Fieldwork rotation: a model for educating social work students for geriatric social work practice.
The six demonstration programs were mandated to design and implement new models of field education that would provide students with the knowledge and skills required for informed geriatric social work practice. To become competent geriatric social work practitioners, students need to be trained to work in multiple settings with diverse and multi-generational older adult populations (Council on Social Work Education, 2001). They need exposure to the complex geriatric social and health care service system and to acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to practice in various settings across the continuum of care in aging services. This care ranges from wellness and primary prevention to chronic disease management to death and dying services (Pecukonis, Cornelius, & Parrish, 2003). To achieve these educational goals, the PPP implemented fieldwork rotation, defined as the planned and systematic movement of students between two or more field placement settings. During a 3-year period, more than 300 students were trained using the model of fieldwork rotation.
While there has been some experimentation with rotation, it has had limited appeal for social work educators and practitioners. There has been general reluctance to modify the traditional field education paradigm characterized by the one-to-one student-field instructor dyad in a single, year-long field placement. This paper will describe how the six PPP demonstration programs departed from the standard paradigm by designing and implementing fieldwork rotations. It will also report on students' response to rotation and the pedagogical challenges involved. The PPP experience with rotation contributes to the debate about the place of rotation within social work field education and its capacity to educate students for geriatric social work.
Social work has been unique among the health care professions in disregarding the educational potential of rotation in professional internships. In contrast to the standard paradigm of field education in social work, rotation is a central feature in medical education and is routinely incorporated into the education of allied health care professionals (Cuzzi, Holden, Rutter, Rosenberg, & Chernack, 1996). Medical students, interns, and residents regularly rotate through various medical departments and specialties to enhance their acquisition and mastery of the rapid growing body of medical knowledge (Arnold, 2003; Seely, Snell, & Salasidis, 2001). Rotations are also used to attract medical students and interns to various specialties (Al-Asnag & Jan, 2002) and to expose them, as well as residents, to a wide variety of patients, skills, techniques, and emerging subspecialties, such as palliative and end-of-life care (Schwartz, Goulet, Gorski, & Selwyn, 2003). Required clinical rotations were implemented in an urban medical school to improve medical students' attitudes toward geriatric medicine (Fields, Jutagir, Adelman, Tideiksarr, & Olson, 1992) and successfully used to stimulate interest in geriatrics among health care trainees. In addition to physicians and nurses, these included psychologists, physician assistants, occupational therapists, and pharmacy students (Damron-Rodriguez, Kramer, & Gallagher Thompson, 1998). Recently, nursing homes were included in clinical rotations to ensure that undergraduate nursing students gain familiarity with the nursing needs of chronically ill older adults (Chen, Melcher, Witucki, & McKibben, 2002). In the health care professions other than social work, rotations are recognized as efficacious in training competent health care professionals and in stimulating their interest in unpopular and neglected service areas, such as geriatrics.
Rotation in fieldwork education is a radical departure from the reigning social work field education paradigm. Adherence to the standard paradigm can be traced to the early development of the profession and the dominance of the social casework method of intervention. The influence of psychodynamic theory and practice in social work education, with its emphasis on personal growth and development as the necessary condition for quality professional behavior, also reinforced the privileged status of the one-to-one, long-term field instruction model (Schneck, 1991). Students would presumably acquire the skill, knowledge, and self-awareness needed to practice social casework through an intense supervisory relationship. Kaplan (1991) perceptively observed that the tutorial focus in supervision often paralleled the worker-client relationship, which, simultaneously, served as a model for an intensive casework relationship (Dalgleish, Kane, & McNamara, 1976). The long-term clinical relationship of worker and client, assumed to be necessary for successful therapeutic treatment, has its mirror image in the long-term student-field instructor tutorial relationship assumed to be a necessary condition for successful professional education and practice. This ideal of the preferred supervisory relationship has informed deeply the ethos of the profession, and those committed to it are of the firm opinion that the evolving year-long relationship between field instructor and student is sacrosanct and pivotal to the fieldwork experience (Netting, Hash, & Miller, 2002).
This philosophy of field education has never received the examination it warrants. Regrettably, the effectiveness of any field practicum in producing desired student behavior is difficult to measure, and "even time tested (but not time proved) modes of field instruction have not yet been evaluated in a rigorous way" (Dalgleish et al., 1976, p. 169). Modifications to the standard fieldwork paradigm, such as block placements, group supervision, primary and task (secondary) supervision, and field instruction centers, have been introduced periodically (Lurie & Pinsky, 1973; Spitzer et al., 2001). However, these modifications generally have not altered the modus operandi of most field education departments, in which the standard paradigm continues to exert a powerful hold (Cuzzi et al., 1996). Unlike the social work academic curriculum, which has evolved consistently, fieldwork education remains tied to one field practicum model.
A critique of the traditional fieldwork educational paradigm has been mounting gradually and persistently, and scholars and practitioners are questioning its ubiquitous application (Reisch & Jarmon-Rohde, 2000). Exclusive reliance on one model of field education may be disadvantageous in educating social work students for the demands of contemporary practice, as social workers now are expected to be crisis interveners, middle managers, and program developers (Dalgleish et al., 1976; Jarmon-Rohde, McFall, Kolar, & Strom, 1997). A growing number of social work scholars assert that educating social work students for the transformations in current practice necessitates a concomitant shift in the curriculum and in fieldwork education (Jarmon-Rohde et al., 1997; Pecukonis et al., 2003). Changes in the workplace environment, such as greater client diversity, technological advances, and managed care, have created challenges that require major modifications in social work service methodologies and in the professional education needed to prepare students to meet the new expectations in social work practice (Donner, 1996; Sowers & Ellis, 2001; Sulman, Savage, & Way, 2001; Volland, Berkman, Phillips, & Stein, 2003).
Fieldwork educators have urged greater creativity and innovation through a wider selection of field education models, such as rotation, community-based field instruction, and field education consortia among schools of social work (Jarmon-Rohde et al., 1997). Jarmon-Rohde and colleagues (1997) suggest that the benefits of these alternative models include exposure to diverse settings and various professional roles and supervisory styles, all of which might better prepare students for the realities of current practice. Students require education and training to expand their knowledge and assist them in developing greater skill in such new methodologies as rapid assessment, brief interventions, crisis management, case management, interdisciplinary team practice, and forging community partnerships (Bateman & Whitaker, 2002; Sulman et al., 2001). Alternative fieldwork education models may more effectively advance our educational responsibility to educate students for the evolving and dynamic world of social work practice.
In this vein, more that a quarter century ago Dalgleish et al. (1976) spearheaded the investigation of alternative fieldwork models by introducing and examining rotation in a large, academic health care institution. In their program, students rotated between three major medical departments and were exposed to a variety of services, problems, interventions, and interdisciplinary team practices. The authors concluded that rotation enhanced students' acquisition of the concepts and skills necessary for them to function in the health care system.
Also spurred by the need to prepare students for social work in health care, several studies were conducted in large medical centers comparing student experiences in standard and rotation fieldwork models (Cuzzi et al., 1996; Cuzzi, Holden, Chernak, Rutter, & Rosenberg, 1997). Social work students in these rotations had three distinct 10-week placements with a different primary field instructor at each location (Cuzzi et al., 1996; Cuzzi et al., 1997). The authors concluded that students benefited from exposure to multiple field instructors with different supervisory styles in various service settings. Students were satisfied with the diversity of learning experiences and with the acquisition of short-term intervention skills. In general, rotation increased the value of the students' fieldwork experience and improved their ability to function in the current social work health care environment. Spitzer and colleagues (2001) reported on the fieldwork rotation experience in two large medical centers where students had required rotations through multiple service sites and received supervision from a combination of primary and associate internship instructors. Spitzer and colleagues (2001) concluded that this experience enriched student exposure to multiple practice environments, interventions, and patient/family dynamics. Field instructors concurred that rotation had positive aspects, particularly "the fundamental intent of exposing students to the broadest possible range of patient care settings" (Spitzer et al., 2001, p. 87). With respect to training for geriatric social work practice, Netting and colleagues (2002) described using a systems-based rotation in which students followed clients into various health and human service organizations as needed. In this model, however, students were not assigned to any of these settings for a specific period of time and continued to receive field instruction exclusively through a year-long relationship with a primary field instructor.
Despite some positive results with rotation, designing and implementing fieldwork rotations presents challenges. For example, Dalgleish et al. (1976) found that students complained about the frequent changes of field instructors, the limits on opportunities for intensive client contact, and the erosion of self-confidence resulting from frequent new beginnings. Some field instructors expressed ambivalence about field rotation, especially its potentially negative effects on weak students. In the Cuzzi et al. (1997) study, students felt pressure at the beginning of the rotation year and felt stressed by the realization that as soon as they became comfortable with their field instructor and setting, they would have to move on to another placement. Spitzer et al. (2001) reported that some students had difficulty coping with the complexities and pace of a rotation program, while field instructors objected to compressing their involvement with students. In their experience with rotation, Netting et al. (2002) reported that field instructors were concerned that in-depth learning might be lost in the attempt to ensure maximum exposure to the continuum of care.
Rotation does not have to conform to one design and can be applied flexibly to meet the unique conditions of disparate social work programs and field placement agencies. The above-mentioned studies reported on fieldwork rotation within a single organization only. However, depending on how innovative the profession chooses to be, fieldwork rotation can also take place across agencies (Spitzer et al., 2001).
Rotation in the Practicum Partnership Program
During the planning year of the PPP, each demonstration program developed a rotation design consistent with its respective educational philosophy and objectives. Fieldwork rotations varied among the demonstration programs and were modified to respond to the evolving experience with rotation, agency staff availability, concerns about continuity and depth of learning, and the availability of time-limited assignments (see Table 1).
The rotation model of field education was selected for use in the PPP for several reasons. First, learning experiences in more than one program or agency would provide students with first-hand experience in the large and complex service system for older adults--a system that is replete with multiple funding sources and varied eligibility criteria. By having assignments in several agencies or programs, students would become knowledgeable about the system, begin to experience the service system as older clients and families do, and gain skill in connecting clients and their families with needed services and resources. Second, because the older adult population is diverse, students would have the opportunity to work with older adults and their families with differing characteristics, thereby gaining understanding of this diversity. This should counteract the acquisition of stereotypical assumptions that prevent students from working in the field of aging. Third, assignment to different programs and field instructors enables students to have a range of direct practice and interdisciplinary experiences, to engage in program development and advocacy, and to experience a variety of supervisory styles and practice approaches, all of which are critical to successful care in health and social services (Berkman, Silverstone, Simmons, Volland, & Howe, 2000; Cuzzi et al., 1996; Mellor & Lindeman, 1998; Pecukonis et al., 2003).
The demonstration programs developed four additional program components that provided support for the design and implementation of rotation. These were:
1. University-community partnership. Each demonstration program established a university-community partnership that provided leadership and direction for the development, implementation, and ongoing refinement of rotation and other program components. University and agency representatives (classroom and field faculty, program staff, field instructors, and agency executives or middle managers) met regularly as a group and in committees. Directors of field education were either part of the project management staff or functioned as consultants to the partnership. Leadership was shared between university and agency representatives.
2. Competency-driven education. Each demonstration program developed geriatric social work competencies that were used to establish student learning goals, measure student progress, and foster integration of field and classroom learning. Integration was promoted through the assessment of aging content in the curriculum, activities to increase aging content in courses, and the development of educational seminars. Seminars were held in consortium agencies to enhance exposure to the range of agency services and programs and to enable the participation of field instructors and other agency staff, thereby enriching students' knowledge and experiences. Seminar format and content varied, although all focused on teaching best practices in geriatric social work, on knowledge of geriatrics and gerontology, and on integrating field and classroom learning.
3. Expanded field instructor's role. In addition to providing the traditional supervisory activities of instruction, evaluation, and career mentoring, field instructors participated in consortia activities and committees. They contributed to the development of individual students' rotation plans, to the MSW curriculum, to the design and implementation of agency-based educational seminars, to classroom teaching, and to the recruitment of students to the aging field and the program.
4. Focused recruitment of students to geriatric social work. The demonstration programs promoted general awareness of geriatric social work among students through special presentations, publications, publicity, and the infusion of aging content into foundation courses. In addition, students were recruited into the demonstration programs through special presentations, brochures, stipends, and the development of other program features attractive to students, such as the PPP student cohort activities and assistance in finding postgraduate employment.
The operational principle of rotation in the PPP was the planned and systematic movement of students across two or more programs or agencies. Rotation designs were similar but not identical among the demonstration sites. Students had rotation assignments either within a single organization or across two or more distinct organizations. Rotation within one organization involved rotating students between two or more different services or departments, such as an inpatient geriatric unit and an outpatient home care program in one large hospital or medical system. Rotation between organizations involved assigning students to two or more separate agencies, such as an outreach program of a community agency and a hospital's mobile crisis team. In both patterns of rotation, services offered were varied because of the nature of the population served, specific client problems, and intervention modalities.
Timing (concurrent or sequential) and duration (allotted time in each placement site) were important aspects of the programs' rotation designs. Most programs used concurrent rotations in which students remained at one field placement site for an academic year, while rotating to an associate site either for a year, semester, or several weeks. Several programs used sequential rotations in which students were assigned to a field site for a longer period of time or an entire semester and then moved to another site for the subsequent rotation period. The duration of time students spent in each site depended on whether students were in concurrent or sequential rotations. In the former, students spent more time in the primary than in the associate placement site; whereas in sequential rotations, students spent an equal amount of time in each internship site.
In the PPP, students received supervision from field instructors and task supervisors or preceptors. Most field instructors and task supervisors/preceptors were MSW-level social workers. Two demonstration sites employed university-based field instructors in field sites lacking qualified field instructors. Field instructors were affiliated with the primary field placement site and had overall responsibility for student supervision and evaluation. Task supervisors/preceptors were affiliated with the associate site and provided on-site supervision. Field instructors and task supervisors gave students their fieldwork assignments, monitored their daily activities, provided supervision, and evaluated their performance. They shared field instruction responsibility, exchanged information about appropriate field assignments, and jointly evaluated students' progress. Each PPP site developed mechanisms, such as telephone calls, emails or meetings, to facilitate and maintain channels of communication between field instructors and task supervisors/preceptors across rotation sites.
Field liaisons or faculty advisors monitored student rotations across field placement sites. They collaborated with field instructors, task supervisors, and agency-based educational coordinators to individualize fieldwork rotation placements in alignment with students' educational interests and needs. They also helped field instructors and task supervisors develop appropriate student learning experiences. The faculty advisor provided students with individual or group advisement in which they focused on issues in rotation, provided opportunity for reflection, helped students integrate classroom and field learning experiences, and assisted with career planning.
The demonstration programs made independent decisions about the length of their programs and the criteria for accepting students. Three programs developed 1-year programs for 2nd-year MSW students only. One demonstration program developed a 1-year program for 1st- or 2nd-year students and two developed 2-year programs beginning in the foundation year and concluding with the concentration year. Another program included undergraduate senior social work majors who participated with the foundation-year students. These students were eligible to apply for advanced standing in the MSW program and the 2nd year of the PPP after completion of their undergraduate degree.
Although the demonstration programs independently developed criteria for selecting students, the criteria were notably consistent: expressed interest in geriatric social work, some previous experience with older adults, a successful academic record, and good recommendations. Student applicants were required to complete a formal application and have an interview with program and agency staff. Accepted students participated in an orientation, which usually consisted of intensive meetings but in some programs included visits to or pre-rotation assignments in agencies.
The rotation model required that field placement rotation sites be selected to provide students with multiple learning opportunities and to afford them maximum exposure to the continuum of care (see Table 3). This continuum included three categories of older adults: well-elderly, functionally impaired elderly, and older adults at the end of life. Agencies represented in the continuum of care provided a wide range of services. This encompassed social/recreational programs, home and personal care services, legal aid, housing, physical and mental health programs, long-term care, advocacy, and spiritual engagement programs and services. Demonstration programs were developed and implemented to provide learning experiences with various types of agency programs (prevention to end-of-life services), different aging populations (well-elderly, functionally impaired to terminally ill), and micro and macro interventions.
Student Responses to Rotation
As a part of the cross-site evaluation of the PPP, participating students were asked to rate their satisfaction with their PPP internship upon completion of their program. A seven-item questionnaire consisting of statements to be rated on a 5-point agree--disagree scale was developed to assess student satisfaction. These items explored students' perceptions of various aspects of their rotation experience. The seven items consisted of positive statements about achieving personal learning goals, the worth of rotation, knowledge concerning the range and diversity of services and populations of older adults, the benefits to be had in learning from more than one field instructor, confidence in working on interdisciplinary teams, and recommending the program to other students in the field of aging.
Between academic years 2000-2001 and 2002-2003, more than 300 graduate social work students participated in rotations in the demonstration sites. The written satisfaction scale was administered to students only in the 2nd and 3rd program years (n=226). The demonstration programs administered the satisfaction items as part of a written questionnaire containing other measures to assess knowledge of aging, skill in working with older adults, and career interests. A total of 160 students responded to the questions for a response rate of 71%.
Students completing the questionnaire were young (53% under age 30), female (84%), and diverse (18% African American, 14% Asian, 16% and Hispanic/Latino, and 49% Caucasian) (see Table 2). Almost all respondents were graduate social work students, with a majority in their 2nd year of the MSW program. A few undergraduate social work majors were included in the sample because they participated in one site's demonstration program along with foundation year MSW students. Approximately one half of the students had taken courses in aging prior to the beginning of the internships and almost three quarters reported volunteer or paid work experience with older adults.
Analysis of the responses indicates that students rated their PPP program experience very highly (see Table 4). There was some small variation in the range of the scores with means for the items ranging from 4.3 to 4.6. An overwhelming majority of students agreed or strongly agreed about the positive effects of rotations. The lower mean scores (4.3) were in the areas of achieving personal goals and confidence in interdisciplinary teamwork. The highest mean score (4.6) occurred in recommending the program to other students.
To assess the effect of the PPP on student interest in a career in geriatric social work, these students were also asked to rate their agreement or disagreement with two statements about their future employment: one item related to the likelihood of having a career working with or on behalf of older adults and the other related to employment upon graduation working with or on behalf of older adults. Exposing students to the range of services and diversity of the older adult population through rotations was expected to increase student interest in aging and dispel stereotypes that often prevent students from working in the field of aging. Students were asked to rates these two items at the beginning of their internship and upon completion. Students rated their career interest high at the beginning of their program and upon completion. As students were selected for the internship program based, in part, on their interest in aging, it is not surprising that initial interest was high and remained so, with no significant change during the internship. However, it is important to note that rotations did not decrease their interest.
The introduction of fieldwork rotations and the departure from the standard model required time, effort, and a strong university-community partnership. Developing and implementing the rotations demanded intensive work by project management staff, the university field education department, and agency staff. However, over the course of the program this process took less time and effort due to the establishment of an effective university-community partnership and its accumulated experience.
The planning year provided the demonstration programs with the time needed to build the institutional supports and develop the educational plans necessary for successful rotation. The major institutional support was the university-community partnership, which had the dedicated commitment of representatives of constituent agencies who participated enthusiastically to achieve the program's goals. Representatives met frequently at first and then intermittently throughout the planning and the implementation years to discuss issues and make decisions about the specific features of each program's rotation design. Changes in agency personnel determined who the actual partnership representatives were. Increasingly, however, field instructors became part of the stable group of representatives and contributed to the expansion of their role from agency-based field instructors to educational partners.
The university-community partnership was the locus for all decision-making regarding specific rotation plans. In partnership meetings, participants reviewed and considered the various factors that ultimately shaped the final rotation design. Based on their respective educational philosophy and objectives, all programs made decisions on the following design options: (1) whether rotation would be within or between organizations; (2) whether it would be concurrent or sequential; (3) the number of rotation sites to be included in a student's rotation; and (4) the number of field instructors or task supervisors/preceptors to be involved. The partnership structure also afforded partnership representatives the opportunity to address some of the potential problems that have been raised about rotation, particularly how to achieve continuity in learning as students move between sites and how to ensure that field assignments allow for progressive skill development. Careful matching of rotation placements with student learning needs and reconfiguring field assignments to make them suitable for rotation helped to alleviate these concerns. As all students had a primary rotation site in which they spent at least 2 days per week in concurrent rotations or a longer period of time or a full semester in sequential rotations, they had the opportunity to acquire a variety of micro and macro skills in long- and short-term interventions.
The programs' educational plans included multiple field supervisors and enhancing the field-based curriculum. Although students received supervision from more than one field supervisor, the primacy of the student-supervisor relationship was upheld in all demonstration programs. In concurrent rotations and sequential rotations, one field instructor assumed overall field instruction responsibility. Because of the presence of multiple supervisors, mechanisms were established to facilitate regular communication between supervisors across rotation sites to prevent possible problems. Open channels of communication allowed field instructors and task supervisors/preceptors to specify each student's rotation plan, develop and coordinate appropriate assignments, resolve field-related problems, and evaluate student progress. Maintaining and respecting the primacy of the supervisor-student relationship allayed student and agency concerns about the use of multiple field instructors and ensured that continuity in student learning would not be compromised. Additionally, the field liaison/faculty advisor was a constant figure throughout the rotation year, assisting agencies with rotation issues and monitoring students' learning across all rotation sites. These activities served to strengthen the university-agency relationship.
Competency-driven education provided the educational guidelines by which programs enriched the curriculum and field-based learning. It was particularly important that all the demonstration programs held agency-based educational seminars for students from all the rotation sites. These seminars focused on specific geriatric and gerontological topics usually not covered in the curriculum, thereby adding further depth to the field education experience. Additionally, these seminars afforded students the opportunity to share and reflect on their rotation experiences, which served to strengthen their learning.
Pre-rotation planning with students was essential for successful rotation. Students were oriented to the rotation program and participated in selecting specific rotation placements to meet their educational level and expectations. Field liaisons worked in collaboration with the agency-based educational coordinators or field instructors to customize each field rotation to meet individual students' learning objectives and agency preferences. Careful attention to students' fieldwork rotations plans and matching these with field placement learning opportunities contributed to student satisfaction with rotation.
Students responded very positively to the rotation experience and without reservation said they would recommend the PPP to their peers. Students were satisfied with the range of learning opportunities offered by multiple fieldwork placements, which contributed to their sense of competency and self-confidence as future geriatric social work practitioners. Students also responded positively to having multiple supervisors. Their reactions indicated that supervision from more than one field instructor did not interfere but rather enhanced their learning experiences. They benefited from the opportunity to observe and adapt to different supervisory styles, and learning from multiple supervisors augmented their acquisition of knowledge and skills. Although students were positive about rotation, their reactions could have been affected by the selection process for acceptance into the PPP and from the effect of participating in the program.
The PPP's successful experience with rotation supports several important points: (1) fieldwork rotation can be implemented with sufficient support and effort; and (2) rotation is a flexible and versatile field education model (Spitzer, 2001). The effectiveness of the university-community collaboration also underscores the observation that achieving the educational goal of educating future social workers depends on productive university-field relationships (Bogo & Globerman, 1995). Fieldwork rotation also demonstrated that it could maximize student exposure to an array of services and programs without compromising in-depth learning experiences.
Several features converged to contribute to the success of fieldwork rotation. First, the university-community partnership brought together classroom faculty, field education faculty, and agency representatives regularly for 4 years. Throughout this period, they considered serious field education issues that might impede or enrich student learning. Regular meetings also fostered mutual respect and appreciation. Second, students' educational experience became the concern of at least three concerned and attentive professionals. They could problem-solve jointly to ensure that students received a quality field education learning experience. By doing so, rotation provided agencies with more attention and assistance than they usually receive in student training (Donner, 1996). Third, students received agency-based educational seminars, which extended and added depth to the field curriculum. The implementation of rotation galvanized all participants to attain a high standard of field education by finding creative and innovative ways to provide students with a variety of learning opportunities.
Rotation is not a panacea nor is it being proposed as a replacement for the standard model of fieldwork education. Systematic examination of fieldwork rotation in comparison with the standard model is needed to help social work educators more fully understand which model best suits a particular field of practice or student. Additional studies should also explore field instructors' and task supervisors' reactions to fieldwork rotation, for without their full cooperation and participation, no fieldwork education model can be successful. The experience with rotation to date, however, strongly indicates that it is a field education model that merits serious consideration. There may be fieldwork situations in which rotation may not be suitable and students for whom it may not be appropriate. At the same time, there are fields of practice, such as health care and geriatrics, in which rotation can effectively prepare students for the demands of current practice, and there are students who welcome the educational challenges and stimulation that rotation can provide. The PPP's experience, together with those of previously reported studies, provides growing evidence that fieldwork rotation is a viable alternative to the standard model. Field education departments and agencies should be encouraged to forge formal university-community partnerships to develop fieldwork rotations, which have demonstrated potential to enrich and advance student knowledge and skill. Rotation is a field education model that can help geriatric social work achieve its educational goal of preparing competent social workers for the realities of current and future practice.
The Practicum Partnership Program is funded by the John A. Hartford Foundation. The authors wish to acknowledge Patricia J. Volland, MSW, MBA, principal investigator of the PPP, and the principal investigators of the six demonstration programs: Hunter College School of Social Work/Brookdale Center on Aging, the City University of New York, Joann Ivry, PhD, and Rose Dobrof, DSW; University of Albany, State University of New York, Anne E. Fortune, PhD; University of California at Berkeley; Barrie K. Robinson MSSW, and Andrew E. Scharlach, PhD; University of California at Los Angeles, JoAnn Damon-Rodriguez, PhD, and June Simmons, MSW; University of Houston, Virginia Cooke Robinson, MSW; University of Michigan, Ruth Dunkle, PhD, and Lily Jarman-Reisch, MSW. The authors also wish to acknowledge the contribution of Nadine P. Gartrell, PhD, of the New York Academy of Medicine.
Al-Asnag, M. A., & Jan, M. M. S. (2002). Influence of the clinical rotation on intern attitudes toward pediatrics. Clinical Pediatrics, 41, 509-515.
Arnold, R. (2003). The challenges of integrating palliative care into postgraduate training. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 6, 801-807.
Batemen, N., & Whitaker, T. (2002, September). The employment outlook for social workers. Intersections in Practice, I, 8-9.
Berkman, B., Silversone, B., Simmons, J. W., Volland, P. J., & Howe, J. L. (2000). Social Work gerontological practice: The need for faculty development in the new millennium. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 34(1), 5-23.
Bogo, M., & Globerman, J. (1995). Creative effective university field partnerships: An analysis of two inter-organizational models for field education. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 12(1/2), 159-174.
Chen, S., Melcher, P., Witucki, & McKibben, M. A. (2002). Nursing home use for clinical rotations: Taking a second look. Nursing and Health Sciences, 3, 131-137.
Council on Social Work Education. (2001). A blueprint for the new millennium. Alexandria, VA: Author.
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.
Cuzzi, L., Holden, G., Rutter, S., Rosenberg, G., & Chernack, P. (1996). A pilot study of fieldwork rotations vs. year long placements for social work students in a public hospital. Social Work in Health Care, 24(1/2), 73-91.
Dalgleish, K. B., Kane, R. B., & McNamara, J. J. (1976). Rotating social work students within a medical center. Health and Social Work, 1(2), 166-171.
Damron-Rodriguez, J., Kramer, J. B., & Gallagher Thompson, D. (1998). Effect of geriatric clinical rotations on health professions trainees' attitudes about older adults. Gerontology & Geriatric Education, 19(2), 67-79.
Donner, S. (1996). Field work crisis: Dilemmas, dangers and opportunities. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 66, 316-331.
Fields, S. D., Jutagir, R., Adelman, R. D., Tideiksarr, R., & Olson, E. (1992). Geriatric education part I: Efficacy of a mandatory clinical rotation for fourth year medical students. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 40, 964-969.
Grossman, B. (1991). Themes and variations: The political economy of field instruction. In D.Schneck, B. Grossman, & U. Glassman (Eds), Field Education in Social Work (pp. 36-46). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Jarmon-Rohde, L., McFall, J., Kolar, P., & Strom, G. (1997). The changing context of social work practice: Implications and recommendations for social work educators. Journal of Social Work Education, 33, 29-45.
Kaplan, T. (1991). A model for group supervision for social work: Implications for the profession. In D. Schenck, B. Grossman & U. Glassman (Eds.), Field education in social work (pp. 141-148). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Lurie, A., & Pinsky, S. (1973). Queens field instruction center: A field instruction center for multilevel education in social work. Journal of Education for Social Work, 9(3), 39-44.
Mellor, J. M., & Lindeman, D. (1998) The role of the social worker in interdisciplinary geriatric teams. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 30(3/4), 3-7.
Netting, F. E., Hash, K., & Miller, J. (2002). Challenges in developing geriatric field education in social work. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 37(1), 89-110.
Pecukonis, E., Cornelius, L., & Parrish, M. (2003). The future of health social work. Social Work in Health Care, 37(3), 1-15.
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, 201-213.
Schneck, D. (1991). Ideal and reality in field education. In D. Schneck, B. Grossman, & U. Glassman (Eds.), Field education in social work (pp. 17-35). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Schwartz, C. E., Goulet, J. L., Gorski, V., & Selwyn, P. A. (2003). Medical residents' perceptions of end-of-life care training in a large urban teaching hospital. Journal of Palliative Care, 6(1), 37-45.
Seeley, A. J. E., & Salasidis, R. (2001). The impact of current experience, level of training, and post call status on student and resident examination results during a surgical ICU rotation. Medical Teacher, 23, 396-400.
Sowers, K. M., & Ellis, R. A. (2001). Steering currents for the future of social work. Research on Social Work Practice, 11, 245-253.
Spitzer, W., Holden, G., Cuzzi, L., Rutter, S., Chernak, P., & Rosenberg, G. (2001). Edith Abbott was right: Designing fieldwork experiences for contemporary health care practice. Journal of Social Work Education, 37, 79-90.
Sulman, J., Savage, D., & Way, S. (2001). Retooling social work practice for high volume, short stay. Social Work in Health Care, 34(3/4), 261-329.
Volland, P., Berkman, B., Phillips, M., & Stein, G. (2003). Social work education for health care: Addressing practice competencies. Journal of Social Work in Health Care, 37(4), 1-17.
Hunter College School of Social Work
Frances P. Lawrance
New York Academy of Medicine
University of California at Los Angeles
Virginia Cooke Robbins
University of Houston
Joann Ivry is associate professor, Hunter College School of Social Work. Frances P. Lawrance is program officer, New York Academy of Medicine. JoAnn Damron-Rodriguez is professor, University of California at Los Angeles. Virginia Cooke Robbins is director of field practicum, University of Houston.
Address correspondence to Joann Ivry, Hunter College School of Social Work, 129 East 79th Street, New York, NY 10021; e-mail: email@example.com.
TABLE 1. Characteristics of PPP Demonstration Programs 2000-2003, by Site Site Student Characteristics Level of Rotation Plans 1-Year Programs Hunter MSW 2 * Students in paid summer College/ internships 5-6 weeks Brookdale to become familiar with Institute agency services and on Aging populations served * Field office matches students with paired sites (2) * Rotation options: 2-4 departments in 1 large agency system or 1 agency (2 days/wk) and 1 additional agency (1 day/wk) * Seminars meet at agencies; staff and other students invited University MSW 2 * Rotations developed by at Albany, field supervisor with State student or planned in advance University by field education of New York office with students and agencies * Rotation options: 2-3 divisions/departments in 1 large agency; 1 primary site and 1-2 additional agencies; or 2 sites of equal time; for 3 days/week * Concurrent or block rotations * Seminars meet at field agencies; staff and other experts invited University MSW 1 or * Students assigned to a of California MSW 2 primary program area at Berkeley (i.e., adult protective with MSW services) within a county programs at department of aging services San Francisco for full academic State University, year to learn practice skills San Jose State University * During 1st term students oriented to primary program area while completing intermittent rotations of varying length through 5-6 secondary program areas, participating in meetings, conferences, observing and shadowing workers, home visits, visits to affiliated agencies * Internship rotations structured by program and educational coordinators in each county office Partners in MSW 2 * Students placed in Care Foundation primary site in 1 of 4 large in partnership agencies designated as with University Centers of Excellence, of California with assignments during at Los Angeles, final term to 1-2 University of associate sites (different Southern agencies or departments California, within agency) for 1 day California State per week for 2 months University at (concurrent with 2 days/ Los Angeles, week in Center of Excellence) California State University * Each Center of Excellence has at Long Beach students from each MSW program and 1 field instructor for all students in agency * Field instructor hired by Center of Excellence with responsibilities for program development, student seminars, I university, consortium committee * Seminars held at Centers of Excellence 2-Year Programs University Undergrad * Internships for students of Houston social assigned by consortium with work members (field instructors) undergraduate seniors social work and * Undergrads and 1st-year program MSW 1, MSWs assigned to at Texas MSW2 1 agency for the 1st term, Southern a different agency for University the next term; 2 days/week * 2nd-year MSW students assigned to large health agency with 2-4 rotations to different departments; interdisciplinary team training for 2-3 days/week * Seminars meet at different agencies; staff and field instructors invited University MSW 1 * 1st-year MSW students (in of Michigan and 2 groups) visit agencies during first term to learn about services and identify preferences for internships * MSW 1 students placed in 1-2 "satellite" agencies for 2nd term, 2 days/week * MSW 2 students in "anchor" agencies to focus on major practice method for terms 3 and 4 * Seminars at university; faculty, field instructors invited Site Supervisors/ Instructors Per Student 1-Year Programs Hunter * 1 agency instructor with College/ task supervisors in Brookdale additional sites Institute on Aging University * 1 agency supervisor with at Albany, task supervisors in State additional sites University of New York * 2 field instructors in separate sites University * 1 agency instructor with of California task supervisors in different at Berkeley departments with MSW programs at * 1 educational coordinator San Francisco in each county office on aging State University, San Jose State University Partners in * 1 field instructor with Care Foundation preceptors in associate sites in partnership with University of California at Los Angeles, University of Southern California, California State University at Los Angeles, California State University at Long Beach 2-Year Programs University * 2 primary field instructors of Houston for undergrads and MSW with 1 students undergraduate social work * 1 field instructor with program preceptors in rotations at Texas Southern University University * 2 field instructors of Michigan * 1 field instructor with task supervisors * University-based field instructor with task instructors TABLE 2. Demographic and Program Status Characteristics of Students in the Practicum Partnership Program (N=190) n % Age 21-29 100 53 30-39 47 25 40 and over 42 22 Not specified 1 0 Gender Male 30 16 Female 100 84 Ethnicity African American 34 18 Asian American 26 14 Caucasian 93 49 Hispanic/Latino 30 16 Other 6 3 Not specified 1 0 Educational Level During PPP Undergraduate social work 11 6 1st-year MSW 52 27 2nd-year MSW 104 55 Advanced standing MSW 2 1 Not specified 21 11 Completed Courses in Aging Prior to PPP Internship Yes 88 46 No 91 48 Not specified 11 6 Prior Volunteer or Paid Work Experience With Older Adults Yes 137 72 No 46 24 Not specified 7 4 Note. Range=21-69; M=32.5; SD=10.1. TABLE 3. Examples of Practicum Partnership Program Individual Student Rotations Student Student Rotation Level Placement Type MSW 2 Jewish social Inter-agency student service agency concurrent (in partnership direct with nursing practice home and focus community senior services agency) MSW 2 Community Inter- student organization agency serving block Hispanics in rural rotation area (in (sequential) consortia with macro acute care focus hospital, senior service agency, church social service agency, nursing home) MSW2 Veteran's Inter-agency student Administration concurrent Medical rotations Center direct practice focus MSW County Inter-agency 1 or 2 department block student for aging sequential services rotations of approx 1 week during first term only; rotations intermittent with return to primary program area direct practice focus MSW 2 Community-based Inter-agency student geriatric concurrent mental health direct practice program and macro focus and elder law clinic Student Site Student Level Learning Assignments MSW 2 * Jewish * Supportive in-home student family services counseling for elderly clients * Senior * Case management services to seniors in housing project * Nursing home * Individual counseling with residents MSW 2 * Community * Outreach to student organization Hispanic elders * Hospital * Participate in crisis mobile outreach team offering case management, program clinical assessment and intervention * Office on aging * Needs assessment of Hispanic elderly in county MSW2 * Inpatient * Information, referrals, student geriatric supportive counseling to unit patients and families; discharge planning * Adult day program * Information, referrals, counseling to day program clients * Home-based primary care * Assessments, referrals, counseling to patients referred by MDs MSW * Adult protective * Casework; one case at least 1 or 2 services/financial of: self-neglect, physical student abuse unit abuse, financial (primary placement abuse, neglect, care for 1 year) management * Area Agency on Aging (rotation) * Home visits/shadowing * Public guardian unit workers; attend staff (rotation) meeting and relevant community * In-home social services and organizational meetings; unit (rotation) * Multi-purpose senior * Same as above; attend service program a court hearing (rotation) * Same as above; attend public authority meeting * Same as above MSW 2 * Community-based * Casework counseling student geriatric mobile crisis with individuals team (2 days) and families; case management; home * Elder law clinic in visits university-affiliated * Interdisciplinary law school (1 day) team practice social work and law. TABLE 4. Student Responses to Rotation (N=190) n Range M SD 1. My personal goals in 159 1-5 4.30 0.80 learning to work with older persons and their families were achieved in my field practicum. 2. I feel my participation 156 1-5 4.40 0.80 in rotations was worthwhile. 3. The rotation enabled 156 1-5 4.40 0.80 me to learn about the range of services to older people. 4. Having experience 158 1-5 4.50 0.80 in more than one field agency or department or program was useful in learning about diverse populations of older people. 5. Having the opportunity 159 1-5 4.50 0.80 to learn from several different instructors in my field practicum enhanced my learning. 6. As a result of my 159 1-5 4.30 0.90 participation in the Hartford program, I am more confident in working as part of an interdisciplinary team. 7. I would recommend 159 1-5 4.60 0.90 the Hartford program to other students in aging. Note. Scale ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Ivry, Joann; Lawrance, Frances P.; Damron-Rodriguez, JoAnn; Robbins, Virginia Cooke|
|Publication:||Journal of Social Work Education|
|Date:||Sep 22, 2005|
|Previous Article:||Factors affecting willingness of social work students to accept jobs in aging.|
|Next Article:||The consortium for social work training in aging: schools of social work in partnership with county departments of adult and aging services.|