. Although sample consent forms are accessible through educational literature (Thomlison et al. 1996), requiring the student to first write up and present their own consent form during field education will prompt thinking around ethical issues.

Structured observations There is a difference between a field educator observing a student working with clients, and conducting a structured observation. The former is simply ‘watching’, while the latter is a planned and purposeful activity. Structured observations are a three-phase activity. Phase 1 includes student and field educator preparation for the observation. Phase 2 involves conducting the observation. In phase 3, the student and field educator conduct a detailed debriefing,


207

140 × 215

208


including provision for feedback, discussion regarding integration, and critical reflection. Before conducting a structured observation, the field educator and student need to decide together what skills and processes are to be demonstrated and assessed, and how the session will be evaluated. These details can then be recorded on an observation checklist. Clearly, the student is likely to demonstrate competencies that fall outside the scope of those being assessed. Provision for giving feedback about these skills also needs to be included in the checklist. It may be necessary to assist the student to prepare for the observation through role-play rehearsal. It is during this first phase that the client or client group with whom the student is working is also prepared for the observation. This preparation involves the student in providing an explanation of, and information about, the purpose of the observation, and seeking client consent for field educator observation. Students often feel most anxious about phase 2—the actual observation of their work with clients (Wilson 1981). To some extent, student anxiety can be quelled through thorough preparation. It is important, however, that the field educator does not make last-minute changes to arrangements or the format for observing an interview. Structured observations are memorable events for students, and field educators need to accord these events the priority they deserve. Once the observation is completed, phase 3 of the process begins. During this phase, the student and field educator together evaluate the work the student has done with the client. Students are categorical that receiving feedback about their performance enhances learning (Bergman and Gaitskill 1990). It is at this stage that the field educator provides the student with detailed positive and negative feedback. It is also during this phase that the field educator utilises questioning to encourage student integration of theory with practice and critical reflection. Although the three-phase model for structured observations appears straightforward, it is not unusual for students to report that they completed the observation without phase 1 preparation or phase 3 follow-up and feedback. Through failing to complete these tasks in the observation process, the field educator can reduce the student’s opportunities for valuable learning (see Table 17.1). Observing the student just once is not enough to make a reliable assessment of ability. A number of observations are necessary to access samples of a student’s work in a range of practice


208

140 × 215

209


Table 17.1

Structured observation

Strategy

Strengths

Weaknesses

Structured observation

Provides student with specific guidelines on competencies that will be assessed during observation.

Student anxiety about being observed.

Affords student the opportunity to demonstrate skills in transparent way. Promotes the use of critical reflection during observation debriefing.

Integration exercise

Observe student conducting interview with client from a Time consuming nature different ethnicity, of conducting gender or age three-phase structured generation from that of observation. the student. Several observations Post-observation, facilitate critical required to provide reliable assessment of reflection on working student’s ability. with ‘difference’ and anti-discriminatory practice.

Enables field educator to gain a comprehensive view of student’s ability. Prepares student for the experience of co-working, where others will see the student practise.

Observe the student facilitating a group. Post-observation, provide feedback on specific micro-skills demonstrated. Give feedback on additional micro-skills that could have been utilised.

situations over a period of time (Barrie 1996). One of the obvious constraints to using structured observations in fieldwork is the time it takes to complete all three phases (Tanner and Le Riche 1995). Field educators can address this problem to some extent by schooling students on conducting structured observations with each other. Encouraging students to work together in this way fosters the adoption of collaborative learning strategies during the fieldwork. However, although student-led observations are valuable, they should not be used to replace field educator input merely for the sake of expediency.

Audio and video process recording Audio-visual techniques, although widely recognised for their value in teaching, are not used frequently in field education (Graybeal and Ruff 1995). Reasons stated for this lack of use include student fear, avoidance and resistance to videotaping, and field educator unfamiliarity regarding the utilisation of the technology (Munson


209

140 × 215

210


1993); student concerns that clients will not want to be videotaped (Graybeal and Ruff 1995); and lack of time to process the recordings (Shulman 1993). In contrast, educators from a number of disciplines have used audio-visual techniques extensively with students and have a high regard for this teaching technology. They claim that audio-visual recording successfully enables students to carry out self-assessment (Barrie 1996); provides clear evidence of practice skills (Marsh and Triseliotis 1996); enables students to pace their own learning (Bauman et al. 1981); and helps students create and develop their own style of working (Munson 1993). There is no contention about the fact that audio-visual technology enables the field educator to gather an accurate range of observable data on student performance. Given this major advantage over other methods of field instruction, ways to encourage its use need to be found. Overcoming resistance in students and field educators alike is central to increasing the use of audio-visual techniques in the field. Field educators must be persuaded of this technology’s benefits before students will embrace using it in their learning. Many educators have themselves had negative experiences of using audiovisual equipment in training (Shulman 1993). It is of primary importance that field educators are trained in the use of the equipment and different ways of constructively processing the recordings with students. Students and field educators can use video recordings in a number of ways. They may role-play and record scenarios that challenge particular skills. By using the video in this way, student field education can be planned to include incremental steps towards learning more complex sets of skills. Alternatively, the video may be used to record live interviews with clients. If live sessions are to be recorded, students and field educators need to ensure that clients are well informed about the purpose of the recording, and given notice of the potential viewing audience. Clients need to be asked to sign a form noting that consent has been obtained for this process to occur. Such a consent form should also include a clause stating that permission to use the live recording may be retracted by the client at any future date. Students from some universities may also be required to obtain Ethics Committee approval for recording from their educational institution. If there is any doubt regarding the ability of a client


210

140 × 215


211

to provide genuine informed consent, live recording should not be used. Educators with experience in recording live sessions note that it is rare for clients not to consent to this procedure (Cassata et al. 1977), and students are usually more diffident than clients about being on video (Graybeal and Ruff 1995). Contrary to student opinion on this matter, there can be real benefits to clients in videotaping sessions. After the recording, clients may have the opportunity to review their own sessions and gain further insights on issues discussed, or behaviour exhibited during the interview. Reviewing tapes has worked particularly well in situations of couple counselling and group work with children and adolescents. Another way in which audio-visual recordings may be used during fieldwork is for field educators to introduce new topics to students via pre-recorded scenarios (Richards et al. 1981). Many of the problems noted by students and field educators about using audio-visual equipment can be addressed simply by becoming familiar and confident with its use (Munson 1993). Experience has shown that, although students may initially feel apprehensive about recording their work, with practice they favour using this technology and regard recording as being a positive and valuable learning tool (Cassata et al. 1977; Marsh & Triseliotis 1996). Furthermore, after viewing recordings, students tend to be accurate in identifying aspects of their own performance that need improving (Barrie 1996). Learning the processes of self-evaluation and assessment are skills that students will find valuable not only during training but also throughout professional life. Finally, use of audio-visual equipment enables the student to adopt a developmental awareness of growth in professional skills and confidence. By keeping and reviewing recordings that have been made over a period of time, both students and field educators will have the means to witness the student’s progress from the beginning to the end of the fieldwork (see Table 17.2).

Student presentations A third strategy to promote visible practice and student learning in the field is to encourage student presentations. By the end of their training, students need to know how to advocate for clients in public settings, facilitate group and family meetings, contribute to interdisciplinary team discussions, make contributions to training sessions and run public meetings. These are all tasks that require


211

140 × 215

212


Table 17.2 Strategy

Audio-visual recording Strengths

Audio-visual Recordings can be recording used in a variety of ways to enhance learning. Facilitates student self-assessment— provides recorded evidence of students’ work. Enables student and field educator to view progress over time.

Weaknesses

Integration exercise

Role-play a casework interview using a range of models of Time needed to intervention—radical; prepare, conduct and humanist; reflect on recording. empowerment; Cost of equipment may behavioural. be prohibitive to some Compare the way each agencies—field approach impacts on educator apprehension how the client about using a.v. ‘problem’ is defined. equipment may be Note micro-skills used passed on to the in each approach. student. Heightened student anxiety.

Provides opportunity for the student to learn Possible client concerns about how about the ethics of recording client data. recorded material will be used.

Make recording of live session with client or group. Identify the power issues that presented during the session. Discuss these with reference to anti-discriminatory practice.

sound presentation skills. Fieldwork provides many opportunities for these skills to be learned and developed. There is little information in human services education literature on student presentations in fieldwork learning (AASWWE 1991). Although considerable attention is paid to student casework during supervision (Brodie 1993), analyses of student supervision sessions have found that little, if any, emphasis is given to skills associated with speaking in public forums such as ward meetings, public meetings and in group settings. Each fieldwork setting will require its workers to speak publicly in a variety of ways. Field educators need to identify opportunities for students to develop and demonstrate verbal articulation skills in their agency setting before negotiating the learning contract. For the purposes of student learning, a ‘presentation’ may be situated on a continuum of personal interactions that spans from speaking up in a staff meeting to facilitating a formal session of


212

140 × 215

213


Table 17.3 Strategy

Student presentation Strengths

Weaknesses

Heightened student anxiety—if student anxiety is high a disproportionate amount of students’ time may be Diverse opportunities spent working exist in agency settings on presentation to make both small at the expense of and comprehensive participating in other presentations—student learning opportunities. presentations can be Preparing the student seen by whole team, for a presentation can therefore modelling be time consuming— transparent practice. team environment may not be supportive to student input.

Student Student presentations presentation can be planned to match individual levels of confidence and ability.

Potential for public ‘wounding’ of student in the event of a poor presentation being made.

Integration exercise Provide details of a client assessment during a ward or team meeting, using an ecological or developmental frame of reference. Provide team members with a brief monthly review of new journal articles relevant to the agency’s work. Make a team presentation on legislation that impacts on agency work. During the course of the fieldwork conduct a media watch on social policy issues that impact on agency clientele—present work as a collage or in documentary form during inservice training.

team training. A ‘presentation’ does not have to be limited to the task of reporting a case study. As with all strategies used for teaching and learning in the field, the field educator needs to prepare students to make presentations. Some students will be more confident than others about speaking in public. Field educators need to make an assessment of a reasonable starting point for the student during the initial days of the fieldwork. Student confidence levels can be reviewed as the fieldwork progresses. When appropriate, the field educator can introduce increasingly challenging situations in which students can make presentations. The field educator’s role is to access opportunities in the agency where the student can make a presentation, explain the purpose of the presentation and plan with the student how the presentation may occur. The field educator also needs to discuss with the


213

140 × 215

214


student how their presentation/s will be assessed. After the student has completed a presentation, the field educator provides the student with feedback about performance, and facilitates reflection and integration of theoretical material (see Table 17.3).

INTEGRATING THEORY WITH PRACTICE The extent to which theory and practice are related and integrated during fieldwork appears to be at best haphazard, and at worst non-existent (Waterhouse 1987; Walker et al. 1995). Encouraging students to use critical reflection in conjunction with experiential learning methods provides the means for integration to occur during fieldwork. Proponents of reflection claim it is not simply a process of intellectualising to understand an experience, but includes an appreciation of the learners’ personal emotional response to the learning experience. Students’ participation in this active reflection process reshapes their understanding of events and helps them to discover how to question personal assumptions associated with learning experiences. This results in shifts of attitude and values. The aim of active reflection is to engender discernible shifts in habitual ways of thinking or ‘perspective transformation’ (Mezirow 1981 in Boud et al. 1985; 23). The field educator’s role in this learning is to guide and provoke the student into considering alternative explanations for client problems and different strategies for intervention. Research on field education has discovered that students frequently feel ‘trapped, between tutors who are out of touch with current practice and supervisors who are out of touch with theory’ (Marsh and Triseliotis 1996: 61). This situation is further exacerbated where both human services educators and field educators appear to be weak in articulating the relationship between theory and practice (Carew 1979; Berman-Rossi 1988). Field educators can address the current divide between theory and practice by combining the fieldwork learning experiences and teaching strategies outlined above with theory and methods taught in the classroom. This sophisticated combination will introduce the student to the notion of ‘theory through experience’, resulting in the student and field educator together developing more useable forms of theory (Harris 1996). Critical reflection is integral to this process of theory development and critique. Tables 17.1 to 17.3


214

140 × 215


215

present specific examples of integration exercises that educators and students may use in conjunction with the teaching and learning strategies outlined in this chapter.

SUMMARY It is argued that student fieldwork can be enhanced through use of experiential learning strategies. Field educator observations of student practice, use of audio-visual equipment and student presentations are each discussed, with particular reference to integration of theory with practice. Emphasis is given to making student practice visible to the field educator to enable informed performance assessment and facilitation of critical reflectivity during the fieldwork.


215

140 × 215

18

Negotiated learning contracts

Gayla Rogers and Paul Langevin NEGOTIATED LEARNING CONTRACTS

This chapter presents a systematic and purposeful approach to negotiated learning contracts. It argues that negotiated learning contracts must be grounded in a model of field education and suggests the learning-centred model as the preferred approach. Negotiated learning contracts are considered to be an effective medium to operationalise the preferred field education model. Based on this perspective, the following description of a negotiated learning contract is linked with learning-centred field education. This chapter will therefore describe the learning-centred approach as the preferred model for field education, discuss negotiated learning, and delineate and illustrate the essential components of a negotiated learning contract.

LEARNING-CENTRED FIELD EDUCATION Learning-centred field education can be seen as the approach that addresses all the necessary elements of field education in the most comprehensive manner. This approach is the ideal, although other approaches have been described in the literature (Rogers 1996). The learning-centred approach situates learning professional practice in the foreground, whereas some other approaches place more emphasis on student-identified objectives, the university’s field 216


216

140 × 215

NEGOTIATED LEARNING CONTRACTS

217

curriculum, or the job description and demands of the human services workplace.

Focus on learning Learning-centred field education means that the student is viewed as a learner, not as a colleague, new staff or client. Viewing the student as one or more of the latter undermines the purpose of learning-centred field education. It is useful to realise that learning occurs in a variety of ways, and very useful to be open to the richness and variability that experiential learning in a workplace can offer. Many educators have been conditioned to think that ‘real’ learning happens when it is planned, intentional, sequenced and written down as a set of objectives beforehand. This notion of learning fails to recognise and value incidental, accidental or serendipitous learning—those unintended consequences of a trial and error experiment, a plan that failed to materialise, an opportunity that happened by chance or simply ‘seizing the moment’. Learning sometimes occurs in a step-by-step fashion, but given the unpredictability of many human services settings and what happens to learners in situations of uncertainty, it is also likely that learning occurs in leaps and bounds, with the occasional plateau. It is equally true that not all things can be learned by breaking them down into smaller and smaller parts. Some things can only be learned by ‘swallowing them whole’. Mistakes are another powerful learning resource, as they have the potential to trigger significant learning. This means, however, that learners need to be permitted to make mistakes, admit to them, then submit them to scrutiny (not punishment, shame or embarrassment) so that they can be transformed into valuable learning events. Incorporating this range of learning possibilities into the discussion and negotiation of the learning contract is a helpful way of respecting multiple forms of learning.

Essential elements of learning It is important to keep in mind that learning in the field is about balancing four interrelated elements: being, knowing, doing and thinking (Thomlison et al. 1996). These must be reflected in the learning contract. It is the combination of being, knowing, doing


217

140 × 215

218


and thinking that distinguishes learning-centred field education from other types of field education. Being refers to the qualities (such as being empathic and non-judgmental) and attributes (such as being caring and open) that individuals in human services professions need to develop in order to be competent practitioners. The danger in over-emphasising being is that personal growth becomes the measure of success. Knowing refers to the theories, concepts, constructs, frameworks and other relevant information that individuals in the human services professions need to know to inform, guide and underpin competent practice. An over-emphasis on knowing means that assessing knowledge acquisition takes precedence. Doing refers to the skill sets and behaviours that individuals must demonstrate so that what a human services professional does is consonant with ethical and effective practice. If the emphasis is on doing—the most common focus in field education, as the classroom is considered the domain for knowing while fieldwork is the domain for doing—then the ‘great divide’ between theory and practice, classroom and field is further perpetuated. This unnatural—but all too common—split makes learning as a ‘whole’ practice all the more difficult, as assessment focuses on skill acquisition and the technical aspects of performing in the field. Thinking refers to higher-order cognitive abilities that individuals in the human services professions need in order to think through and take action in complex, multifaceted situations that have no ‘right’ answers, no simple solutions, and involve multiple perspectives and situations of uncertainty (Schön 1987). Abilities such as reflecting, interpreting, making judgments with insufficient information, thinking critically, and being able to synthesise, analyse and evaluate are examples of the kind of thinking required of competent professionals. Very little explicit reference is made to thinking in most field education literature. Thus it is not useful to comment on the problems associated with over-emphasising this aspect of field learning. It is important, however, to highlight the problems associated with not paying explicit attention to learning to think like competent professionals in fieldwork. Fieldwork becomes nothing more than an apprenticeship or job training experience if attention is not paid to such thinking components as learning how to: •

generalise from a particular experience so students can transfer their learning from one setting or context to another;


218

140 × 215


• •

219

generate theories from practice and use ideas to inform practice; critically reflect on self and practice.

NEGOTIATED LEARNING It has been argued that it is necessary to link the preferred approach to field education to the learning contract. ‘Cookbook recipe’ or ‘checklist’ formats have been avoided in favour of presenting principles for negotiating a teaming plan. The ‘checklist approach’ to professional education and practice may discourage professional judgment, a profession’s very essence. It is not possible to prescribe a universal model of negotiated learning. Nevertheless, the relevance of specific directions and indicators for a negotiated learning contract needs to be recognised. In all probability, the negotiated learning approach can be adapted to meet local requirements and tailored for unique circumstances.

Relevant conceptual frameworks The literature justifies the use of learning contracts in field education by referencing an impressive and varied array of theories, principles, assumptions and values. Typically, learning contracts are grounded in adult education theory and principles (Bogo and Vayda 1998; Coulshed 1993); the values of self-determination and empowerment (Parsons and Durst 1992); and reflective, individualised and competency-based learning (Rogers and McDonald 1995). A learning contract is described as ‘a written agreement negotiated between a learner and a teacher, lecturer or staff adviser that a particular activity will be undertaken in order to achieve a specific learning goal or goals’ (Anderson et al. 1996: 2).

Defining ‘negotiated’ Although the concept of ‘contract’ has an implicit connotation of participation, the additional adjective ‘negotiated’ is preferred as a reinforcement of the collaborative process. However, in common usage, negotiated infers a process involving some degree of equality and granting concessions among the participants. This is not necessarily the case for negotiated learning contracts in field education. The process of negotiating occurs in special circumstances. Firstly, there may be accreditation standards or human services


219

140 × 215

220


program requirements for students during their fieldwork. These may range from specifics such as the number of days or hours to the amount and type of client contact. These requirements must be respected as non-negotiable in the process of developing a learning contract. Secondly, an obvious power differential characterises student– faculty liaison–field educator supervisory relationships (Rogers and Langevin 1998). Negotiating learning contracts takes place within these constraints. Although institutional requirements cannot be compromised, the potential destructiveness of the student–field educator power differential can be addressed. To do so does not mean that the faculty liaison and the field educator have to abdicate their authority and responsibilities to establish equality or to avoid being at odds with professional values. Authority can be exercised without authoritarianism in the sense of being dogmatic, arrogant and dictatorial. Furthermore, the power differential can be acknowledged and managed successfully in a supervisory relationship characterised by mutuality and a focus on interaction (Thompson et al. 1990). Within this unique context, the negotiated learning contract can incorporate the student’s expressed individualised learning needs, the institution’s curriculum requirements and the opportunities available in the fieldwork site. To ensure that the negotiated learning contract is not reduced to a meaningless ‘make-work project’, the process and content needs to reflect the interests of, and be relevant to, the parties involved. Of equal importance, the learning contract needs to be viewed as a flexible document with the capacity for adjustment as unanticipated events transpire.

COMPONENTS OF A NEGOTIATED LEARNING CONTRACT There are three components of a negotiated learning contract. The first addresses issues related to the process of developing the contract. In the second, consideration is given to the contract’s content. The third outlines the essential features to be included in the actual document.

The process of developing a negotiated learning contract Dialogue is the key to an effective process—a dialogue energised by the zeal to deal with differences and find a common ground.


220

140 × 215


221

Contrary to the more common two-person approach, learningcentred field education employs a three-person process involving the faculty liaison, representing the university; the field educator, representing the fieldwork site; and the student. Each person has an intimate interest in the process and content of a negotiated learning plan. The inclusion and active participation of all three are considered vital to the effective implementation of the learning-centred model through the negotiated learning contract. It brings the three parties to ‘the table’ with the intention of building a three-way relationship that will stimulate, foster and sustain the goal of learning. Ongoing process dialogue features getting to know one another, building trust and creating a sense of shared commitment to the centrality of learning as expressed in the learning contract. The exact nature of the conversation will be unique to the participants and at times will require different degrees of directedness. In some cases, the faculty liaison and/or the field educator may have to provide the initial leadership that authors student confidence and encourages participation in the process, content and documentation of the negotiated learning contract. In other instances, the student’s enthusiasm and ideas may need to be tempered with the realities of the workplace and the curriculum. Similar adjustments are required in relation to the student’s level of experience. Novice students with limited or no experience who are entering their initial field placement are not in a position to make the same contribution to the construction of the learning contract as the experienced student. An important process consideration is that, in the postmodern condition, difference and diversity are privileged. Belenky et al. (1986) contribute a feminist perspective on what it means to learn and the stages of learning. The voices of the marginalised are celebrated, whether in terms of age, gender, sexual orientation or ethnic, racial and cultural background. Other differences are equally important to the process discourse. Differences in learning styles, communication patterns, and responses to stress, power and authority are fruitful avenues for dialogue. All these differences and similarities, if exposed and shared by all involved in the conversation, can lead to mutual understanding, respect and commitment to process, content and documentation of the learning contract. Such a dialogue will have the additional benefit of mitigating the formulation of erroneous assumptions and working through


221

140 × 215

222


potential troublesome, unforeseen contingencies as they arise during the course of the fieldwork. During the ongoing process, the faculty liaison, field educator and student have defined roles to play in effecting the learningcentred approach to field education. The faculty liaison has a pivotal role, ensuring optimal conditions for learning and assuming a leadership stance in terms of commitment to the unfolding process as well as to the content and documentation of the negotiated learning contract. This is not to suggest an unyielding leadership function for the faculty liaison. On the contrary, a dynamic leadership is envisioned. Throughout the life of the fieldwork, the practice of leadership becomes diffuse as the roles of the faculty liaison, field educator and student in turn dominate the agenda and the particular demands of each situation: • •

•

The faculty liaison ensures the focus on learning is maintained so that there is adherence to the learning-centred model. Field educators have the primary role of securing a learning environment at the fieldwork site that is conducive to challenging and supporting the learning necessary for the student to become a critically reflective practitioner. The student’s primary role is to be an active and enquiring learner who engages the program in its totality.

The content of the negotiated learning contract The content of the negotiated learning contract evolves from the ongoing dialogue and reflective learning process as the fieldwork unfolds. In the learning-centred model, the content blends the university’s curriculum, the student’s individual learning needs and the fieldwork site’s learning resources and opportunities. No single component of the content has priority over any other, and the faculty liaison, field educator and student share equal responsibility for negotiating and developing the learning contract. Each person contributes their expertise to the development of the particularised configuration of the learning contract content. Faculty liaisons contribute knowledge of the curriculum and the university’s vision of the graduates’ capabilities. Field educators contribute knowledge of the fieldwork setting, the services provided, and their accrued practice experience and knowledge. Students contribute their knowledge of prior learning and experience, professional aspirations and their learning needs. In a series


222

140 × 215


223

of meetings, the first of which is likely to occur prior to the start of the fieldwork, the following topic areas are addressed: • •

• •

• • •

explication of the learning-centred field education model and negotiated learning contracts; explication and clarification of roles, responsibilities and expectations of the faculty liaison, field educator and student in relation to these models of field education; explication of the non-negotiable curriculum learning objectives; selection of the learning activities and strategies that operationalise the objectives, expressed and weighted under the headings of being, knowing, doing and thinking; the time frame for undertaking the activities; the criteria and strategies to be used to assess the evidence of learning; the mechanisms for ongoing monitoring and evaluation.

The depth and breadth of focus of each of the above content items depends on the context and the participants. Wilson (1981) describes four levels of learning contracts. On reaching the fourth level, meticulous examples of learning objectives, learning activities and assessment measures are provided.

Creating the content There are three main headings related to creating the content for a negotiated learning contract: • • •

learning objectives; learning activities; performance indicators.

Typically, the faculty determines the learning objectives (reflective of the university’s curriculum) and the standard to be met in terms of overall performance. Students, in consultation with their field educator, develop the learning activities and performance indicators. These are typically reviewed with, and approved by, the faculty liaison. Learning objectives developed by the faculty are usually nonnegotiable. They express the university’s desired learning outcomes within the context of its field education model. A teaming contract may contain any number of learning objectives. However, the total number should be determined from a position of avoiding


223

140 × 215

224


unreasonable complexity or excessive detail. The idea is to keep it simple and manageable while at the same time challenging students to stretch. Using a teaming-centred approach, it is suggested that the learning objectives fall under the main categories of being, knowing, doing and thinking. The following examples are used as illustrations.

Learning objective, category ‘being’ Developing a professional self: Demonstrates a commitment to recognise, understand and practise values consistent with the profession’s code of ethics. This includes demonstrating sensitivity and acceptance of human diversity on both a personal and professional level; addressing individual and systemic barriers; and recognising through critical self-reflection the impact on others of personal values and behaviours.

Learning activities describe what actual activities will be undertaken in pursuit of each objective. Typically, the student selects them in consultation with the field educator. Activities are a reflection of the student’s learning interests and the opportunities available at the fieldwork site. Learning activities are therefore unique to the student and specific to the fieldwork. Each activity should be accompanied by a target date for completion as far as possible.

Learning activity, category ‘being’ (continued from the above example) Developing professional ‘self activities’: By the end of my 3rd week I will attend a workshop on anti-discriminatory practice and will challenge at least one of my own assumptions related to working with others who are different from me.

Performance indicators are the mutually agreed-upon measures used to assess the achievement of each learning activity. Students and field educators would typically develop these together to answer the question ‘How will I know I accomplished what I set out to do?’ The performance indicators need to be tangible or observable in some way.

Performance indicator, category ‘being’ (continued from above example) Developing a professional self performance indicator: Through the use of my journal I will document my experience and


224

140 × 215

225


reflections from the ADP workshop. I will disclose to my field educator at least one new learning about myself in relation to working with others who are different from me. My field educator will provide me with constructive feedback on my development.

The negotiated learning contract document The expectation is a written document articulating the outcome of the process and agreement on content. Metaphorically, the document is viewed as a master plan or map. As such, it guides its constructors throughout the fieldwork journey. The plan becomes critically important at those times when unexpected contingencies threaten safe passage. On these occasions, the contract provides the beacon for charting a safe course. Moreover, the contract affords the student, as well as the university, an ongoing personal and administrative track record of the learning that has occurred during the fieldwork. The learning contract document can form the portfolio outline for those programs using portfolios to assess learning accomplishments in the fieldwork (Shardlow and Doel 1993). A document of one description or another is required. Practically, it may take any number of forms; however, the following processes are recommended: • • • • •

Develop a standard computer-generated and accessible contract template that allows for ease of completion. Assign students the responsibility for completing, maintaining and updating the contract document. Type all contract content for ease of reading. The three people involved sign the contracts, confirming the agreement and bolstering commitment. All parties receive copies of the original signed contract and all updated versions.

SUMMARY This chapter has not offered a recipe or formula for constructing negotiated learning contracts, due to the impossibility of universalising learning contracts, and the possibility that such approaches tend to discourage the exercise of professional judgment. In contrast, the fundamental guiding principles of much work with negotiated learning contracts have been described— three-party participation, dialogue, shared leadership, openness,


225

140 × 215

226


tolerance, flexibility: a working relationship expressive of human services caring. Given this context, the elements of negotiated learning contracts within the framework of learning-centred field education are described. These involve the importance and value of the process, the considerations affecting the content of the learning plan and the key features to include in the actual document. All field educators are invited to use these principles to construct negotiated learning contracts applicable to specific program requirements, available human services fieldwork opportunities, and the unique learning needs and interests of different students.


226

140 × 215

19

Reflective learning and supervision

Gwen Ellis REFLECTIVE LEARNING AND SUPERVISION

This chapter aims to assist field educators to develop and promote reflective learning. The first part of the chapter discusses what reflective learning means and makes a distinction between practical and critical reflectivity. The second part offers suggestions as to how field educators can put reflective learning into practice. A model of reflection to guide supervision practice is described and illustrated. The chapter also addresses the underlying question of why it is important to encourage reflective learning in fieldwork. It is argued that the capacity for both practical and critical reflection is crucial for students as they will be working with marginal and vulnerable clients, in complex situations characterised by conflicting values. When students experience reflective learning in fieldwork, they gain confidence in responding to the unpredictable nature of practice. They are more effectively prepared for the work in which they will be engaged.

WHAT IS REFLECTIVE LEARNING? Reflective learning has been defined as ‘those intellectual and affective activities in which individuals engage to explore their experiences in order to lead to new understandings and appreciations’ 227


227

140 × 215

228


(Boud et al. 1985: 19). Adult learning theorists state that individuals find reflection the most difficult aspect of learning from experience, particularly if they are not encouraged to develop this skill. Kolb (1984) has conceptualised the learning process as a cycle involving four kinds of abilities: • • • •

concrete experience; reflective observation; abstract conceptualisation; active experimentation.

While all four parts of the learning cycle are needed for effective learning, individuals have preferred learning styles with different strengths and weaknesses. Research has shown that human services practitioners tend to be strongest in the areas of concrete experience and active experimentation (Van Soest and Kruzich 1994). Thus reflection and theorising are key areas in which field educators will need to assist human services students to develop the intellectual abilities needed in practice. Boud et al. (1985) identify three key aspects of a reflective learning process: • • •

returning to the experience; attending to feelings connected with the experience; re-evaluating the experience.

Similarly, Bogo and Vayda (1987) describe an action reflection model of learning in the field that has four phases: • • • •

retrieval of experiences; reflection; linkage with formal knowledge; evaluation of students’ professional responses to events or issues.

FACILITATING REFLECTION In order to learn from any experience, students first must be able to retrieve that experience. Tools such as practice journals can assist in this retrieval process (see Experiencing section below). The revisiting of experience occurs primarily, but not exclusively, in consultation with field educators who have a significant role in


228

140 × 215

REFLECTIVE LEARNING AND SUPERVISION

229

facilitating reflection on practice. Facilitating reflective learning includes: • • • •

noticing feelings, values, assumptions and interpretations connected to the experience; identifying, questioning and perhaps revising the assumptions used to make sense of the experience; imagining other ways of understanding and responding to the experience; identifying theoretical, ethical and social justice issues arising from the experience.

Schön’s (1987) work on how professionals actually use knowledge and theory in real-life situations is another important strand in the argument for reflective learning as a key aspect of fieldwork in the human services. Inversion of the traditional relationship between professional knowledge and practice competence gives learning by doing a central position in professional education. Schön states that the nature of professional practice (for example, in social work, nursing and teaching) is such that formal knowledge is inadequate for every situation, and there is not always one right answer to a particular problem. Students training to work in human services occupations have to learn a kind of reflection-in-action that goes beyond following rules and procedures. They not only have to devise new methods of reasoning, but also need the ability to construct and test ‘new categories of understanding, strategies of action and ways of framing problems’ (1987: 39). The implications of Schön’s ideas are, firstly, that students will learn most effectively by a process of action reflection in fieldwork and, secondly, that field educators will enhance their own professional development by engaging in a reflective learning process with students. Situations often arise in fieldwork in which there is a clash of world views, either between student and client or between student and field educator. As Schön (1987: 4) points out, individuals make sense of problematic situations in different ways depending on influences such as education and training, organisational roles, life histories, cultural heritages, interests and political and economic perspectives. If, for example, a field educator and a student have different world views, they will ‘pay attention to different facts and make different sense of the facts they notice’ (1987: 5). The way in which such conflict is resolved is important to an understanding of what is meant by a reflective learning process. Schön (1987: 36) describes having ‘a reflective


229

140 × 215

230


conversation’ about the different views, values and beliefs each person holds regarding the situation. In doing this, both student and supervisor will ‘remake a part of their practice world’ and bring forward for exploration the usually hidden processes by which they make sense of real-life situations. Schön’s proposed fieldwork model incorporates an equality and respect not reflected in other models. For example, a student may have more knowledge of particular cultural processes than a field educator from another culture. In this case, the student is the expert and can share their knowledge with the field educator. Other models see the field educator as an expert in all situations.

FROM PRACTICAL TO CRITICAL REFLECTIVITY Learning does not take place in a vacuum, but in the context of ‘a constantly changing network of services, legislation, knowledge and value bases, educational and professional structures and clients’ views and expectations’ (Payne 1998: 129). Reflective learning can provide the opportunity to view an experience or issue from another perspective, but this will only occur if the field educator and the student consider the wider organisational, social, political and cultural context within which the student’s learning is taking place. It is in their fieldwork that students experience most directly the reality of the current policy environment in the human services. They see the effects of the emphasis on strictly defining eligibility for services and cutting back on resources, and how this mitigates against their efforts to provide the best they can for their clients. This is why the ability to practise reflectively is so important. It offers students the opportunity to ‘experience a sense of agency even within the most constraining environment’ (Moffatt 1996: 50). Reflective learning in fieldwork will act as a catalyst at both a personal and political level. It can lead to a re-evaluation of assumptions that have remained hidden or given rise to politically correct responses in the classroom. Some of the most significant learning occurs when students are asked to step a little outside their comfort zone. It is not suggested that field educators deliberately set out to challenge students to engage in anxiety producing self-assessment; rather, that fieldwork will inevitably generate these kinds of learning experiences. Discussions about reflective learning often stop at the point of practical reflectivity. Practical reflectivity is about improving


230

140 × 215


231

communication, understanding, interaction and partnership between students and field educators in order to maximise the student’s personal and professional development in fieldwork. Recent research (Ellis 1998) shows that, in general, field educators are skilled in promoting practical reflectivity—they recognise the importance of a supervisory process of action, reflection and integration in order to assist students to discover new ways of looking at situations, and to develop appropriate action strategies. However, there is another strand that must be taken into account in any discussion of reflective learning. Critical theorists (Freire 1972; Fay 1987) remind us that human services professionals work with individuals and groups, many of whom are disadvantaged by the existing set of social arrangements. Every day the news highlights examples of situations in which human services clients feel they have not received the professional response to which they are entitled. It is very much part of the human services workers’ mandate ‘to act to overcome contradictions in the rationality and justice of social action and social institutions’ (Carr and Kemmis 1986: 144), as identified in Codes of Ethics and Practice Standards for human services professions. Critical reflectivity is about understanding that the meanings field educators and students attach to situations are not ‘chosen from an infinite range of meanings’ (Harré-Hindmarsh 1992: 80). They are influenced by people’s personal life histories, social and economic factors, and power relationships where ‘certain groups have more power to influence what is considered legitimate, normal and reasonable’ (Harré-Hindmarsh 1992). Many of the field educators who participated in Ellis’s 1998 research wanted to promote a structural analysis in their work with students. However, they were feeling overwhelmed with meeting workplace performance and accountability requirements. Similarly, in their work with students, matters related to casework, performance and assessment were likely to be given priority over a critical analysis of the impact of government policies on human services. Field educators can draw on critical educational theories such as Freire’s (1972) problem-posing model of adult education, in which educators make taken-for-granted social roles and expectations problematic, to promote critical reflectivity in fieldwork. From a critical perspective, the agency in which fieldwork takes place is not viewed as a practice setting free of any conflicting value positions and agendas, but rather as a setting in which


231

140 × 215

232


tensions related to organisational, societal, personal and cultural values will become very apparent to students. How does a critical reflective model of learning in the field fit with the employers’ expectations that education and training for the human services produce graduates who have the necessary knowledge and skills to be competent and effective in the workplace? As Mezirow (1981) suggests, learning for task-related competence is only one part of adult learning. The development of technical skills and competencies is a key aspect of fieldwork. However, when attention is also given to developing a capacity for critical reflective thinking, students are encouraged to understand situations in a broader context and to pay attention to the principles and meanings underlying the activities in which they are engaged.

FOUR STEPS IN PROMOTING REFLECTIVE LEARNING The work of Kolb and Schön stimulated discussion amongst adult educators about how to encourage reflective learning from experience in professional education. The extent to which students develop the capacity for practical and critical reflectivity during supervised practice in field education depends on the extent to which field educators include exploration of alternative ways of thinking about political and structural issues in their supervision. Field educators have key opportunities to facilitate reflective learning both at the stage of reflection-in-action if they are co-working or directly observing the student interacting with clients and other workers, and at the stage of reflecting on action during supervision sessions. The model of reflection has four steps, derived from the work of Kolb (1984), Boud (1985) and Bogo and Vayda (1987), described earlier in this chapter: 1 2 3 4

experiencing; reflecting; integrating; strategising.

The model also draws on feminist practice principles of analysis, integration, affirmation, empowerment and action-reflection (Munford and Nash 1994), and on Freire’s (1972) problem-posing model of adult education, in order to incorporate critical reflectivity. The


232

140 × 215


233

following vignette, describing a field placement with an advocacy service in the area of income support, illustrates how field educators can apply the model’s steps to their work with students in the human services, and how they can promote both practical and critical reflectivity in the learning process. The strategies for promoting reflective learning can be applied equally by field educators in the health, disability, welfare and justice arenas.

Vignette: Darren’s field placement Darren is a human services student completing his final field placement with Methodist Social Service Centre, an agency that provides a counselling service and practical assistance (such as clothing and food) to families in need. The agency also has a strong emphasis on structural analysis and community development in order to move away from a charity model of service provision and to challenge government policies that have a negative impact on low-income families. Darren is involved with the agency’s recently established Advocacy Service. This provides advocates to accompany clients, at their request, to the New Zealand Income Support Service (NZISS). In the course of his fieldwork, Darren has trained and worked as an advocate as well as participating in an action research project exploring other community agencies’ perceptions, and those of the advocates themselves, about how the advocacy service is working.

This vignette will be used to elaborate on reflective learning.

EXPERIENCING Students are bombarded with new experiences during fieldwork. In a relatively short time frame, they have to come to terms with a field of practice, establish working relationships with other practitioners, and learn about the structure, policies, practices and procedures of an agency (Shardlow and Doel 1996: 164). Strategies are needed to assist students to retrieve, sift and sort significant learning experiences. The principal strategy used for organised reflection in field education is verbal recall and discussion of experiences in supervision. As mentioned earlier, students’ use of practice journals is another strategy for retrieving experiences. These journals consist of a description of events observed or participated in, followed by the student’s personal reflection around the development of knowledge, skills and reactions to events, and


233

140 × 215

234


concluding with personal, theoretical, professional and structural analysis. Sharing journal material can be utilised as a starting point for reflective learning in supervision. Students not only learn from the experience, but field educators can also assist them to identify what further learning needs to occur. A third strategy is to utilise a meaningful experience as a starting point for reflection, since professionals in the human services make links with formal knowledge when this is triggered by a direct experience (see What is reflective learning? section above). One of the ways in which the field educator in the vignette began looking at the student’s experiences was to explore some of the significant events in Darren’s work as an advocate. One of Darren’s learning goals was about developing an ongoing critical analysis of his own practice within the agency context. Gail, his supervisor, used some key experiences as a starting point for a discussion of ethical and political issues. Darren had been confronted with some difficult situations. One client had not given him the full information; another gave information that Darren knew was false to the NZISS person. Gail assisted Darren to explore his ethical and professional response through reflecting on these incidents in supervision. His response, on reflection, was that clients must be accountable for their actions, and that the consequences of not telling the truth need to be pointed out to them. This illustrates the retrieval of experiences as the basis for learning.

REFLECTING Reflective learning is about students becoming more aware of what they are thinking, feeling and experiencing. Supervision in fieldwork can concentrate on skills development and organisational requirements (which are extremely important), but little time is given to looking at the broader context in which the problems facing agency clients are situated. There is a need for critical reflection around political, social and cultural influences on problems, as well as reflection around the student’s personal and professional development in fieldwork. In the reflection phase, the learning process can be considerably assisted by the ‘cues and opportunities for reflection provided by a mentor’ (Gould 1996: 6). This is a key role for field educators.


234

140 × 215


235

One of the strategies Gail used to promote both practical and critical reflectivity in Darren’s fieldwork was to ask him reflective questions that required him to work it out for himself, rather than her providing him with solutions. This is akin to Freire’s problemposing model of adult education. Sometimes Gail would prepare a list of questions she wanted Darren to consider before their next supervision. At other times, the reflective questions were just a natural part of Gail’s model of supervision. For example, Darren recalled a time when Gail questioned him about comforting a very upset female client by touching her on the arm. Gail’s questions led to a useful reflective discussion about gender and cultural issues in regard to touching distressed clients. Some useful questions for promoting practical reflectivity are: • • • • • •

Where were you in this picture? What would you have done differently (if you could go back)? What have you learned from the experience? What assumptions did you make? Has anything like this happened to you before? What happened that you did not expect?

Field educators need to carry out problem-posing in a nonthreatening way to encourage students to explore issues and expand their framework of understanding. Reflective questions can also be used to create awareness of how the problem might appear from other perspectives, leading into the arena of critical reflectivity. The vignette may have raised questions for readers about why the agency had decided to tackle the problem of clients’ difficulties with NZISS by establishing an advocacy service. Gail commented that one of the questions being explored by the evaluation of the advocacy service, and an issue she and Darren have discussed many times in supervision, is ‘how empowering is it for service users if an advocate accompanies them to Income Support?’. Critical reflective practice requires that student and agency assumptions about issues such as gender, ethnicity, disability and the causes of poverty are not taken for granted. Many beliefs and ways of behaving towards others can be unintentionally discriminating because they are seen as socially acceptable or natural behaviour. In becoming aware of the broader contextual issues affecting the client(s) and themselves as workers in the situation, students can begin to expand their frameworks of understanding. An example of this is that, prior to his fieldwork, Darren’s concept


235

140 × 215

236


of advocacy had included support and facilitation, whereas now he sees advocacy as being openly partisan for the client and has become interested in exploring and developing this wider notion. Another example is that, throughout the fieldwork, Gail assisted Darren to explore the assumptions underlying government policies towards beneficiaries in relation to his observations of the experiences of people on a benefit. This analysis increased Darren’s understanding about the different mind sets influencing the behaviour and attitudes of client services officers employed by NZISS, and how some could feel threatened by an advocacy service which assists beneficiaries to access their entitlements. As Darren was part of a small research team consisting of himself, his supervisor, and another student and a lecturer from the university, reflection occurred in a small group as well as in individual supervision. In group supervision, students learn from the experiences of many different perspectives and ways of working. Group supervision is a culturally appropriate model of learning for cultures that emphasise interdependence, as it provides a support system, collective processes and the opportunity for students to explore knowledge bases and practices from their own cultural perspectives (Walker 1996). Maori and Pacific Island cultures are two examples of this.

INTEGRATING Integration is about making connections between new insights and existing patterns of thinking, feeling and acting. Students start by paying attention to feelings, assumptions and intuitions connected with their fieldwork experiences and exploring other systems which impact on these. Field educators then have a role to assist students to link this exploration with theoretical knowledge and the learning goals established at the beginning of the fieldwork. This provides an opportunity to discuss different ways of conceptualising issues that have arisen in the course of the fieldwork. The aim is to help students to integrate new knowledge and skills into their own developing framework for practice. Gail utilised a role reversal strategy to facilitate discussion about theoretical knowledge. She would become the student and Darren would become the field educator. She would then ask him to tell her about an area in which he knew more than her, for example action research methods. This puts into practice Schön’s notion of


236

140 × 215


237

reflective fieldwork, in which both student and field educator are continuously sharing their basis for analysis and action. It also applies the principle that our understanding of the basis for our analysis and actions becomes clearer if we are asked to explain the concepts to another person. Finally, this strategy is empowering as it affirms the student as knowledgeable and capable.

STRATEGISING The final step after experiencing, reflecting and integrating is strategising. This step involves problem-solving, exploring alternative plans and developing action strategies that are tried out in practice and evaluated. The action and reflection process ‘enables us to continually evaluate our actions in line with our goals and visions’ (Munford and Nash 1994: 244). In Darren’s fieldwork, two examples from the research project illustrate how strategising fits into the action/reflection process. Firstly, Gail and Darren decided that the concepts he was writing about in the research report needed simpler explanation to make them more accessible to the intended audience. Secondly, the research team as a whole strategised that the report Are Advocacy Services Helping? needed editing by someone with knowledge of the issues. The person they decided to approach was well respected for previous work in the area of poverty and social justice, and would lend credibility to the report.

SUMMARY The two main purposes of this chapter are to explain the key elements of a reflective learning process, and to describe how field educators can facilitate students’ reflective learning in supervision, offering suggestions for strategies and tools to assist them in promoting practical and critical reflectivity. Reflective learning is directed towards increasing self-awareness, developing skills, making connections with formal knowledge and exploring the wider context in which the learning is taking place (Boud et al. 1985). All of these are important for students’ personal and professional development. This chapter has further argued that an emphasis on critical reflectivity in fieldwork will enable students to develop an ethical,


237

140 × 215

238


holistic and structural analysis that will better equip them for professional practice in the human services. The author wishes to acknowledge the helpful feedback from colleagues Lesley Cooper, Mary Nash and Kieran O’Donoghue in preparing this chapter and to thank Gail and Darren for sharing the material for the vignette.


238

140 × 215

20

Working with male students in field education

Ken McMaster WORKING WITH MALE STUDENTS IN FIELD EDUCATION

Human services work, described as a ‘woman’s profession’, has its roots in the Charity Organisation Society and the Settlement House Movement around the turn of the nineteenth century. Its history has relied upon, and is located within, the voluntary philanthropic sphere where groups of women were excluded from the world of work outside the home. These women were able to make a valuable contribution to others’ lives within their communities. This contribution was generally directed at women and children. Men did not enter human services work in significant numbers within Australasia until the expansionist phase of the welfare state following World War II. It was during this period of growth that the state began to emerge as a significant provider of human services intervention, thereby creating economic incentives for men to enter this field. It is against this backdrop of the history—or, more accurately, ‘herstory’—of human services work that the issue of men as learning practitioners is located. A gendered perspective in human services work is critical for highlighting the differing needs of women and men. This perspective in itself is insufficient to explain the nature of human services organisations that are staffed largely by women, managed by men and work predominantly with women and children. An analysis of power is required to locate a discussion of working with male students in field education. This allows access to the wider socio-political 239


239

140 × 215

240


context that focuses upon entitlements, power and control issues, and the impact of this construction on workers’ and clients’ lives. This chapter focuses on two interrelated issues relevant to men in field education: • •

a brief review of the construction of masculinity; ways to assist students and field educators to explore masculinity issues and the impact these have on human services intervention.

MALE STUDENTS IN FIELD EDUCATION Male students in human services work are numerically a minority comprising between 18 and 30 per cent of students (Blancard et al. 1994; Martin and Healey 1993). It is therefore likely that male students are not at all common and fall into two distinct groups. The first group comprises those that are older and retraining in second careers. The second group tends to be young with limited life or practice experience. Both groups will have been socialised into male roles from an early stage in life and will bring their notions about how to be male to the learning environment. The construction of masculinity is not the same for all men. The interesting question is where men locate themselves in relation to dominant masculine ideals. This will impact upon patterns of interaction with women and the implicit expectations and entitlements that sit alongside this constructed masculinity. It is also common that male students will have female field educators for the majority of their fieldwork experiences during their human services work training. Many male students have difficulties in fieldwork, and while the research and anecdotal experiences are equivocal as to the role played by gender, it could be surmised that this is a core issue. Recognising the parallel processes that can operate within the relationship between the field educator and the male student, and the student with either female or male clients, must be a significant aspect of field education for male students. Understanding one’s biography is critical to understanding the impact of past events and how these shape the construction and interpretation of lived experience in the present (Rees 1991). However, biography does not sit apart from the wider socio-political context that shapes interpretations of the world around us. Gender,


240

140 × 215

WORKING WITH MALE STUDENTS IN FIELD EDUCATION

241

class and ethnicity are core issues in the discourses running through human services work in postmodern times (Dominelli 1997). This has major implications for men who work in human services delivery, men who are clients, the dynamics of male human services workers working with female clients, and men working within a profession dominated by female workers. The basic thesis for this chapter is that many issues in the human services can be attributed to the question of gender socialisation. If students cannot appreciate the historical and contextual inequality that arises out of the construction of masculinity, then they are likely to reinforce and collude in the perpetuation of dominant discourses (that favour men’s rights over women’s) in their practice. It is also contended that the gender question, from the perspective of understanding masculinity, has not been adequately explored. This may not be surprising, given the focus on class as the dominant explanation for social ills. This latter view underpinned much thinking about social problems until the early 1970s, in contrast to the significant feminist critique of the impact of male behaviour towards female clients over the past 20 years (Dominelli 1997; Fook 1993; Marchant and Wearing 1986). Working with the gender question ultimately takes us into the domain of gender politics—a place of struggle in the context of inequality; the unequal distribution of power within society in favour of men rather than women. It is important, therefore, that male students understand the processes of ownership, status and control that impact on their own lives and those of their clients.

CONSTRUCTING MASCULINITY Western industrialised society is characterised by its highly competitive and hierarchical nature. It operates on an ideology of individualism or individual achievement, as opposed to the cooperation and interdependence more common in indigenous cultures. This trend towards greater individualism has been exacerbated in recent times with neo-conservative and libertarian paradigms permeating much of our social policy thinking within the human services (Mullaly 1997). The ideology of hierarchy and individualism feeds into a number of age-old restraining gender prescriptions. In ancient Greek culture, a distinction was made between the oikus (private household) and the polis (public arena). The private person, known as an idiot, was seen to have less


241

140 × 215

242


personal status than the poletei (public person). Both Aristotle and Plato saw the private as less noble than the public, and suggested that in good society the private world would be subordinate to the public world (McMaster and Swain 1989). This thinking has served to intensify inequality between men and women, implying that the private world of the household (occupied by women, children, servants and slaves) was not as important as the public world of ‘free men’. Aristotle portrayed women as occupying the ‘realm of necessity’—a realm supportive of, but inferior to, the public world. This gave men the message that they were the more valued gender in society and as such could demand, as well as expect, compliance from female partners. This patriarchal tradition is a recurrent theme throughout Western history and in places of Western colonisation. Roman society also developed notions of male entitlement in the form of the paterfamilias or absolute right within a family for the male head to do what he liked to other family members without any redress from the state. He could maim, kill, abuse and punish. The Roman system of government and male entitlement has underpinned the structuring of most Western societies. In 1782, Judge Buller legitimated one of the starkest examples within British law of men’s right to use violence within the home. He declared that a husband could beat his wife as long as he didn’t use a stick thicker than his thumb. This right was not removed until 1891. However, the term ‘rule of thumb’ has remained embedded within cultural expressions. Blackstone notes: The husband also might give his wife moderate correction. For as he is to answer for her misbehavior the law thought it reasonable to entrust him with this power of restraining her, by domestic chastisement in the same moderation that a man is allowed to correct his servant or children. (cited in Pahl 1985: 5)

IMPLICATIONS FOR MASCULINITY FOR WORKERS The site where human services workers become involved in this debate is usually that of the family. The family is the social system where failure to attribute responsibility is probably most apparent. It has now been well documented that, within the family, the traditional distribution of status and power has been along gender and age lines (Marchant and Wearing 1986). In family relationships,


242

140 × 215


243

husbands have traditionally been regarded as having greater status and power than wives, other males than females, or parents than children. These traditional gender prescriptions have tended to impose expectations on men and their behaviour within society. The following list was generated by a group of men attending a stopping violence program: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Women should be like men. Women can’t be relied upon. Women always exaggerate. Women should make sure men don’t have to wait. Women should not do anything that inconveniences men. Women have to listen carefully the first time. Women should shut up about things they know nothing about. Women should do what men want them to do. Women should be submissive. Woman’s place is in the home. Woman’s work has no value. Wives should respect their husbands. Wives should know their husbands’ needs. Wives should know their husbands’ needs without being told. Wives should be devoted to their husbands. Women should be faithful.

These traditional patterns of men’s gender role socialisation promote values that are highly restraining for the development of respect and sensitivity in relationships, and acceptance of responsibility for behaviour ( Jenkins 1990). These restraints to male thinking can be collapsed into a number of ideas that inhibit the role position for men. Men have been thought to be biologically superior to women, and therefore better at activities using physical strength. This thinking often permeates human services organisations where there can be an implicit expectation that men don’t talk about themselves. This is also linked to gender prescriptions that when men reach out for assistance or express ‘soft’ emotions, they are in some way weak and ‘unmanly’. The expression ‘little and big boys don’t cry’ highlights this position, and relates to the idea that communication styles based upon sharing feelings, intuitions and physical non-sexual contact should be avoided. It is probably fair to say that men’s training in not placing value on these forms of interaction creates difficulties in interpersonal relationships.


243

140 × 215

244


A man’s image is often based upon being more powerful, fiercely competitive, dominant and controlling. In this way of thinking, work and career success—success in the public world rather than the private sphere of the family—is the ‘mark of a man’. Self-esteem is therefore established through achievement, competence and success within a narrow realm. The natural outcome of this thinking is that it becomes acceptable for men to use their power, dominance and violence to keep control inside and outside the home. ‘Real’ men are tireless, invincible and keep working despite the personal or health risks that result in higher morbidity levels in terms of heart attacks, lung cancer, alcoholism and strokes (McMaster 1997: 126). Traditions, beliefs and habits (located within the socialisation process) promote an imbalance between males and females in perceived status and entitlement, and in responsibility for the social and emotional climate in relationships. These clearly restrain the development of respectful, sensitive and equitable relationships. Social-emotional responsibilities include responsibilities for intimacy, nurture, conflict-resolution, empathy, sensitivity to others’ needs and feelings, awareness and respect of others’ rights and emotional awareness and expression. These traditions, habits and beliefs are well documented and remain influential in contemporary heterosexual relationships. They prescribe restraints for males that include: • • •

an exaggerated sense of entitlement and status in relation to females and children; an avoidance of social-emotional responsibilities; a reliance on others (especially females) to face social-emotional responsibilities ( Jenkins 1990).

Thus the challenge for students and field educators is, firstly, to understand the development of male entitlement or the greater expectations and rights men perceive themselves having within families, and secondly, to redress the balance of male entitlement within family relationships. It is insufficient to deal with these issues in isolation from the power analysis related to gendered practice.

ASSISTING MALE STUDENTS TO EXPLORE MASCULINITY ISSUES AND THEIR IMPACT ON INTERVENTION How then can male students—and female, for that matter— be encouraged to appreciate the impact of masculinity on their


244

140 × 215


245

practice? I have had a long history working as part of a number of gender projects focusing upon working with men who are violent towards their female partners, men who sexually offend and men as parents. The projects have all taken a pro-feminist approach to constructing male behaviour in terms of irresponsibility and lack of accountability. Each of these human services practice areas brings the worker face-to-face with the gender question in the starkest of ways. Increasingly, male students are being encouraged to experience these work sites, which can be challenging and stimulating in terms of working with the very heart of the gender question. A number of areas that impinge on practice can be explored as part of the fieldwork curriculum. I have found it useful in my practice as a field educator to set students the task of exploring issues of masculinity in the context of their own biography, family history and current social grouping. Biography, as noted earlier, is the process of unravelling your past while seeing how this past influences your thinking, interpretation and actions in the present. ‘Family’—used in the most general sense to cover the myriad of structural differences that exist in today’s society—is the cornerstone of our socialisation process. In human services training courses and field education, students quickly come face-to-face with their own family history as they engage in the lives of clients’ families. This can raise a number of issues such as boundary conflicts, powerlessness and re-experiencing past injustices and abuse. Peer relationships are important for shaping participation in current social groups. Our increasingly mobile society in terms of class means that students can find themselves in a different position from their parents. Which social group students relate to and find acceptance with can have an ongoing influence on their ability to operate in human services. These very same issues are critical for the field educator to understand and appreciate in order to assist the student through their journey of increasing self-understanding in relationship to others. An early reflective learning exercise for students is to ponder these issues in relationship to their own gender, ethnicity, sexual preference and class. This information can then be used for the next step, which is based on a comparative analysis in relation to client/client systems, field educator–student relationship, agency culture and wider society influences. Table 20.1 outlines the various levels in which this exploration can take place. It poses a number of critical questions that can


245

140 × 215

246


Table 20.1

Levels of inquiry into masculinity Client/client systems

Supervisory relationship

Personal biography

1 How is my personal biography similar to or different from my client’s in terms of the construction of masculinity? 2 How do the presenting issues relate to a retrained gendered position?

1 What 1 How is understanding gender do agency construction workers have of made visible within the field the role gender educator–student plays in the construction of relationship? 2 How is power social issues? used within this 2 In what way setting to model does the agency a different style take account of of relationship? gender in its interventions?

1 How is masculinity constructed within society? 2 How do personal biographies interface with the dominant messages from society?

Family history

1 How does my own experience of family life replicate a power relationship in favour of men as a class? 2 What is my understanding and expectation of client systems along gendered lines?

1 In what way does my experience of ‘family’ impact upon expectations within the supervisory relationship?

1 How does the agency perceive family culture and the attribution of social and emotional responsibility along gendered lines?

1 How does society restrain family structuring in terms of roles and responsibilities for men and women?

Social group: class, ethnicity, sexual preference

1 What social group am I part of within the society/ community? 2 How is masculinity constructed and displayed within this social group? 3 How will this interplay with the social group of the client/ client system?

1 How open are the field educator and student to exploring the interrelationship between gender/class/ ethnicity and sexual preference as part of the supervisory relationship?

1 How does the agency deal with issues of difference and replicate traditional expectations of male/female roles? 2 How are traditional gender roles evident within the structure of the agency?

1 In what way does society support the alternative construction of masculinity? 2 How might society undermine alternative constructions of masculinity?


Agency culture

Society

246

140 × 215


247

assist the student to become aware of the impact that a construction of masculinity has on themselves, their client relationships and the field educator–agency relationships in particular. The utility of this framework is to make the invisible visible. It serves three distinct functions, providing: 1 an internal, self-management dimension which can be used to invite responsible male behaviour in male students; 2 an external, supervisory dimension used within the field educator–student relationship and wider agency team to monitor movement towards appropriate male behaviour; 3 a framework whereby field educator and student can begin to map important gender issues operating within the supervisory relationship and/or within the agency. When working in the area of family violence with groups of men who are often restrained by traditional gender prescriptions, for example, it is incumbent upon students to be able to model respectful co-gender relationships. The modelling also provides examples of how men and women can relate to each other without resorting to abusive tactics. Co-gender teams often work through these questions as part of forming their working relationship prior to client contact. The questions can also act as part of the evaluating process and exploration of the gender relationship, which is covered in more formal teaching with fieldwork instruction. The second useful strategy is to provide students with a framework to explore in which they find themselves and clients around an accountability/responsibility continuum. As noted earlier, men who access human services are generally deficient in appreciating the exaggerated sense of entitlement and status in relation to females and children, have a reliance on others (especially females) to face social-emotional responsibilities and often avoid social-emotional responsibilities. Students may well find themselves struggling with the very same issues as their clients. In helping students construct a model to offset these issues, it is possible to work with two interrelated themes, the first based around the notion of responsibility, the second around accountability (see Figure 20.1). We can view responsibility as being from the individual domain—I either take responsibility for my actions or I don’t. This is not a binary phenomenon, however. At times we may take responsibility for some aspects of behaviour but not others.


247

140 × 215

248


Figure 20.1

Responsibility/accountability dimension for male behaviour Accountability—social domain

Field 2

Field 4

Responsibility—individual domain

Irresponsibility

Field 1

Field 3

Isolation

The second dimension relates to the continuum of isolation to accountability. My clinical experience clearly indicates that many men tend to be isolated within their family/peer groups at a physical and emotional level. The isolation/accountability dimension relates to the social domain—the need, as an individual, to be socially connected and accountable to the wider social group for one’s actions. In terms of redressing gender inequality at the family level, bringing the locus of decision-making back to the family (whanau) level is important in rebuilding these accountability relationships. It is my experience that human services work has focused almost exclusively upon the responsibility continuum without thoroughly exploring how change operates within the accountability dimension. Within this model, men may occupy several different positions in relationship to others. They may start their journey in Field 1— a position of irresponsibility and isolation indicative of a secret, sneaky and private lifestyle in both the individual and social domain—or they might occupy a position in Field 2, indicating movement towards accountability to others but irresponsibility in terms of ongoing work. This may sound like a contradiction in terms. However, I have worked with men from church communities who are accountable to the wider group but reluctant to do the work in becoming personally responsible for their behaviour. Unfortunately, some church communities collude with these men, expecting faith to carry the day.


248

140 × 215


249

Field 3 is a position of taking some individual responsibility for understanding and managing the behaviour, but reluctance to be open about these ideas within the wider social group. This is typical of the man who moves on, making a fresh start and not being responsible for ongoing involvement with his children. This process aims to move men towards Field 4: a position of both responsibility and accountability, which allows for an interweaving of individual responsibility for behaviour and the need to take care of this behaviour’s social and emotional impact within the wider group. The process provides a map for students to explore their progress in terms of work with male clients, while at the same time opening up for debate issues about their own masculinity along these two continuums. The framework is based on the notion that there is always a power differential within gendered relationships, and that many of the problems of masculinity are behind clients’ presenting problems. When power is abused over time, the need for restorative processes becomes exciting for practice. The challenge for students is how they deal with the restraints around entitlement, with male clients not feeling they need to consider others’ positions in their decision-making processes. The challenge in redefining masculinity is the need for men to create space within their thinking for the stories of others who have been, or still are, affected by their behaviour. The framework can be utilised as a measure of male behaviour within the agency as usefully as for client work. One of the issues gaining greater exposure is that of male behaviour within organisations, and the need to develop responsible male attitudes and respectful ideas around interaction. The model can therefore apply equally well to having students and field educators track agency decision-making, and where and how women’s voices are heard and respected. This in itself is an interesting exercise because, while men are in a distinct minority within human services overall, they are over-represented at academic, management and supervisory levels.

SUMMARY Male students in human services work have an important role to play in taking a position against society’s dominant restraining


249

140 × 215

250


views of masculinity. This chapter has provided a number of ideas that can encourage field educators to assist students: • • •

the importance of students understanding the historical dimensions of the construction of masculinity; how this historical dimension translates into irresponsible and unaccountable behaviour in clients; how field educators might actively encourage students to take a position in the gender debate, given the impact of masculinity on human services work.

Developing this exploration during field education will assist beginning practitioners to challenge and rethink assumptions around gender in human services practice.


250

140 × 215

References

FIELDWORK IN THE HUMAN SERVICES REFERENCES

Allen, B.T. 1995 Preventing Sexual Harassment on Campus: Policies and Practices for Higher Education, College and University Personnel Association, Washington Anderson, G., Boud, D. and Sampson, J. 1996 Learning Contracts: A Practical Guide, Kogan Page, London Arrowsmith, S. and Hart, N. 1998 ‘The higher education institution–student contract’ in D. Palfreyman and D. Warner (eds), Higher Education and the Law: A Guide for Managers, The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press, Buckingham Ashworth, P.D. and Saxton, J. 1990 ‘On competence’ Journal of Further and Higher Education, vol. 14, pp. 3–25 AASWWE 1991 A Handbook for Field Educators in Social Work and Social Welfare, Charles Sturt University, Bathurst Bandura, A. 1986 Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs Barrie, S. 1996 ‘Video-based assessment of clinical competence in speech and hearing science students’ in A. Yarrow, J. Millwater, S. De Vries and D. Creedy (eds), Practical Experiences in Professional Education Research Monograph no. 1, QUT Publications and Printery, Brisbane Bateson, G. 1980 Mind and Nature, Fontana, London Bauman, K., Cook, J. and Larsen, L. 1981 ‘Using technology to humanize instruction’ Journal of Nursing Education, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 27–31 Beddoe, E. and Worrall, J. 1997 ‘Fieldwork in a market economy: challenges and changes’ in J. Fook, F. Lindsay and M. Ryan (eds), Advances in Social Work and Welfare Education, Australian Association of Social Work 251


251

140 × 215

252


and Welfare Education, Department of Social Work and Social Policy, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, pp. 54–63 Belenky, M.F., Clinchy, B.M., Goldberger, N.R. and Tarule, J.M. 1986 Women’s Ways of Knowing: The Development of Self, Voice, and Mind, Basic Books, New York Bergman, K. and Gaitskill, T. 1990 ‘Faculty and student perceptions of effective clinical teachers: An extension study’ Journal of Professional Nursing, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 33–44 Berman-Rossi, T. 1988 ‘Theoretical orientations of social work practice teachers’ Journal of Social Work Education, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 50–9 Biggs, J. (ed.) 1991 Teaching for Learning: The View from Cognitive Psychology, ACER, Melbourne Blancard, A., Wearne, A. and Carpenter, J. 1994 ‘Where are the men? Gender imbalance in social work’ Advances in Social Work and Welfare Education, School of Social Work, University of Western Australia Bogo, M. 1983 ‘Field instruction: Negotiating content and process’ The Clinical Supervisor, vol. 1, no. 3, p. 13 Bogo, M. and Globerman, J. 1994 ‘The teaching centre: An innovative model for university–field partnerships’, paper presented at 27th International Association of Schools of Social Work Congress, Amsterdam Bogo, M. and Power, R. 1992 ‘New field instructors’ perceptions of institutional supports for their roles’ Journal of Social Work Education, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 178–89 Bogo, M. and Vayda, E. 1987 The Practice of Field Instruction in Social Work: Theory and Process, University of Toronto Press, Toronto ——1998 The Practice of Field Instruction in Social Work: Theory and Process, 2nd edn, Columbia University Press, New York Boud, D. and Walker, D. 1990 ‘Making the most of experience’ Studies in Continuing Education, vol. 12, pp. 61–80 Boud, D., Keogh, R. and Walker, D. (eds) 1985 Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning, Kogan Page, London Bradey, R. 1993 How to Grow a Social Worker: Tips for Field Teaching, School of Social Work, University of New South Wales, Sydney Brandon, J. and Davies, M. 1979 ‘The limits of competence in social work: The assessment of marginal students in social work education’ British Journal of Social Work, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 295–347 Brauns, H.J. and Kramer, D. 1986 Social Work for Education in Europe, Deutscher Verein, Frankfurt am Main Briggs, L. and Kane, R.D. 1998 ‘Is a modern code of ethics still appropriate in this postmodern multifaceted world?’, paper presented to the joint World Congress of IFSW and IASSW, Jerusalem, July Briskman, L. and Noble, C. 1998 ‘Social work ethics: Dissonance between theory and values—Practitioners, academics and student perspectives’, paper presented to the joint World Congress of IFSW and IASSW, Jerusalem, July


252

140 × 215

REFERENCES

253

Brodie, I. 1993 ‘Teaching from practice in social work education: A study of the content of supervision sessions’ Issues in Social Work Education, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 71–91 Brown, A. and Bourne, I. 1996 The Social Work Supervisor, Open University Press, Buckingham Brown, S. 1990 ‘Criterion-referenced assessment’ in N. Entwistle (ed.), Handbook of Educational Ideas and Practices, Routledge, London Carew, R. 1979 ‘The place of knowledge in social work activity’ British Journal of Social Work, vol. 9, pp. 349–64 Carr, W. and Kemmis, S. 1986 Education, Knowledge and Action Research, Falmer Press, London Cassata, D., Conroe, R. and Clements, P. 1977 ‘A program for enhancing medical interviewing using video-tape feedback in the family practice residency’ Journal of Family Practice, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 673–7 CCETSW 1991 The Requirements for Post-Qualifying Education and Training in the Personal Social Services, paper 30, 2nd edn, Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work, London ——1995 Assuring Quality in the Diploma in Social Work—1, Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work, London Chappell, C. and Hager, P. 1994 ‘Values and competencies’, paper presented at the Conference on Social Action, Learning and Training in the Community Sector, University of Technology, Sydney, 23–24 June Cherednichenko, B. and Toomey, R. with Charleson, I. 1996 ‘Best practice in industry–higher education partnerships’ Education and Industry in Partnership, vol. 3, no. 3, December, pp. 18–46 Christensen C. 1995 ‘Immigrant minorities in Canada’ in J. Turner and F. Turner (eds), Canadian Social Welfare, 3rd edn, Allyn & Bacon, Scarborough, Ontario Cocozza, L. 1989 Social Work Training in the European Community, Office for Official Publications of the European Community, Luxembourg Cole, B. and Lewis, R. 1993 ‘Gatekeeping through termination of unsuitable social work students: Legal issues and guidelines’ Journal of Social Work Education, vol. 29, no. 2, 150–9 Cole, B.S., Christ, C.C. and Light, T.R. 1995 ‘Social work education and students with disabilities: Implications of Section 504 and the ADA’ Journal of Social Work Education, vol. 31, pp. 261–8 Coleman, H., Collins, D. and Aikins, D. 1995 ‘The student at risk in the practicum’ in G. Rogers (ed.), Social Work Field Education: Views and Visions, Kendall Hunt, Dubuque, Ch. 22, pp. 256–70 Cooper. L. 1994 ‘Improved assessment practices in field education’ Advances in Social Work and Welfare Education, Conference Proceedings, Australian Association of Social Work and Welfare Education pp. 110–24 ——1995 ‘Social justice and rationing in the allocation of field practicums’ Social Work Education, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 30–45 ——1996 ‘Peer learning in field education: Resources, skills and experiences’


253

140 × 215

254


Participating in Change: Proceedings of the Joint World Congress, International Federation of Social Workers, 24–27 July, Hong Kong ——1998 ‘Fieldwork placement. Who fails: The student, the supervisor or the university?’ Social Work Review, vol. 10, no. 2, June, p. 17 Cooper, L. and Forward, A. 1997 A Code of Conduct for Social Work and Field Education, Flinders University of South Australia, Adelaide Cooper, M. and Lesser, J. 1997 ‘How race affects the helping process: A case of therapy’ Clinical Social Work Journal, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 323–35 Corey, G. 1996 ‘Theoretical implications of MCT theory’ in D.W. Sue, A.E. Ivey and P. B. Pedersen (eds), Theory of Multicultural Counselling and Therapy, Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove, CA Corey, G., Corey, M.S. and Callanan P. 1998 Issues and Ethics in the Helping Professions, 5th edn, Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, USA Coulshed, V. 1980 ‘Why is placement failure so rare?’ Australian Social Work, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 17–21 ——1993 ‘Adult learning: Implications for teaching in social work’ British Journal of Social Work, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 1–13 Creed, H. and Flynn, S. 1981 ‘The Sussex Street Centre—An innovation in fieldwork teaching’ Contemporary Social Work Education, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 161–6 Dalton, D. 1981 ‘The student unit in fieldwork education’ Contemporary Social Work Education, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 167–75 Daniels, J. and D’Andrea, M. 1996 ‘MCT theory and ethnocentrism in counselling’ in D.W. Sue, A.E. Ivey and P. B. Pedersen (eds), Theory of Multicultural Counselling and Therapy, Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove, CA Dinham, S. and Stritter, F. 1986 ‘Research on professional education’ in M. Wittrock (ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching, 3rd edn, Macmillan, New York Dominelli, L. 1997 Sociology for Social Work, Macmillan, London Durie, M. 1994 Whaiora: Maori Health Development, Oxford University Press, New Zealand Eisenberg, M., Heycox, K. and Hughes, L. 1996 ‘Fear of the personal: Assessing students in practicum’ Australian Social Work, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 33–40 Ellis, G. 1998 ‘Fieldwork supervisors’ perceptions of their role and needs for support, education and training’, unpublished Masters thesis, Massey University, Palmerston North Evans, S. and McDermott, F. 1988 ‘Who is to control the practice of social work?’ Australian Social Work, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 4–8 Farrington, D.J. 1998 The Law of Higher Education, 2nd edn, Butterworths, London Fay, B. 1987 Critical Social Science, Basil Blackwell, Oxford Fernandez, E. 1997 ‘Effective teaching and learning in practicum education: Perceptions of student social workers and student teachers’ in A. Yarrow and J. Millwater (eds), Practical Experiences in Professional Education Research


254

140 × 215

REFERENCES

255

Monograph no. 2, PEPE Inc., QUT Publications and Printery, Brisbane, pp. 67–107 Fleck-Henderson, A. 1991 ‘Moral reasoning in social work practice’ Social Service Review, June, pp. 185–202 Flew, T. 1998 ‘Hype and hope at Virtual University’ Arena Magazine, no. 38, December–January 1998/99 Fook, J. 1993 Radical Casework: A Theory of Practice, Allen & Unwin, Sydney Fook J. and Cleak, H. 1994 ‘The state of field education in Australia: Results of a national survey’ Advances in Social Work and Welfare Education, a collection of papers given at the National Conference of the Australian Association for Social Work and Welfare Education, School of Social Work, University of Western Australia Ford, K. and Jones, A. 1987 Student Supervision, BASW Macmillan, London Freire, P. 1972 Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Penguin, London Garcia, B. and Melendez, M. 1997 ‘Concepts and methods in teaching oppression courses’ Journal of Progressive Human Services, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 23–40 Gamby, J. 1997 ‘Touching in psychological practice’ in H. Love and W. Whittaker (eds), Practice Issues for Clinical and Applied Psychologists in New Zealand, New Zealand Psychological Society, Wellington Gardiner, D. 1989 The Anatomy of Supervision, Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press, Milton Keynes Gelman, S.R. and Wardell, P.J. 1988 ‘Who’s responsible? The field liability dilemma’ Journal of Social Work Education, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 70–7 Gelman, S.R., Pollack, D. and Auerbach, C. 1996 ‘Liability issues in social work education’ Journal of Social Work Education, vol. 351, no. 3, pp. 351–61 Getzel, G.S. and Salmon, R. 1985 ‘Group supervision: An organisational approach’ The Clinical Supervisor, vol. 3, no. 1, Spring, pp. 27–43 Gilligan, S. 1996 ‘The relational self ’ in M. Hoyt (ed.), Constructive Therapies, vol. 2, Gilford, New York Gleed, S. 1996 ‘Duty of care: Do social work educators have one?’ in J. Fook, F. Lindsay and M. Ryan (eds), Advances in Social Work and Welfare Education, Australian Association for Social Work and Education, Melbourne, pp. 97–103 Gonczi, A. 1993 ‘An integrated competency approach to professional education and assessment: A consideration of arguments for and against’, paper presented to Tertiary Education Sector, NZQA, April Gould, N. 1996 ‘Introduction: Social work education and the crisis of the professions’ in N. Gould and I. Taylor (eds), Reflective Learning for Social Work, Arena, Aldershot Graybeal, C. and Ruff, E. 1995 ‘Process recording: It’s more than you think’ Journal of Social Work Education, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 169–81 Grossman, B. 1990 ‘Safety in field work’, paper presented at 36th Annual Program Meeting of the Council on Social Work Education, Reno, NV


255

140 × 215

256


Grossman, B., Levine-Jordano, N. and Shearer, P. 1991 ‘Working with students’ emotional reactions in the field: An education framework’ in D. Schneck, B. Grossman and U. Glassman (eds), Field Education in Social Work: Contemporary Issues and Trends, Kendall Hunt, Dubuque, pp. 205–16 Harré-Hindmarsh, J. 1992 Social Work Oppositions, Avebury, Aldershot Harris, A. 1996 ‘Learning from Experience and Reflection in Social Work Education’ in N. Gould and I. Taylor (eds), Reflective Learning for Social Work, Arena, Aldershot Heycox, K. and Hughes, L. 1997 ‘Where have all the placements gone? Factors which help and hinder the provision of social work practicum in large teaching hospitals in Sydney’ in A. Yarrow and J. Millwater (eds), Practical Experiences in Professional Education Research Monograph no. 2, PEPE Inc., QUT Publications and Printery, Brisbane, pp. 165–79 Highlen, P. 1996 ‘MCT theory and implications for organisational systems’ in D.W. Sue, A.E. Ivey and P.B. Pedersen (eds), A Theory of Multicultural Counselling and Therapy, Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove, CA Home Office 1986 Protection of Children: Disclosure of Criminal Background of Those with Access to Children: Circular 44/1986, HMSO, London ——1993 Protection of Children: Disclosure of Criminal Background of Those with Access to Children: Circular 47/1993, HMSO, London Hughes, L. and Heycox, K. 1996 ‘Three perspectives on assessment in practice learning’ in M. Doel and S. Shardlow (eds), Social Work in a Changing World: An International Perspective on Practice Learning, Arena, Aldershot, pp. 85–102 Hughes, L., Heycox, K. and Eisenberg, M. 1994 ‘Fear of failing: field teachers and the assessment of marginal students’ in T. Brown, C. Freedman, J. Murphy, D. Strong and C. Trotter (eds), Advances in Social Welfare Education, Monash University, pp. 139–46 Hugman, R. and Smith, D. 1995 Ethical Issues in Social Work, Routledge, London Ife, J. 1997 Rethinking Social Work, Longman, Melbourne Jacobs, C. 1991 ‘Violations of the supervisory relationship: An ethical and educational blind spot’ Social Work, vol. 36, pp. 130–5 Jenkins, A. 1990 Invitations to Responsibility, Dulwich Publications, Adelaide Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T. and Holubec, E.J. 1993 Circles of Learning: Cooperation in the Classroom, 4th edn, Interaction Book Co, Minnesota Kadushin, A. 1976 Supervision in Social Work, Columbia University Press, New York ——1985 Supervision in Social Work, 2nd edn, Columbia University Press, New York Kaplan, T. 1991 ‘A model for group supervision for social work: Implications for the profession’ in D. Schneck, B. Grossman and U. Glassman (eds), Field Education and Social Work, Kendall Hunt, Iowa, pp. 141–8 Kaplan, W.A. 1995 The Law of Higher Education: A Comprehensive Guide to


256

140 × 215

REFERENCES

257

Legal Implications of Administrative Decision Making, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco Kilpatrick, A.C. and Holland, T. 1993 ‘Management of the field instruction program in social work education’ Journal of Teaching in Social Work, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 123–36 Kimber, S. 1982 ‘Competence is incompetence: Evaluation of a social work student’s practice’ Contemporary Social Work Education, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 93–104 Kitchener, K.S. 1985 ‘Ethical principles and ethical decisions in student affairs’ cited in ‘Applied ethics in student services’ in H.J. Cannon and R. Brown (eds), New Directions for Student Services, no. 30, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp. 17–28 Knowles, M. 1990 The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species, Gulf Publishing Company, Houston Kolb, D. 1976 Learning Styles Inventory Technical Manual, McBer, Boston, Mass ——1984 Experiential Learning, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs Labouvie-Vief, G. 1980 ‘Beyond formal operations: Uses and limits of pure logic in life-span development’ Human Development, vol. 23, pp. 141–60 ——1985 ‘Logic and self-regulation from youth to maturity: A model’ in M. Commons, F. Richards and C. Armon (eds), Beyond Formal Operations: Late Adolescent and Adult Cognitive Development, Praeger, New York Lacerte, J., Ray, J. and Irwin, L. 1991 ‘Recognising the educational contributions of field instructors’ Journal of Teaching in Social Work, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 99–113 Lago, C. and Thompson, J. 1997 ‘Counselling and race’ in S. Palmer and G. McMahon (eds), Handbook of Counselling, 2nd edn, Routledge, London, pp. 285–302 Lee, C. 1996 ‘MCT theory and implications for indigenous healing’ in D.W. Sue, A.E. Ivey and P.B. Pedersen (eds), A Theory of Multicultural Counselling and Therapy, Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove, California Loganbill, C., Hardy, E. and Delworth, U. 1982 ‘Supervision: A conceptual model’ The Counseling Psychologist, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 3–42 Lorenz, W. 1986 ‘Social work in Western Europe: Themes and opportunities’ Issues in Social Work Education, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 89–100 Luke, C. and Gore, J. (eds) 1992 Feminisms and Critical Pedagogy, Routledge, New York Mackenzie, L. 1997 ‘An investigation into the relationship between personality type and fieldwork performance’ in A. Yarrow and J. Millwater (eds), Practical Experiences in Professional Education Research Monograph no. 2, PEPE Inc., QUT Publications and Printery, Brisbane, pp. 52–66 Marchant, H. and Wearing, B. (eds) 1986 Gender Reclaimed: Women in Social Work, Hale & Iremonger, Sydney Marsh, P. and Triseliotis, J. 1996 Social Workers and Probation Officers: Their Training and First Year in Work, Avebury, Aldershot


257

140 × 215

258


Marshack, E. 1991 ‘The older student: Social work’s new majority’ in D. Schneck, B. Grossman and U. Glassman (eds), Field Education in Social Work: Contemporary Issues and Trends, Kendall Hunt, Dubuque, pp. 295–300 Marshack, E., Hendricks, C.O. and Gladstein, M. 1994 ‘The commonality of difference: Teaching about diversity in field instruction’ Journal of Multicultural Social Work, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 77–89 Martin, E. 1996, The Effectiveness of Different Models of Work-based University Education, Department of Employment, Education, Training & Youth Affairs, Canberra Martin, E. and Healey, J. 1993 ‘Social work as women’s work: Census data 1976–1986’ Australian Social Work, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 13–18 Masters, G.N. and McCurry, D. 1990 Competency-Based Assessment in the Professions, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra Matheson, L. 1986 ‘If you are not an Indian, how do you treat an Indian?’ in H. Lefley and P. Pedersen (eds), Cross-cultural Training for Mental Health Professionals, Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, IL Mathews, G., Weinger, S. and Wijnberg, M.S. 1997 ‘Ethics in field education: Promise, pretension or practice?’ Journal of Socioloy and Social Welfare, vol. xxiv, no. 2, June, pp. 103–14 Mawhiney, A.M. 1995 ‘The first nations in Canada’ in J. Turner and F. Turner (eds), Canadian Social Welfare, 3rd edn, Allyn & Bacon, Scarborough, Ontario McMaster, K.J. 1997 Feeling Angry, Playing Fair: Breaking the Cycle of Abuse, Reed, Auckland McMaster, K.J. and Swain, P. 1989 A Private Affair: Stopping Men’s Violence to Women, GP Books, Wellington Messinger, L. and Topal, M. 1997 ‘ ‘‘Are you married?’’ Two sexual-minority students’ perspectives on field placements’ Affilia, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 106–13 Metge, J. and Kinloch, P. 1978 Talking Past Each Other: Problems of Crosscultural Communication, Victoria University Press, Wellington Mezirow, J. 1981 ‘A critical theory of adult learning and education’ Adult Education, vol. 32, no. l, pp. 3–24 Miller, P.H. 1993 Theories of Developmental Psychology, 3rd edn, W.H. Freeman & Company, New York Moffatt, K. 1996 ‘Teaching social work as a reflective process’ in N. Gould and I. Taylor (eds), Reflective Learning for Social Work, Arena, Aldershot Moore, D. 1995 ‘New field educators: A study of social workers’ first experience of supervising a social work student’, Masters research thesis, Department of Social Work and Social Policy, University of Queensland Morris, J. 1993 ‘Interacting oppressions: Teaching social work content on women of color’ Journal of Social Work Education, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 99–110 Morrison, T. 1993 Staff Supervision in Social Care, Longman, London M


258

140 × 215

REFERENCES

259

Mullaly, B. 1997 Structural Social Work: Ideology, Theory and Practice, Oxford University Press, Toronto Mulroney, G. and Badenhorst, A. 1997 ‘The university and the community’, paper presented to the RMIT International Conference, 14–16 July Munford, R. and Nash, M. 1994 ‘A feminist contribution to social work: Social work through the eyes of women’ in R. Munford and M. Nash (eds), Social Work in Action, Dunmore Press, Palmerston North Munson, C. 1993 Clinical Social Work Supervision, 2nd edn, The Haworth Press, New York Nichols M. and Cheers, J. 1980 ‘The evaluation of practicum’ Contemporary Social Work Education, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 54–71 Nuttall, E.V., Webber, J.J. and Sanchez, W. 1996 ‘MCT theory and implications for training’ in D.W. Sue, A.E. Ivey and P.B. Pedersen (eds), A Theory of Multicultural Counselling and Therapy, Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove, CA NZASW 1993 Code of Ethics and Bi-Cultural Standards of Practice, Aotearoa/New Zealand Association of Social Workers, New Zealand O’Connor, I., Wilson, J. and Setterlund, D. 1998 Social Work and Welfare Practice, 3rd edn, Longman, Melbourne Pahl, J. (ed.) 1985 Private Violence and Public Policy: The Needs of Women and the Response of the Public Services, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London Parsons, J. and Durst, D. 1992 ‘Learning contracts: Misunderstood and underutilized’ Clinical Supervisor, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 145–56 Pavlin, H. 1980 A Review and Evaluation of Social Work Field Education, Department of Social Work, University of Queensland, Brisbane Pavlov, I. 1941 Lectures on Conditioned Reflexes, Lawrence Wishart, London Payne, M. 1998 ‘Social work theories and reflective practice’ in R. Adams, L. Dominelli and M. Payne (eds), Social Work—Themes, Issues and Critical Debates, Macmillan, London Perry, W. 1970 Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in College Years, Holt, Reinhart & Winston, New York Pitale, M. 1967 ‘Innovations in field learning and teaching’ Social Work Education Reporter, vol. xv, no. 3, quoted in D. Dalton 1981, ‘The student unit in fieldwork education’ Contemporary Social Work Education, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 167–75 Pressley, M. and McCormick, C.B. 1995 Advanced Educational Psychology for Educators, Researchers and Policy Makers, Harper Collins, New York Ramsden, P. 1992 Learning to Teach in Higher Education, Routledge, London Razack, N. 1998 ‘Diversity and difference in the field education encounter: Issues and challenges facing racial minority students’, Social Work Education (forthcoming) Reamer, F. 1989 ‘Liability in social work supervision’ Social Work, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 445–8 Rees, S. 1991 Achieving Power: Policy and Practice in Social Welfare, Allen & Unwin, Sydney


259

140 × 215

260


Reeser, L.C. and Wertkin, R.A. 1997 ‘Sharing sensitive student information with field instructors: Responses of students, liaisons and field instructors’ Journal of Social Work Education, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 347–62 Rehr, H. and Caroff, P. 1986 A New Model in Academic Practice Partnership: Multi-Instructor and Institutional Collaboration in Social Work, Ginn Press, Lexington, Mass Reilly, T. and Petersen, N. 1997 ‘Nevada’s university–state partnership: A comprehensive alliance for improved services to children and families’ Public Welfare, Spring, pp. 21–8 Reynolds, B. 1965 Teaching and Learning in the Practice of Social Work, Russell & Russell, New York Rhodes, M. 1986 Ethical Dilemmas in Social Work, Routledge & Kegan Paul, Boston ——1991 Ethical Dilemmas in Social Work Practice, Family Service, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Richards, A., Jones, A., Nichols, K., Richardson, F., Riley, B. and Swinson, R. 1981 ‘Videotape as an evaluation tool’ Nursing Outlook, vol. 29, pp. 35–8 Riley, A. 1998 ‘More with less: Hospital fieldwork placements in the 90s’, paper presented at the Second International Conference on Social Work in Health and Mental Health, 12–15 January, Melbourne Risley-Curtiss, C., McMurtry, S., Loren, S., Gustavsson, N., Smith, E. and Faddis, R. 1997 ‘Developing collaborative child welfare educational programs’ Public Welfare, Spring, pp. 29–36 Rogers, G. 1996 ‘Comparative approaches to practice learning’ in M. Doel and S. Shardlow (eds), Social Work in a Changing World: An International Perspective on Practice Learning, Arena, Aldershot Rogers, G. and Langevin, P. with Benson, G., Bouey, E., Clark, B., Mamchur, C. and Sawa, R. 1998 ‘The learning relationship in the field practicum: Student/field educator conflict’, Canadian Association of Schools of Social Work Annual Conference, Ottawa Rogers, G. and McDonald, P. L. 1995 ‘Expedience over education: Teaching methods used by field educators’ Clinical Supervisor, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 41–65 Rompf, E.L., Royse, D. and Dhooper, S. 1993 ‘Anxiety preceding field work: What students worry about’ Journal of Teaching in Social Work, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 81–95 Rosenblatt, A. and Mayer, J. 1975 ‘Objectionable supervisory styles: Students’ views’ Social Work, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 184–9 Rosenblum, A. and Raphael, F. 1983 ‘The role and function of the faculty field liaison’ Journal of Education for Social Work, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 67–73 ——1987 ‘Students at risk in the field practicum and indications for field teaching’ The Clinical Supervisor, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 53–63 Rossiter, A., Prilleltensky, I. and Bowers, R.W. 1996 Learning from Broken Rules: Individualism, Organisation and Ethics—Participating Change in Social Work Profession and Social Development, Proceedings from the Joint World Congress of IFSW and IASSW, Hong Kong


260

140 × 215

REFERENCES

261

Ruffolo, M. and Miller, P. 1994 ‘An advocacy/empowerment model of organizing: Developing university–agency partnerships’ Journal of Social Work Education, vol. 30, no. 3, Fall, pp. 310–16 Schaie, K.W. 1977/78 ‘Toward a stage of adult cognitive development’ Aging and Human Development, vol. 8, pp. 129–38 Schön, D. 1983 The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, Basic Books, New York ——1987 Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco Selby, R. 1994 ‘Watch out for the quicksand Te Komako’ Social Work Review, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 19–21 Shardlow, S. 1995 ‘Confidentiality, accountability and the boundaries of client–worker relationships’ in R. Hugman and D. Smith (eds), Ethical Issues in Social Work, Routledge, London Shardlow, S. and Doel, M. 1993 ‘Examination by triangulation: A model for practice’ Social Work Education, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 67–79 ——1996, Practice Learning and Teaching, British Association of Social Workers, Macmillan, London Shulman, L. 1993 Interactional Supervision, National Association of Social Workers Press, Washington DC Siddle, S. and Wilson, J. 1984 ‘Mapping murky waters: Describing content and technique in student supervision’ Australian Social Work, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 6–12 Singleton, S. 1994 ‘Faculty personal comfort and the teaching of content on racial oppression’ Journal of Multicultural Social Work, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 5–18 Skinner, B.F. 1953 Science and Human Behaviour, Macmillan, New York Slavin, R.E. 1990 Cooperative Learning Theory, Research and Practice, Allyn & Bacon, Boston Slocombe, G. 1993 ‘If field instruction is so vital, why isn’t everyone doing it?’ Australian Social Work, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 43–50 Sue, D.W. and Sue, D. 1990 Counselling the Culturally Different: Theory and Practice, Wiley, New York Tanner, K. and Le Riche, P. 1995 ‘You see but do not observe: The art of observation and its application to practice teaching’ Issues in Social Work Education, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 66–80 Tebb, S.M., Donald W. and Klaumann, T.K. 1996 ‘A renaissance of group supervision in the practicum’ The Clinical Supervisor, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 39–51 Thomlison, B., Rogers, G., Collins, D. and Grinnell, R.M. Sr 1996 The Social Work Practicum: An Access Guide, 2nd edn, F.E. Peacock, Itasca Thompson, N., Osada, M. and Anderson, B. 1990 Practice Teaching in Social Work: A Handbook, Pepar Publications, Birmingham Thorndike, E.L. 1931 Human Learning, The Century Co., New York Tomm, K. 1988 ‘Interventive interviewing: Part III. Intending to ask lineal,


261

140 × 215

262


circular, strategic or reflexive questions?’ Family Process, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 1–15 Tully, C. and Green, R. 1993 ‘Cultural diversity comes of age: A study of coverage, 1970–1991’ Journal of the College of Social Work, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 36–45 Tully, C.T., Kropf, N.P. and Price, J.L. 1993 ‘Is the field a hard hat area? A study of violence in field placements’ Journal of Social Work Education, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 191–9 Van Soest, D. 1994 ‘Social work education for multicultural practice and social justice advocacy: A field study of how students experience the learning process’ Journal of Multicultural Social Work, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 17–28 Van Soest, D. and Kruzich, J. 1994 ‘The influence of learning styles on student and field instructor perceptions of field placement success’ Journal of Teaching in Social Work, vol. 9, nos 1–2, pp. 49–69 Vygotsky, L. 1978 Mind in Society, Harvard University Press, Cambridge Walker, D. and Boud, D. 1994 ‘Learning from the pastoral placement’ Ministry, Society and Theology, vol. 8, pp. 7–21 Walker, H. 1996 ‘Liberated practice teaching: The experience of self-selection in finding placements’ in M. Doel and S. Shardlow (eds), Social Work in a Changing World—An International Perspective on Practice Learning, Arena, Aldershot Walker, J., McCarthy, P., Morgan, W. and Timms, N. 1995 In Pursuit of Quality: Improving Practice Teaching in Social Work, Relate Centre for Family Studies, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, England Walker, M.U. 1998 Moral Understandings: A Feminist Study in Ethics, Routledge, New York Waterhouse, L. 1987 ‘The relationship between theory and practice in social work training’ Issues in Social Work Education, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 3–19 White, J.L. and Parham, T.A. 1990 The Psychology of Blacks, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs Wilson, J. and Moore, D. 1989 ‘Developing and using evaluation guidelines for final practicum’ Australian Social Work, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 21–7 Wilson, S. 1981 Field Instruction Techniques for Supervisors, The Free Press, New York Wjinberg, M. and Schwartz, M. 1977 ‘Models of student supervision: The apprentice, growth, and role systems models’ Journal of Education for Social Work, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 107–13 Young, S., O’Sullivan, D. and Ross, D. 1996 ‘The development of rural and remote competencies in a new social work course: Processes, issues and possibilities’, paper presented at the Fourth National Conference of the Australian Association of Social Work and Welfare Educators, University of Melbourne, September Zakutansky, T.J. and Sirles, E.A. 1993 ‘Ethical and legal issues in field education: Shared responsibility and risk’ Journal of Social Work Education, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 338–47


262

140 × 215

Index


accrediting body/bodies, 32, 180–3 agencies conduct rules, 46 culturally inappropriate, 134 ethno-specific, 164, 168 multicultural, 166 norms, 90 policy, 37, 63, 169, 233 practice, 37, 63, 233 records, 8, 16, 22 responsibilities, 114 tasks, 27, 33, 160–6 anti-oppression principles, 196, 197, 204 anxiety, 44–5, 72, 94, 199, 208 assessment, 3, 6–9, 33–4, 46–60 passim, 79, 84–95 passim, 113–14, 142, 153–8 passim, 178–80, 188, 196–7, 205–6, 211, 215

INDEX

anxiety, 206 approaches, 43 competency-based, 90, 219 criteria, 63–4, 67, 86–8, 90–1 final, 52 formal, 88, 95 formative, 9, 84, 87–8, 90 infrastructure, 91 oral, 153 principles, 55, 60, 64, 68 procedures, 45 standards, 56 national, 56 student, 15 summative, 9, 52, 84, 87, 88 authority, 48, 73, 77, 81, 198, 221 exercise of, 49 management of, 49 autonomy, 45, 86, 94, 133, 138 professional, 48 263

FINAL ART c: ALLEN & UNWIN r: DP3\BP3301W\INDEX p: (02) 9438 3722 f: (02) 9438 3733 92 CHANDOS STREET ST LEONARDS NSW 2065

263

140 × 215

264


Bandura, A., 14 behavioural theories of learning, 13 Bogo, M. and Vayda, E., 31, 39 Boud, D., 3–9 passim boundaries, 48, 54, 79, 97, 100 personal and spatial, 101 traditional, 148 cognitive apprenticeship, 17, 30 collaboration, 79, 146, 154, 156–7, 162, 198 commitment, 91, 97, 151, 155–7, 159, 162, 169–70, 178, 221, 225 cultural, 102 competence, 57–8, 64, 67, 92, 141, 196, 205, 244 professional, 132 competencies, 11, 32–3, 56, 86, 196, 198, 232 competency, 45, 56, 57–8 approach to fieldwork, 59 standards, 58–9, 64 confidentiality, 73, 79, 118, 124, 135, 137–9 agreement, 191 contract, 9, 46–7, 68, 74, 107, 114, 137, 157, 200 financial, 146 student–agency–university fieldwork, 147 teaming, 223 see also learning contract contract-forming process, 48 contracting, 63–4, 73, 137 principles, 63 process, 64, critical reflectivity, 231–5, 237


culture, 7, 67, 74, 77, 94, 102, 106, 114, 179, 202 agency, 245 indigenous, 98 local, 148 organisational, 156 Western, 99–100 curriculum, 55–62 passim, 75, 86, 162–3, 186, 191, 201, 217, 222, 245 field, 78 guidelines, 68 difference, 7, 54, 104, 203, 221 cultural, 9, 74, 86, 96–109 passim management of, 49 duty of care, 114, 118, 121, 130 educational partnerships, 89, 145–59 passim between agencies and university, 128 between educational institutions and community agencies, 153 between educators and practitioners, 116, 145 between students and field educators, 231 development of, 155 growth of, 154 planning stage, 157 university–field, 165, 168 ethics, 115, 131, 138, 141 applied, 139 bi-cultural code of, 140 codes of, 62, 132, 137, 139, 141, 224

264

140 × 215

INDEX

Codes of Ethics and Practice Standards, 231 ethical decision-making, 132, 135, 139, 141–4 ethical dialogue, 136, 141–4 ethical dilemmas, 15, 114–15, 131, 133, 137, 139–40 ethical issues, 39, 131, 139, 141, 143, 207, 229, 234 ethical principles, 115, 131–3, 137–9 ethical responsibility, 42, 133 expressive-collaborative model of, 136 evidence, 60, 62–4, 66–8 direct, 64, 66 indirect, 66 historical, 66 methods of collecting, 66 naturally occurring, 66 expectations, 43–5, 80, 86, 157, 182–6, 190–3, 204, 223, 230, 240 clarifying, 46 educational institution, 47 implicit, 47 mutual, 53–4, peer and faculty, 104 university, 62 feedback, 7, 9, 12, 14, 48, 51, 54, 72, 84, 88, 91–5, 143, 187, 190, 193, 208, 214 behavioural, 51 constructive, 52, 87, 95, 225 continuous feedback, 87 mutual feedback, 53 negative, 92, 94 positive, 93 receiving and managing, 52


265

feminist pedagogy, 9, 70–1, 75, 77–8 field education access to, 120–1, 130 feminist perspective, 77, 81, 221 individual, 73 innovative, 160–74 passim learning-centred, 216–26 passim one-to-one, 71 policies, 155 programs, 62, 155 role of, 68 traditional, 62, 161 field educators approaches to practice, 35, 38 ethnocentric, 98 new, 34 practice, 29 responsibilities, 8, 79, 190, 220, 223 educational, 8 ethical, 8 legal, 8 managerial, 8 role, 49, 52, 70–6 passim, 91–2, 132, 166, 178, 185–6, 190, 222 university, 72 field placements, 4, 6, 20, 45–50 passim, 88, 107, 167, 169, 177, 186–8, 196, 198, 221, 233 fieldwork aims and objectives, 85 formal requirements, 53 management, 113–16 passim,

265

140 × 215

266


169, 178, 182–3, 185, 193, 249 negotiating, 186 part-time, 171 planning, 46, 143, 172 pre-fieldwork interview, 198 pre-fieldwork planning, 44 five-stage framework for working through emotional difficulties, 200 Ford, K. and Jones, A., 51 Gardiner, D., 18–19, 21, 34 gender, 46, 73–4, 77, 94, 103, 114, 120–1, 136, 179, 221, 235, 240, 242, 245 co-gender teams, 246 debate, 181 politics, 241 prescriptions, 243 socialisation, 241 Gonczi, A., 56 group, 11 approach, 17, 23 dynamics, 9, 74–5 negative, 82 establishment phase, 80, 83 management, 73 norms, 82 process, 73, 79 growth, 50 in confidence, 211 in professional skills, 211 model, 30, 32, 72 personal, 30, 33, 73, 84, 86, 95 professional, 30, 84, 86, 95 industry, 147, 172 peak bodies, 56


professional industry requirement, 85 integration of theory and practice, 8, 31, 180, 205–15 passim knowledge, 27, 37, 50, 63, 103, 147, 200, 222, 228–9 about practice, 66 conception of, 76 ethical, 132 personal, 81 specialised, 48 theoretical, 236 Kolb, D., 31, 50 learning adult learning processes, 54 by observing, 26 classroom, 5, 132, 180 competency-based, 219 cooperative, 76–8 experiences, 4, 92, 107, 109, 160, 162–4, 177, 184, 187, 214, 230 experiential, 11, 21, 50, 170, 207, 214–15, 217 facilitation of, 22, 75 field, 5–7 flexible, 162, 173–4 four-stage model of, 31 from experience, 4, 6, 179, 228, 232 negotiated, 219 objectives, 32, 223 outcomes, 12, 32, 53, 67, 93, 171, 179 plan, 160 reflective, 227–38 passim

266

140 × 215

INDEX

standards and objectives, 63 student, 7, 42, 160 student-centred, 89 styles, 29, 33, 38 three levels of learning interaction, 34 transfer of, 76, 218 learning contract, 9, 43, 55, 63, 180–1, 198, 217, 220 negotiated, 216, 219–26 negotiation of, 43 learning theories, 7, 10, 12–13 behavioural, 13, 25, 76 cognitive, 15, 25, 76 constructivist, 23, 25 social, 25, 76 legal context, 63, 118 legalisation of assessment, 88 liability, 115, 117–19, 123–30 passim masculinity, 181, 239–50 passim construction of, 240, 246 issues, 244 redefining, 249 men in field education, 240 modelling, 14–15, 46, 51, 73, 82 negotiation, 106, 178, 181, 186 between university and field, 31 of research process, 148 observation, 12, 66, 208–9, 215, 228 direct, 64 purposeful, 206 partnership, 157, 186 initiatives, 149


267

models, 145, 162 collaborative, 151 expanded, 151 traditional, 150 negotiation, 156 planning, 156 performance, 90, 94, 135, 193, 196, 199, 207–8, 210, 214, 223, 231 beginning competence, 90–1 negative, 90 satisfactory competence, 91 power, 27, 46–9, 54, 72–3, 77, 81, 103–4, 136–7, 146, 155, 157–8, 198, 203, 221, 239–40, 242, 248 abuse of, 32 differential, 220, 248 imbalance, 27, 31, 132 issues, 49, 198 minority–majority power differential, 104 relationships, 231 practical reflectivity, 230–7 passim practices, 5, 27, 29, 40, 99, 191, 196, 200, 208 anti-oppressive, 49, 86 competence, 205, 229 competent, 218 complexity of, 7 dilemma, 15 ethical, 218 experience, 24, 113, 149, 185, 222 experiential, 10 fields of, 67, 74 knowledge, 24 principles, 105–6, 132

267

140 × 215

268


professional, 5, 11, 19, 41, 196, 229 Research Units, 153 rules, 100 theories, 11, 165 visible, 207, 211 wisdom, 29 practitioners beginning, 84, 181, 250 student, 53 problem-solving, 13, 16, 66, 116 interpersonal, 76 personal, 76 strategies, 72 professional indemnity, 119, 123 professions, 3, 17, 53, 56, 63, 72, 113, 170, 199 reflection, 12, 16, 31–2, 50–1, 58, 79, 84, 87, 180–1, 207, 214, 229, 234, 236 action reflection model, 228–9, 233–4 critical, 48, 52, 181, 206, 208, 214, 224, 227–8 model of, 227, 232 open, 50 practical, 181 relationships between client and field educator, 200 between educator and practitioner, 159 between field educator and male student, 240 between university and student, 119 building the supervision relationship, 45 client–worker, 199


collegial, 198 contractual, 62, 114, 118–19 developmental stages of, 8, 45 empowering and non-discriminatory, 54 faculty liaison–field educator supervisory, 220 field educator–student relationship, 7, 27–8, 136–7, 141, 198, 200, 245–6 gendered, 248 inequalities in, 49 inter-racial, 103 one-to-one, 161 oppressive, 49 student–client, 135 student–field educator relationship, 36, 41, 44, 48–9, 52, 92, 132–6, 197 supervisory relationship, 8, 41–54 passim, 133, 135, 137 therapeutic, 203 see also supervision roles, 79, 91, 117, 172, 203, 223 academic, 151 conflicting, 91, 95 narrowly-defined, 172 of university and agency staff, 155 organisational, 229 professional, 149 teacher/supervisor, 166 self-awareness, 4, 67, 86, 104 Shardlow, S. and Doel, M., 30, 33 skills, 4, 41, 50, 61, 66, 90, 146, 157–8, 179, 208, 210, 236 clinical reasoning, 16

268

140 × 215

INDEX

cognitive, 19 counselling and communication, 74 development, 72, 147, 233–4 group-management, 82 fermenting, 82 forming, 82–3 formulating, 82 functioning, 82–3 interpersonal, 9, 71, 80–1, 195 language, 4 leadership, 82–3 listening, 51 presentation, 212 research, 147 self-assessment, 16, 210, 230 small-group, 9, 74, 80–1 technical, 232 standards, 9, 34, 39, 57, 61–8, 84, 88, 134, 184 accreditation, 219 minimum, 57 performance, 34, 39, 67 student/s approach to learning, 27, 74, 191 at risk, 195–7, 199 development, 4, 5, 19–21, 42, 50, 202, 231, 237 diaries, 192 ethnocentric, 97 learning, 7, 64, 71, 74, 143, 180, 190, 211 learning needs, 27, 34, 38, 107, 124, 163, 174, 184, 186, 189, 202, 220, 226 learning process, 8 male, 181, 239–50 passim mature, 195, 197–9


269

thinking, 35 affect, 35 behaviour, 35 supervision approaches to, 28, 40 clinical, 50 collective, 165–6 competency-based, 8, 9, 55, 59–60, 62 four stages of, 51 functions of, 27 group, 9, 71–9, 83, 165–6, 236 individual, 72 ITP model, 8, 31 nature of, 42 one-to-one, 71, 160, 165 organisational model, 167 role and relationship, 41 processes, 3, 191–2, 194 purpose of, 3 theory of, 35 supervisory models academic and articulated, 8, 31 alternate, 165 apprenticeship, 8, 29, 32, 150, 155 growth approach, 8 role systems, 8, 30 teaching approaches, 21 concepts of, 21 institutional management, 22 transmission of information, 21 delivery, 61 experientially, 26 programs, 58

269

140 × 215

270


reflective and facilitative, 41 teaching/learning processes, 34, 85 teaching/learning relationship, 87 techniques, 74 case presentations, 74 reflecting teams, 74 role-play, 74, 78, 92, 208, 210 role-reversal, 75, 236 sculpting, 75 theory/theories, 28, 29, 33–4, 44, 61, 63, 218–9 cooperative learning, 70–1, 75 critical learning, 77 development, 214 ethical, 132 group work, 70 organisational, 72 social sciences, 97 theory of cooperative learning, 78 Western, 96 training, 61, 96 agencies, 62 agreements, 60 bodies, 180–94 passim


competency-based, 56, 58 cultures of, 6 formal requirements of, 6 individual, 155 institutions, 3, 7, 27 procedures of, 6 professional, 32, 52, 63, 119 providers, 58–9, 62–3, 115, 135, 180 team, 213 university field coordinator, 62, 72, 74, 128 values, 42, 44–5, 50, 58, 61, 63, 96–7, 101, 105, 134, 187–8, 206, 219, 224, 230–2, 242 competing values model, 141 conflicting, 227 cultural, 232 personal value base, 44 professional, 220 social work, 141 Western cultural, 101 Western-gendered, 97 Walker, D., 3–9 passim

270

Fieldwork in the Human Services: Theory and Practice for Field Educators, Practice Teachers & Supervisors

Student Behaviour: Theory and Practice for Teachers

Web Services: Theory and Practice

The Human Rights Field Operation: Law, Theory and Practice

The Human Rights Field Operation: Law, Theory and Practice

Fieldwork for Design: Theory and Practice (Computer Supported Cooperative Work)

Human Cognitive Abilities in Theory and Practice

Becoming a Teacher Educator: Theory and Practice for Teacher Educators

Becoming a Teacher Educator: Theory and Practice for Teacher Educators

Early Childhood Services: Theory, Policy and Practice

Human Reliability Assessment Theory and Practice

Corporate Finance: Theory & Practice

Game design: theory & practice

Human Reliability Assessment Theory and Practice

Training Teachers in Practice (Modern Languages in Practice, 9)

Training Teachers In Practice (Modern Languages in Practice, 9)

Chemoinformatics: Theory, Practice, & Products

Financial Management: Theory & Practice

XML in Theory and Practice

XML in Theory and Practice

Shakespeare in Theory and Practice

Republicanism in Theory and Practice

XML in Theory and Practice

Theory and Practice in Archaeology

Values and Practice in Children's Services

The Professional Development of Teachers: Practice and Theory

The Professional Development of Teachers: Practice and Theory

Connectionism: Theory and Practice

Cryptography Theory And Practice

Cryptography: Theory and Practice

Forecasting, Theory and Practice

Fieldwork in the Human Services: Theory and Practice for Field Educators, Practice Teachers & Supervisors

Student Behaviour: Theory and Practice for Teachers

Web Services: Theory and Practice

The Human Rights Field Operation: Law, Theory and Practice

The Human Rights Field Operation: Law, Theory and Practice

Fieldwork for Design: Theory and Practice (Computer Supported Cooperative Work)

Human Cognitive Abilities in Theory and Practice

Becoming a Teacher Educator: Theory and Practice for Teacher Educators

Becoming a Teacher Educator: Theory and Practice for Teacher Educators

Early Childhood Services: Theory, Policy and Practice

Human Reliability Assessment Theory and Practice

Corporate Finance: Theory & Practice

Game design: theory & practice

Human Reliability Assessment Theory and Practice

Training Teachers in Practice (Modern Languages in Practice, 9)

Training Teachers In Practice (Modern Languages in Practice, 9)

Chemoinformatics: Theory, Practice, & Products

Financial Management: Theory & Practice

XML in Theory and Practice

XML in Theory and Practice

Shakespeare in Theory and Practice

Republicanism in Theory and Practice

XML in Theory and Practice

Theory and Practice in Archaeology

Values and Practice in Children's Services

The Professional Development of Teachers: Practice and Theory

The Professional Development of Teachers: Practice and Theory

Connectionism: Theory and Practice

Cryptography Theory And Practice

Cryptography: Theory and Practice

Forecasting, Theory and Practice

Recommend Documents