Differences of teachers', field instructors', and students' views on job analysis of social work students.
In social work, field experience has largely been studied as it relates to the level of practice methodology, the description of relationships with clients, the supervision process, or the agency (Fortune, McCarthy, & Abramson, 2001; Henderson, Stringer, Cawyer, & Watkins, 1999; Itzhaky & Eliahu, 1999; Knight, 2000, 2001). While fieldwork is a critical component in the social work educational process, the issue of what students actually do during their fieldwork has been only minimally studied in a systematic and scholarly way (Cuzzi, Holden, Chernack, Rutter, & Rosenberg, 1997; Fortune & Abramson, 1993; Knight, 1997, 2000, 2001; Reisch & Jarman-Rohde, 2000; Vayda & Bogo, 1991). Thus, Kadushin (1991) indicated that although field instruction is the most significant part of social work education, it has not had the benefit of sufficient studies by social work researchers.
Little documentation concerning student perceptions of their own training exists, a puzzling circumstance in light of research showing that students perceive their field instruction as the most important part of their studies (Raskin, 1989). Students' degrees of satisfaction and the variables affecting this are the main areas that have been examined (Cohen & Cohen, 1998; Fernandez, 1998; Fortune & Abramson, 1993).
The typical social work program is based on the premise that preparation for professional practice requires a core of knowledge and practical experience that is achieved through supervised training in the field. Teachers, along with field instructors, ensure that social work students will successfully integrate theory into their practice (Knight, 2000; Schneck, 1991; Tolson & Kopp, 1988). Several approaches exist concerning the philosophy and goals of field instruction and its design (Ramsey, 1989). The approach articulated by Brauns and Kramer (1986), by Spiro (2001), and by Spiro, Sherer, Korin-Langer, and Weiss (1998), wherein theoretical studies exist alongside professional studies in the field, is accepted in Israel. The field experience promotes a synthesis between academic forces and practical work in the field via investigation and the performance of interventions in a guided process with the aim of ensuring proper and controlled development of the student (Zastrow, 1994).
Each side of the learning triangle--teachers, field instructors, and students--plays its own part in developing the professional social worker. The academic teachers are at the center of the triangle. They teach intervention areas and play a major role in advancing theory: They convey skills and attitudes, teaching and learning styles in the classroom and in the field, and the goals of supervision in the field. Teachers are expected to direct and monitor student field education (Fernandez, 1998; Fortune et al., 1985). They work in coordination with field instructors in developing student study habits and the desired form of instruction. Together teachers and field instructors rate and evaluate students' professional development.
A few studies have investigated the roles field instructors play in socializing students to the profession and in transmitting key knowledge, values, and skills (Abram, Hartung, & Wernet, 2000; Bogo & Vayda, 1987). Instructors (usually part-time employees of a local agency) act as field teachers and evaluators, imparting theory and skills and assessing student progress (Schwaber, 1994). Aside from their academic responsibilities, they are responsible for coordinating student involvement in the field between the university and their local agency. Results of several studies clearly indicate that the educational component of instructors' roles and their skills are critical for student learning in field (Fortune & Abramson, 1993; Fortune et al., 2001; Knight, 1997, 2000; Lazar & Eisikovits, 1997).
In Israeli law, a BSW gives students a professional license to work in the field, hence the importance of field instruction at the undergraduate level. Field education constitutes a condition for and basic training of the student to be a professional. Like other social work curricula, the baccalaureate level prepares students for generalist social work practice. Students in Israel spend almost half of the baccalaureate program in the field (16-20 hours a week; about 1000 hours during the last 2 years of study). Because of the lengthy time students spend in the field and its importance in the education process in social work, the experience is meaningful and remembered long after many other aspects of social work courses are forgotten (Shardlow & Doel, 1996). Apart from theoretical studies, students are given weekly supervision from their instructors on their professional involvement with client systems (individuals, families, groups, communities, and organizations). In some Israeli universities, field instruction is taught only in the 2nd and 3rd years of study. Accordingly, research for this study was limited to those years.
The clarity of guidelines and the expectations of learning and performance are also critical in field education. The effectiveness of field learning is enhanced when the triad of students, teachers, and instructors work in harmony and continuously communicate goals and expectations (Fernandez, 1998).
Some differences in perceptions of the fieldwork experience, however, may exist; thus, while students and instructors reported most teaching methods as being effective (Knight, 2001; Maidment, 2000), they rated the actual teaching methods of field instruction and those of the classroom differently. Students indicated they were most likely to have access to teaching and learning methods in the field that offered the opportunity to directly observe a field educator in practice. Fernandez (1998) points to the importance and quality of interaction between the instructor and the student in affecting student satisfaction with field education.
Our assumption is that field instruction prepares students to be professional social workers. Due to the high economic costs and efforts universities invest in this activity and in light of the ever-changing social environment around us (Reisch & Jarman-Rohde, 2000), it is important to examine the degree of congruence between the academic expectations of the universities and the actual activities of students during their fieldwork.
Job Analysis: A Technique for Studying Field Instruction
Job analysis is a process that entails a description of the work, identifies and details the components, characteristics, duties, and requirements of the particular job, and ranks the relative importance of these duties for a given job (Algera & Greuter, 1998; Harvey & Wilson, 2000; Fine & Wiley, 1971; Sanchez & Levine, 2000). The product of job analysis is a description of the job activities and their relative significance. The National Association of Social Workers in the United States used the Job Analysis Questionnaire (JAQ), originally developed by Teare (1981), to define the spectrum of social work tasks and roles performed on the job (Teare, 1983, 1987; Teare & Sheafor 1995). The JAQ has been used in Israel to study the work of social workers as it pertains to three levels of workers: managers, instructors, and direct social workers (Sherer, 1986a). Virtually no job analysis studies have been conducted that examine the tasks and roles of social work students during their field instruction.
In Israeli universities, student field requirements are set forth in fieldwork manuals that express the philosophies, principles, and guidelines of a particular university. Manuals define intervention aims, determine client characteristics, and detail the stages of evaluation and the methods of intervention, assignments, and guidelines for instructors and students. Literature reviews and examination of field instruction programs, as outlined in the fieldwork manuals of different universities, evince differences in emphasis among social work programs (Ben-Oz & Gor, 1996; Gar, Marnes, & Ganshovsky, 1995; Moshe & Scoop, 1996; Schechter & Tevet, 1998; Shwartz, 1997; Spiro, Sherer, Korin-Langer, & Weiss, 1998).
Aside from learning about the activities of students in the field, our main concerns were differences in perception among teachers, instructors, and students on their understanding of what roles were performed by students in field and the importance each group attached to those roles.
One might expect that differences would emerge among the three groups. Moreover, it can be assumed that the students did not necessarily adhere to all guidelines. Explanations range from loose instructions and monitoring by the instructors to giving priority to agency needs over field manuals by the instructors. The authors hypothesized that: (1) teachers, instructors, and students would assess differently what roles students actually performed in field; and (2) teachers, instructors, and students would rank the importance of those roles differently.
The sample was drawn from the complete list of teachers (N=88), instructors (N=500), and 2nd- and 3rd-year undergraduate students (M=1,200) of social work in the five main universities in Israel. Forty 2nd-year and 40 3rd-year students from each university were randomly selected to participate in the study. Two hundred and eighty-seven (71.8%) of the students responded and completed the questionnaires. Sixty randomly selected teachers were asked to participate in the study. Of those, 30 (50%) responded. The sample of field instructors included 250 instructors, of whom 120 (48%) responded.
Questionnaires were distributed during the 2nd semester on the assumption that the students had by then managed to gain enough experience to be able to provide informed answers about their activities in fieldwork. At some of the universities, the questionnaires were mailed to the students, while at others, teachers in the "Methods of Social Work" course (the main course on intervention knowledge) handed them out. Teachers and instructors received and returned the questionnaires by mail. The foremost reasons for non-response were lack of desire to complete a long and complicated questionnaire, incorrect addresses, and lack of participation from faculty and instructors.
A two-part questionnaire was used, which included 10 questions dealing with personal and demographic characteristics. In addition, the questionnaire contained 100 statements related to activities carried out by the students during fieldwork.
The fieldwork manuals of the different universities served as the basis for constructing this questionnaire. The development of this part of the questionnaire included separate analysis of each fieldwork manual by three researchers with the goal of identifying tasks that students need to carry out as part of their work. Afterward, each researcher wrote the tasks in a standard job-analysis style (i.e., statements that include the task to be undertaken and its purpose, such as "calling social services to ascertain the client's rights"). Reanalysis of the expected roles (a cluster of tasks performed under a typical role such as "community intervention" or "casework")was done after listing the statements. Finally, during a series of meetings between the researchers, repeated statements were filtered out, and the statements were randomly distributed in the questionnaire.
Teachers, instructors, and students were asked to rank the statements from 1 to 5, for the rate at which the students performed a particular task during their fieldwork (current performance), where 1=not at all to 5=very frequently. Respondents were also asked to rank the importance of each task (importance level) for the student's work (from 1 to 5), where 1=such a task is not important to 5=it is of great importance to increase activity in this area.
After preparation of the initial questionnaires, they were pretested by a number of students, instructors, and teachers to resolve any lack of clarity and to correct other errors. The validity of the questionnaire was based on job-analysis tools (Teare, 1983, 1987; Teare & Sheafor 1995) and on those used previously by the author (Sherer, 1986a, 1986b, 1995).
The sample consisted of 262 (91.3%) female students, 229 (80%) who were single, and 258 (90%) were born in Israel. Twenty-four (80%) of the 30 teachers were female, with an average age 42263 years (SD=7.15). Exactly 102 (85%) of the instructors were female, with an average age of 41.06 years (SD=8.16).
Identifying roles. Principal component factor analysis with varimax rotation was used to determine the roles from the performed tasks, based on the answers of teachers, instructors, and students (N=437) on the "actual performance of tasks" scores (Johnson, 2000). Factor analysis indicated 15 central roles (explaining 55.8% of the variance): community intervention, assessment and evaluation, mediating and referral, supervision, casework intervention, contract development, reading professional material, planning end of treatment, use of computers, teamwork, collecting familial information, collecting and assimilating information, broadening knowledge, learning from other workers, and learning and enrichment. These roles became our main measure for studying the activities of the students (see Table 1).
Roles of Students During Field instruction by Group
To trace differences among the three groups (teachers, instructors, students), one-way ANOVA on the 15 central roles was used (each of the original variables was multiplied by the factor analysis coefficients score to obtain the relative weight of each original variable on the factors), followed by an LSD Post Hoc test to find specific differences among the groups. The one-way test indicated significant statistical differences on 6 out of the 15 roles (see Table 2).
The main differences existed between the students and the other two groups. Students demonstrated a lower mean score on all the significant results of frequency levels of actual performance of roles than at least one of the other two groups. Differences were indicated between teachers and instructors as well (see Table 2).
One-way ANOVA was used to seek out differences among the three groups on the importance of roles scores (each of the original variables was multiplied by the factor analysis coefficients score for the importance of roles, to obtain the relative weight of each original variable on the factors), followed by an LSD Post Hoc test to find specific differences among the groups. The one-way test indicated significant statistical differences on 14 out of the 15 roles (see Table 3).
The most obvious difference was between the teachers (who yielded the highest mean scores) and the other two groups. The teachers believed that these roles were more important than indicated by the scores for student perception of actual performance. The differences between the instructors and the students were marginal, and in most cases not significant (see Table 3). A new variable was computed to reveal the nature of the relationships between the actual frequency of performed roles and their relative importance. The importance score was divided by the perceived actual performance score; thus, we obtained a relative score: the higher and more positive the new score, the more important the role is than its current perceived frequency of performance, and vice versa. Again, these new scores were subjected to a one-way ANOVA test followed by an LSD Post Hoc test to find specific differences among the groups (see Table 4).
In most cases, the teachers held a different opinion from that of the instructors. Teachers thought that the actual rate of performance of given roles should be higher. The instructors were more content with the rate at which students performed their roles than were the teachers or the students (see Table 4).
Another interesting result was that, except for a few cases, the mean scores were positive and high, meaning our subjects believed thatstudents should emphasize their efforts in these areas.
Results indicated the existence of 15 central roles in fieldwork. Respondents returned different perceptions of the rate at which students actually performed these roles, and they ranked the importance of these roles differently. On the one hand, nearly all teachers and students felt that most of the roles should be performed at a higher rate of frequency than they perceived students to actually be performing them, while instructors were more content with the existing rates at which roles were performed.
Six significant differences on current rate of student role performance were indicated among the three groups. On three variables we found that the instructors thought that the students performed their roles at a higher rate of frequency than was perceived by the other two groups. On two other variables, instructors perceived roles performed at a higher rate than the teachers perceived the performance of these same roles. On one variable the teachers gave the highest scores, and on another one, a higher score than the students. In reporting rate of performance, student scores were higher in only one area compared to the teachers (contract development).
Assuming that the students were the only ones who actually knew the current rates at which each role was performed, it seems that of the three groups the instructors were the most remote from reality. Considering that they were the group closest to the students in the field, they should have had a better understanding of what the students actually did. The teachers' remoteness was to be expected: they were not as involved as the instructors in the actual field experience.
The following could explain the remoteness of instructors from students: instructors are probably not very knowledgeable of the rate at which students perform specific roles. Either their responses indicate a desire for students to perform the central roles according to the rates they reported, or the instructors really did not know what their students actually did in their practice.
Interestingly, except for two cases, the students indicated the lowest mean scores on current performed roles. While it can be assumed that teachers are relatively isolated from the actual work carried out by students, this should not be the case with instructors. We expected to find higher levels of agreement between students and instructors with regard to perceptions of roles performed by students. Students believed that they dedicated much of their efforts to the supervision role (the highest mean score of all performed roles: 4.02, based on an approaching significance level ofp < .06). Despite the significant differences among the groups, the mean scores on this role were high in all three groups, indicating that they all thought that students were highly involved in supervision.
Actual rates of role performance of students can stem from instructions given to them during their fieldwork, as opposed to those given to them in the classroom by their teachers and their own experiences at work. The gap between students, teachers, and instructors may signify the level of maturity and professionalization on behalf of the students. Conversely, it may reflect their general misperceptions. The data do not allow an examination at a greater depth. Cavazos (1996), who found that social work students*were not given assignments in the field that reflected the foundation curriculum content, supports this explanation. He further suggested that students might dedicate a great deal of field time studying the particular agency and the way it works. Furthermore, it is possible that some tension between coursework and fieldwork is expected, thus no model that integrates classroom study and fieldwork will be applicable due to actual demands of fieldwork that are dynamic and unpredicted to some extent, and that other sources, such as peer group learning, play a role in professional learning (Eisikovits, 1989).
In part, these differences may result from legal necessities that programs of field instruction deal with certain populations in specific ways (Euster, 1999). For example, welfare laws in Israel require responses to the needs of the elderly. Given the scarce resources of workers, this might imply less attention to other needs (Spiro et al., 1998). Such differences may stem from different preparation and emphasis given during formal and informal instruction, from influences of other organizational members (Klieman, Quinn, & Harris, 2000), as well as from the needs of the job itself. Because fieldwork is such an important part of preparing the student for work, these differences need to be examined. Do they meet study and experience requirements that will ensure that students acquire the knowledge needed for professional social work?
The most important finding with respect to the importance of roles was that significant differences among teachers, instructors, and students were indicated on all roles. Except for one role (enlargement of knowledge), teachers perceived that there was a need to expand activities in all roles. Students thought generally the same, and on three variables they indicated significant differences from their instructors. It seems that teachers were eager to get results on all activities, so they indicated that the activities were important. What about instructors? Why did they not think the roles were more important? Possibly because they believed that students performed reasonably well, so there was no need to emphasize their activities. This was not the case with teachers. Although they thought that in three cases students performed the highest compared with the other two groups, they still believed that those activities were more important and should be more frequently performed. Another issue concerns the relatively high level of agreement on importance of roles between instructors and students. Is it because both really work in the field and they know better?
These findings are underlined when studying the results of the new score, importance by frequency of performance. In no case did instructors believe that the role was performed at a lower rate than it should have been, as distinct from the other two groups. In most cases teachers were the ones who thought that roles were performed at a lower rate of frequency than they should have been. Students held the same opinion.
What are the reasons for these results? What is it that hinders students from performing roles at higher rates of frequency than currently reported? Is it instructors who inhibit students from enlarging their activities? Because teachers and students agreed on most roles, it seems instructors held different views about students' activities in the field. The relatively small differences between teachers and students indicate that despite the expectation that teachers would push for higher achievements, students, in most cases, were as eager to expand their activities as teachers.
It is possible that instructors were influenced by agency demands. They are the ones who have to bring together the expectations of the university, the needs of the agency, and the abilities of the students. It is also possible that they are more likely to think along the lines of job descriptions rather than on the full range of learning activities students are expected to complete in order to address educational objectives defined by the university. Even students thought that some activities should be enlarged beyond the existing rates at which these roles were performed. Perhaps instructors thought that there were other important roles? It is possible that curriculum standards tend to push an enormous amount of content into social work programs, thus the intent to achieve a corresponding experience in the field is a bit unwieldy.
Schools of social work should pay attention to the results of this study. Our unique investigation indicates significant differences of opinion regarding rates at which students perform specific roles and the differences in ranking of these roles in importance by teachers and instructors. Except for some minor differences of opinion that are a fundamental part of social work, teachers and instructors should have similar views on the rates at which students perform their roles and ranking the importance of these roles. One can expect general agreement because fieldwork manuals, training, monitoring, evaluation, and joint work are all common to both teachers and instructors. This is not what was found. Our results bear on schools' expectations, for if students perform different roles at different rates than expected, or moreover, different roles than expected, do they receive proper training?
If instructors really think that students are involved to a reasonable level in the performance of different roles, they will most certainly not try to urge students to higher rates of activity in the performance of these roles. While rates of performance of roles are not indicators of student competence in areas of practice, we assume that actual activity during field practice is essential for educating and preparing students for professional activity. These results should be taken seriously, and proper steps should be taken to correct this situation. Enhanced collaboration among all three parties should be used to narrow the gaps explored in this study.
Students indicated their wish to be more involved in various roles during their fieldwork. Fulfilling this wish is important because it has been suggested that social workers tend to perform the same tasks even after they start working in specialized fields (Raymond, Teare, & Atherton, 1996a, 1996b). Given that the rates at which students performed their roles will be higher in their future (Neugeboren, 1988), social work schools should be attentive to this and be open to these ideas and the needs of students, especially because these views correlate with professional expectations of involvement and direct activity in the field. Moreover, this may lead to imaginative techniques that will prepare better change agents (Eisikovits, 1989).
Summary and Conclusions
The main limitation of this study is rooted in its inability to draw clear conclusions; many unanswered questions arise concerning the meanings and implications of our findings. Another limitation was our response pattern. While we found no differences between those subjects who participated in the study and those who did not, a response rate of 50% (of teachers and instructors) is problematic. Caution, therefore, is needed in generalizing these results, and it is recommended that they be treated as a preliminary step in the study of students' tasks and roles in the field.
The current study points to significant differences of perception with respect to the rate at which roles were performed and the importance assigned to those roles by teachers, instructors, and students. The central question arising from the data is, What is the meaning of these differences and how do they affect the character of graduates and the level of preparedness to work in various areas of social work?
Analysis of the data showed that teachers probably held unrealistic views about what students do in their fieldwork. This means that the information social work schools have about student roles performed during fieldwork is probably incorrect; moreover, higher differences were indicated concerning the relative importance of roles. Again, teachers were the most remote from what instructors and students thought. It is easier to accept this last difference, for teachers should be the ones to show the way, thus striving for higher levels.
It is clear that further in-depth study is needed. The differences of opinion on current rates of role performance and the importance assigned to these roles by teachers and instructors should be explored. The structure of field instruction needs clarification; the need to know if it is effective has to be paramount. It is possible that the field is changing and current models of field instruction need to be revised. Implications of these data need to be examined by studies in other countries to validate and enlarge the scope of our findings.
Abram, F. Y., Hartung, M. R., & Wernet, S. P. (2000). The non-MSW task supervisor, MSW field instructor and the practicum student: A triad for high quality field education. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 20(1/2), 171-185.
Algera, J. A., & Greuter, M. A. M. (1998). Job analysis. In P. J. D. Drenth, H. Thierry, & C. J. D. Wolff (Eds.), Handbook of work and organizational psychology (2nd ed., vol. 3, pp. 1412-1164). Hove, East Sussex: Psychology Press.
Ben-Oz, M., & Gor, R. (Eds.). (1996). Field instruction book. Haifa, Israel: Haifa University (Hebrew).
Bogo, M., & Vayda, E. (1987). The practice of field instruction in social work: Theory and practice. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press. Cavazos, A. (1996). Measuring BSW student learning in field instruction. Journal of Social Work Education, 32, 389-398.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, B. (1998). Graduating social work students' communication competencies and motivations: Their effects on satisfaction with social work. International Social Work, 41, 357-370.
Cuzzi, L., Holden, G., Chernack, P., Rutter, S., & Rosenberg, G. (1997). Evaluating social work field instruction: Rotations versus year-long placements. Research on Social Work Practice, 7, 402-414.
Eisikovits, A. R. (1989). Becoming a social worker: Applying the culture acquisition concept to a professional context. In P. M. Anne, A. R. Eisikovits, & M. L. Dobbert (Eds.), Culture acquisition: A holistic approach to human learning (pp. 185-196). New York: Praeger.
Euster, G. L. (1999). Gerontology field education experiences of graduate social work and gerontology certificate students. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 31(3/4), 29-47.
Fernandez, E. (1998). Student perceptions of satisfaction with practicum learning. Social Work Education, 17, 173-201.
Fine, S. A., & Wiley, W. W. (1971). An introduction to functional job analysis. Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. UpJohn Institute for Employment Research.
Fortune, A. E., & Abramson, J. S. (1993). Predictors of satisfaction with field practicum among social work students. Clinical Supervisor, 11(1), 95-110.
Fortune, A. E., Feathers, S. R. R., Scrimenti, R. M., Smollen, P., Stemerman, B., & Tucker, E. L. (1985). Students' satisfaction with field placement. Journal of Social Work Education, 23, 92-104.
Fortune, A. E., McCarthy, M., & Abramson, J. S. (2001). Student learning processes in field education: Relationship of learning activities to quality of field instruction, satisfaction, and performance among MSW students. Journal of Social Work Education, 37, 111-124. Gar, M., Marnes, G., & Ganshovsky, M. (1995). Field instruction. Jerusalem, Israel: The Hebrew University (Hebrew).
Harvey, R. J., & Wilson, M. A. (2000). Yes Virginia, there is an objective reality in job analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 829-854.
Henderson, C. E., Stringer Cawyer, C., & Watkins, C. E. (1999). A comparison of student and supervisor perceptions of effective practicum supervision. The Clinical Supervisor, 18(1), 47-74.
Itzhaky, H., & Eliahu, A. (1999). Do students reflect their instructors? The relationship between supervisory and learning styles in social work field instruction. The Clinical Supervisor, 18(1), 75-83.
Johnson, J. W. (2000). Factor analysis of importance ratings in job analysis: Note on the misinterpretation of Cranny and Doherty (1988). Organizational Research Methods, 3, 267-284.
Klieman, R. S., Quinn, J. A., & Harris, K. L. (2000). The influence of employee-supervisor interactions upon job breadth. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15, 587-605.
Knight, C. (1997). A study of MSW and BSW students' involvement with group work in the field practicum. Social Work With Groups, 20(2), 31-49.
Knight, C. (2000). Engaging the student in the field instruction relationship: BSW and MSW students" views. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 20(3/4), 173-201.
Knight, C. (2001). The skills of teaching social wok practice in the generalist/foundation curriculum: BSW and MSW student view. Journal of Social Work Education, 37, 507-521.
Lazar, A., & Eisikovits, Z. (1997). Social work students" preferences regarding supervisory styles and supervisor's behavior. The Clinical Supervisor, 16(1), 25-37.
Maidment, J. (2000). Methods used to teach social work students in the field: A research report from New Zealand. Social Work Education, 19(2), 145-154.
Moshe, M., & Scoop, T. (Eds.) (1996). Field instruction book. Beer-Sheva, Israel: Ben Gurion University of the Negev (Hebrew).
Neugeboren, B. (1988). Field practica in social work administration: Tasks, auspice, selection criteria and outcomes. Journal of Social Work Education, 24, 151-158.
Ramsey, P. C. (1989). Practice orientation of students in field instruction. The Clinical Supervisor, 6(3/4), 137-160.
Raskin, M. S. (1989). Empirical studies infield instruction (pp. 1-8). New York: Haworth Press.
Raymond, G. T., Teare, J. R., & Atherton, C. R. (1996a). Is "field of practice" a relevant organizing principle for the MSW curriculum? Journal Social Work Education, 32, 18-30.
Raymond, G. T., Teare, J. R., & Atherton, C. R. (1996b). Do management tasks differ by field of practice? Administration in Social Work, 20(1), 17-30.
Reisch, M., & Jarman-Rohde, L.(2000). The future of social work in the United States: Implications for field education. Journal of Social Work Education, 36, 201-214.
Sanchez, J. I., & Levine, E. L. (2000). Accuracy or consequential validity: Which is the better standard for job analysis data? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 809-818.
Schechter, Y., & Tevet, T. (Eds.) (1998). Field instruction book. Tel Aviv, Israel: Tel Aviv University (Hebrew).
Schneck, D., Grossman, B., & Glassman, U. (Eds.) (1991). Field education in social work, contemporary issues and trends. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Schwaber, K. T. (1994). Introduction: Field instruction in social work settings: A framework for teaching. The Clinical Supervisor, 12(1), 1-31.
Shardlow, S., & Doel, M. (1996). Practice learning and teaching. London: Macmillan.
Sherer, M. (1986a). Diffusion of roles: An analysis of social work practice. Administration in Social Work, 10(1), 55-66.
Sherer, M. (1986b). Job analysis of paraprofessional practice in Israel. Administration in Social Work, 10(4), 65-80.
Sherer, M. (1995). Division of work among mental health professionals in Israel. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 22, 447-457.
Shwartz, H. (1997). Field instruction book. Ramat-Gan, Israel: Bar Ilan University (Hebrew).
Spiro, E. S. (2001). Social work education in Israel: Trends and issues. Social Work Education, 20(1), 89-99.
Spiro, E. S., Sherer, M., Korin-Langer, N., & Weiss, I. (1998). The professionalization of Israeli social work. In F. M. Loewenberg (Ed.), Meeting the challenges of a changing society (pp. 29-50). Jerusalem: Council of Schools of Social Work in Israel.
Teare, R. J. (1981). Social work practice in a public welfare setting. New York: Praeger.
Teare, R. J. (1983). ACSW study for the national association of social workers. Unpublished manuscript.
Teare, R. J. (1987). National survey of occupational social workers. Silver Spring, MD: National Association of Social Workers.
Teare, R. J., & Sheafor, B., W. (1995). Practice-sensitive social work education: An empirical analysis of social work practice and practitioners. Alexandria, VA: Council on Social Work Education.
Tolson, E. R., & Kopp, J. (1988). The practicum: Clients, problems, interventions and influences on student practice. Journal of Social Work Education, 2, 123-134.
Vayda, E., & Bogo, M. (1991). A teaching model to unite classroom and field. Journal of Social Work Education, 27, 271-278.
Zastrow, C. (1994). The practice of social work (5th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Tel Aviv University
Florida International University
Address correspondence to Moshe Sherer, Bob Shapell School of Social Work, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv Tel Aviv, Israel 69978; e-mail: Shererl@post.tau.ac.il.
Moshe Sherer is senior lecturer at Tel Aviv University, Bob Shapell School of Social Work. Neta Peleg-Oren is research associate, Community-Based Intervention Research Group (CBIR-G), Florida International University.
TABLE 1. Results of Factor Analysis on Tasks Performed by Students in Field Education % of Common Alpha Role Performed Variance Coefficient Community intervention 7.17 .90 Assessment and evaluation 5.70 .87 Mediating and referral 5.66 .88 Supervision 5.34 .85 Casework intervention 3.66 .81 Contract development 3.65 .82 Reading professional material 3.48 .82 Planning end of treatment 3.40 .79 Use of computers 2.58 .85 Team work 2.56 .73 Collecting familial information 2.48 .68 Assimilating information 2.38 .69 Enlarge knowledge 2.34 .73 Learning from workers 2.30 .65 Learning and enrichment 1.80 .55 Note. Reliability for the entire scale [alpha]=.95. Explained variance by the factors=55.8%. TABLE 2. Actual Performance of Roles in Field Placement by Position Teachers Instructors Students Role M SD M SD M SD Community intervention 2.35 .65 2.45 .85 2.04 .77 Assessment and evaluation 3.31 .59 3.04 .58 3.16 .72 Mediating and referral 3.10 .50 3.40 .59 3.10 .72 Supervision 3.94 .50 3.88 .60 4.02 .59 Casework intervention 3.71 .49 3.69 .61 3.62 .75 Contract development 3.30 .61 3.63 .68 3.41 .82 Reading prof material 2.65 .69 2.86 .72 2.81 .82 Planning end of treatment 3.86 .49 3.86 .63 3.68 .85 Use of computers 1.63 .63 1.41 .85 1.32 .76 Team work 3.25 .72 3.30 .94 2.95 1.14 Collecting familial info 3.38 .55 2.97 .82 2.79 1.02 Assimilating information 3.64 .64 3.56 .64 3.69 .73 Enlarge knowledge 2.08 .68 2.57 .93 2.10 .82 Learning from workers 3.08 .62 3.14 .76 3.23 .81 Learning and enrichment 2.84 .63 2.97 .70 2.99 .81 LSD Post Role f(2, 434) p Hoc Test * Community intervention 12.30 <.001 2 1 > 3 Assessment and evaluation 2.83 -- Mediating and referral 8.54 <.001 2 > 1 3 Supervision 2.69 -- Casework intervention .61 -- Contract development 4.05 <.02 2 > 1 3 3 > 1 Reading prof material .90 -- Planning end of treatment 2.62 -- Use of computers 2.22 -- Team work 5.04 <.007 2 > 3 Collecting familial info 6.10 <.002 1 > 2 3 Assimilating information 1.38 -- Enlarge knowledge 13.74 <.001 2 > 1 3 Learning from workers .91 -- Learning and enrichment .49 -- * Groups: 1=teachers, 2=instructors, 3=students TABLE 3. Importance of Roles Performed In Field Placement, by Position Teachers Instructors Students Role M SD M SD M SD Community intervention 3.46 .62 3.08 .75 3.08 .76 Assessment and evaluation 4.04 .48 3.46 .43 3.52 .54 Mediating and referral 3.61 .40 3.32 .42 3.35 .54 Supervision 3.70 .62 3.31 .48 3.42 .50 Casework intervention 3.72 .55 3.31 .47 3.32 .55 Contract development 3.98 .60 3.35 .46 3.46 .57 Reading prof. material 4.19 .41 3.71 .43 3.71 .54 Planning end of treatment 3.70 .60 3.31 .45 3.35 .56 Use of computers 4.08 2.26 2.75 1.33 2.75 1.32 Team work 3.97 .59 3.46 .55 3.44 .73 Collecting familial info 3.57 .54 3.22 .60 3.17 .75 Assimilating information 3.65 .51 3.37 .46 3.41 .53 Enlarge knowledge 3.82 .60 3.61 .66 3.82 .66 Learning from workers 3.56 .47 3.30 .54 3.36 .60 Learning and enrichment 3.62 .46 3.31 .51 3.50 .57 LSD Post Role f(2,434) p Hoc Test * Community intervention 3.63 <.03 1 > 2 3 Assessment and evaluation 15.81 <.001 1 > 2 3 Mediating and referral 4.07 <.02 1 > 2 3 Supervision 7.03 <.001 1 > 2 3 3 > 2 Casework intervention 7.57 <.001 1 > 2 3 Contract development 15.31 <.001 1 > 2 3 Reading prof. material 12.21 <.001 1 > 2 3 Planning end of treatment 6.19 <.002 1 > 2 3 Use of computers 11.67 <.001 1 > 2 3 Team work 8.18 <.001 1 > 2 3 Collecting familial info 4.36 <.013 1 > 2 3 Assimilating information 3.62 <.028 1 > 2 3 Enlarge knowledge 13.74 <.001 3 > 2 Learning from workers 2.30 =.101 1 > 2 Learning and enrichment 6.75 <.001 1 > 2 3 > 2 * Groups: 1=teachers, 2=instructors, 3=students TABLE 3. Importance of Roles Performed In Field Placement, by Position Teachers Instructors Students Role M SD M SD M SD Community intervention 3.46 .62 3.08 .75 3.08 .76 Assessment and evaluation 4.04 .48 3.46 .43 3.52 .54 Mediating and referral 3.61 .40 3.32 .42 3.35 .54 Supervision 3.70 .62 3.31 .48 3.42 .50 Casework intervention 3.72 .55 3.31 .47 3.32 .55 Contract development 3.98 .60 3.35 .46 3.46 .57 Reading prof. material 4.19 .41 3.71 .43 3.71 .54 Planning end of treatment 3.70 .60 3.31 .45 3.35 .56 Use of computers 4.08 2.26 2.75 1.33 2.75 1.32 Team work 3.97 .59 3.46 .55 3.44 .73 Collecting familial info 3.57 .54 3.22 .60 3.17 .75 Assimilating information 3.65 .51 3.37 .46 3.41 .53 Enlarge knowledge 3.82 .60 3.61 .66 3.82 .66 Learning from workers 3.56 .47 3.30 .54 3.36 .60 Learning and enrichment 3.62 .46 3.31 .51 3.50 .57 LSD Post Role f(2,434) p Hoc Test * Community intervention 3.63 <.03 1 > 2 3 Assessment and evaluation 15.81 <.001 1 > 2 3 Mediating and referral 4.07 <.02 1 > 2 3 Supervision 7.03 <.001 1 > 2 3 3 > 2 Casework intervention 7.57 <.001 1 > 2 3 Contract development 15.31 <.001 1 > 2 3 Reading prof. material 12.21 <.001 1 > 2 3 Planning end of treatment 6.19 <.002 1 > 2 3 Use of computers 11.67 <.001 1 > 2 3 Team work 8.18 <.001 1 > 2 3 Collecting familial info 4.36 <.013 1 > 2 3 Assimilating information 3.62 <.028 1 > 2 3 Enlarge knowledge 13.74 <.001 3 > 2 Learning from workers 2.30 =.101 1 > 2 Learning and enrichment 6.75 <.001 1 > 2 3 > 2 * Groups: 1=teachers, 2=instructors, 3=students TABLE 4. Importance of Actual Performance of Roles Teachers Instructors Students Role M SD M SD M SD Community intervention 1.54 .38 1.33 .36 1.65 .61 Assessment and evaluation 1.39 .31 1.08 .25 1.18 .45 Mediating and referral 1.19 .20 1.00 .22 1.13 .30 Supervision .95 .17 .87 .18 .87 .23 Casework intervention 1.01 .16 .91 .17 .95 .26 Contract development 1.26 .32 .96 .24 1.08 .43 Reading prof. material 1.74 .69 1.39 .44 1.44 .54 Planning end of treatment .97 .18 .88 .19 .96 .32 Use of computers 2.94 2.52 2.20 1.32 2.36 1.37 Team work 1.30 .37 1.17 .52 1.41 .82 Collecting familial info 1.08 .20 1.16 .38 1.28 .56 Assimilating information 1.04 .20 .98 .23 .97 .30 Enlarge knowledge 2.03 .68 1.58 .62 2.10 .88 Learning from workers 1.21 .30 1.11 .32 1.11 .38 Learning and enrichment 1.33 .33 1.16 .29 1.26 3.57 LSD Post Role f(2,434) p Hoc Test * Community intervention 14.85 <.001 1 > 2 3 > 2 Assessment and evaluation 7.84 <.001 1 > 2 3 3 > 2 Mediating and referral 10.62 <.001 1 > 2 3 > 2 Supervision 1.75 -- Casework intervention 2.48 .085 1 > 2 Contract development 8.91 <.001 1 > 2 3 3 > 2 Reading prof. material 5.28 <.005 1 > 2 3 Planning end of treatment 3.62 <.028 1 > 2 Use of computers 2.92 <.055 1 > 2 3 Team work 4.48 <.012 3 > 2 Collecting familial info 3.81 <.023 3 > 1 2 Assimilating information 0.74 -- Enlarge knowledge 17.13 <.001 1 > 2 3 > 2 Learning from workers 1.03 -- Learning and enrichment 3.57 <.029 1 > 2 3 > 2 * Groups: 1=teachers, 2=instructors, 3=students
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||SPECIAL SECTION: FIELD EDUCATION IN SOCIAL WORK|
|Author:||Sherer, Moshe; Peleg-Oren, Neta|
|Publication:||Journal of Social Work Education|
|Date:||Mar 22, 2005|
|Previous Article:||Career decisions and experiences of social work faculty: a gender comparison.|
|Next Article:||Contextualized assessment with battered women: strategic safety planning to cope with multiple harms.|