SUPERVISING STUDENTS DEVELOPMENTALLY: EVALUATING A … · teered, 47 retained an interest in the study when subsequently contacted by telephone. An inter-vention group was composed

SUPERVISING STUDENTS DEVELOPMENTALLY: EVALUATING A SEMINARFOR NEW FIELD INSTRUCTORS

Kathleen Holtz DealUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore

Jennifer A. ClementsShippensburg University

This study compared 14 field instructors trained in a modelbased on understandingMSW students' cognitive, affective, and behavioral development and modifyingtheir supervision to meet students' changing needs with a group of 24 untrainedfield instructors. T-test results suggest that students of trained field instructorswere significantly more satisfied than students of those untrained witb tbeirfield instructors' support and provision of specific, conceptually based feedback.Implications are discussed concerning the role of social work education programsin helping field instructors develop relevant educational skills.

FIELD INSTRUCTORS PROVIDE STUDENTS w i t b a r g u a b l y

the most sustained individualized educationalexperience of their social work education, yetthey often receive little training for this vitalrole (Abramson & Fortune, 1990; Raschick,Maypole, & Day, 1998). Social work experts infield education continue to mention training forfield instructors, especially in learning theories,as a major gap (Raskin, 1983,1994). Althoughsocial work practitioners can transfer some oftheir practice knowledge and skills to the newrole of field instructor, the role also requiresspecialized knowledge and skills, such as howto structure supervision, provide effectivefeedback, establish learning objectives, andhelp students develop a professional identity(Caspi & Reid, 2002; Hawkins & Shohet, 2000;Kadushin & Harkness, 2002). Borders (1992)describes learning to think like a supervisor as

a cognitive shift from assuming a counselingrole (focused on either facilitating the student'spersonal growth or indirectly treating the clientthrough the student) to an educational role fo-cused on the student's learning needs. Learningto become a Held instructor entails developing asupervisory self, a process as complex as MSWstudents' development of a professior\al self(Reardon, 1988; Urdang, 1999).

Schools of social work typically offer newfield instructors an orientation that addressessuch areas as learning contracts, evaluations,the school's curriculum, and the transitionfrom practitioner to educator (Lacerte & Ray,1991). However, few models to train new fieldinstructors have been fully developed andempirically tested. The only empirically testedseminar for new field instructors that waslocated included content on how to provide

Journal ofSocial Work Education Vol. 42, No. 2 (Spring/Summer 2006). © Copyright 2006Council on Social Wori< Education, inc. Aii rigiits reserved. 2 9 1

292 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION

a learning environment, develop a learningcontract, conduct supervisory conferences,utilize process recordings, and establish expec-tations for student performance and evaluation(Abramson & Fortune, 1990). The seminar wasevaluated by comparing data from studentswhose Held instructors took part in the 10-session seminar with students of those Heldinstructors who did not. According to studentevaluations, trained Held instructors differedsigniHcantly from those who were untrainedin providing feedback on process recordings,linking process recordings to practice models,gerierating discussion of students' learningneeds, and providing a more structured learn-ing experience.

Some training models target a specificskill. Rogers and McDonald (1992) taught criti-cal thinking skills to Held instructors to helpthem conceptualize supervision in criticallyreflective ways and model reflective practicefor their students. Field instructors completingthis 10-week course scored higher on a stan-dardized measure of critical thinking than acontrol group, but the study did not measureHeld instructors' actual supervisory perfor-mance. Other models have been developed toteach Held instructors how to use single subjectresearch designs (Doueck & Kasper, 1990),and decrease avoidant behaviors in address-ing diversity issues (Armour, Bain, & Rubio,2004). Raschick et al. (1998) based their fieldinstructor training on teaching Kolb learningtheory to assist Held instructors in recognizingvarious learning styles and determirting whichteaching methods would be most effective witha student's particular style.

The training model used in this study isbased on teaching Held instructors how to iden-

tify affective, behavioral, and cognitive changesthat MSW students typically undergo duringthe course of their social work education andhow to modify their supervisory approach tomeet students' changing educational needs. Theonly previous model (Reardon, 1988) locatedthat taught Held instructors the stages of MSWstudent development was based on Saar i's (1989)model of clinical learning. Using supervisoryvignettes pre- and post training Reardon foundthat, following six training sessions. Heldinstructors were better able to assess studentbehaviors using a developmental framework,generate learning goals and strategies appropri-ate to students' developmental needs, and meetstudents' learning needs, rather than attemptto indirectly treat students' clients.

There is some support for the validity ofusing a developmental framework to under-stand how MSW students change during thecourse of their education. Such frameworksview students as typically following a sequencein responding to the emotional challenges oflearning to become a prof essiortal, in developingand reHning their conceptual understandingof the helping process, and in improving theirpractice skills. In a study testing the validityof Saari's (1989) model, Platt (1993) found that,as predicted, beginning MSW students urider-stood their clients and the helping process inglobal terms and tended to use concrete, action-oriented interventions such as providing adviceand reassurance. As a result of further trainingand experience, students began to view theirrelatioriships with clients as more collaborative,eventually understanding helping as a process,while they coricurrently formed more complexand differentiated conceptualizations of theirclients. Using a synthesis of several develop-

SUPERVISING STUDENTS DEVELOPMENTALLY 293

mental theories (Friedman & Kaslow, 1986;Holman & Freed, 1987; Ralph, 1980; Saari, 1989;Stoltenberg, McNeill, & Delworth, 1998), Deal(2000) found that, consistent with developmen-tal perspectives, advanced students increas-ingly recognized and addressed interpersonalprocesses between themselves and their clients,differentiated their personal and professionalselves, and increased their ability to attend toclients without intruding or imposing theirown thoughts or ideas. Studies of students'perceptions of and satisfaction with supervi-sion have also found some indirect support fordevelopmental models as shown in beginningMSW students' desire for greater direction andadvice (Knight, 2000; Strozier, Barnett-Queen, &Bennett, 2000) and advanced students' interestin critiquing their own work, developing self-awareness, and addressing transference andcountertransference issues (Fortune, McCarthy,& Abramson, 2001; Strozier et al., 2000).

This article presents the results of a studyevaluating the effectiveness of a model thateducated new Held instructors on understand-ing MSW students from a developmentalperspective. Because, as indicated in the litera-ture review, very few studies have tested theeffectiveness of Held instructor training, thisexploratory study seeks to add to the literatureon whether or not this area warrants furtherinvestigation. The article reports on triangu-lated data from three sources: Held instructorresponses to supervisory case vignettes, studentreports of their satisfaction with their supervi-sory experience, and field instructor evaluationsof the training seminar. The article presentscomparative data between new field instructorswho attended the seminar and a control groupwho did not receive the seminar training, as

well as comparative data from students of bothgroups of Held instructors. Implications for Heldinstructor training are discussed.

Method

Procedure

Following approval by the UniversityInstitutional Review Board, participants wererecruited in fall 2002 at orientation sessions fornew field instructors from the University ofMaryland, Baltimore. Attendees at orientationsessions were given information about the studyand the seminar content by the Hrst author.From the 59 field instructors who initially volun-teered, 47 retained an interest in the study whensubsequently contacted by telephone. An inter-vention group was composed of a conveniencesample of all field instructors available to meetat the scheduled seminar times; following oneparticipant's early withdrawal from the study,this group consisted of 14 Held instructors.Questionnaires were mailed to the remaining33 interested volunteers; the 24 (72.7% returnrate) Held instructors who returned completedquestionnaires constituted the control group.Members of the control group were offeredthe opportunity to participate in an identicalseminar after the study's completion.

Approximately 6 weeks after the end of theseminar, all students ofthe 38 study participantswere contacted by letter by the Hrst author, in-formed of their field instructor's participation inthe study, and asked to complete a questionnaireabout their supervisory experience. Thirty-sixparticipants supervised one student; the tworemaining participants each supervised twostudents. In both instances where a Held in-structor supervised two students, one of their


students was randomly selected; both of thesestudents returned questionnaires and wereincluded in the study. All students who did notrespond to the initial letter were sent a follow upletter. Thirteen students (92.9%) of field instruc-tors in the intervention group and 20 students(83.3%) of field instructors in the control groupreturned completed questionnaires.

Instruments

Field instructors. Field instructors com-pleted two survey instruments, both developedby the first author. The first instrument wasa questionnaire accompanied by one of twohypothetical student vignettes and processrecordings written to describe a typical founda-tion-year MSW student (Vignette A) or a typi-cal advanced-year MSW student (Vignette B).Vignette A described a female student, placedin a medical hospital, who is highly anxiousand concerned about saying and doing the"right thing." Her process recording describesher efforts to help a woman, newly diagnosedwith cancer, by following a set agenda anddemonstrates difficulty being flexible in herapproach and individualizing her responsesbased on the needs of this particular client.Vignette B describes a male student, placed ina multi-service agency for the elderly, who hashad no previous experience with this popula-tion. His process recording describes effortsto help his elderly male client discuss theclient's concerns about his serious illness andhis wife's recent death. The process recordingdemonstrates this student's ability to toleratesilences, stay with the client as he expressesfeelings of guilt, and show some awarenessof the interpersonal relationship developingbetween himself and the client. The vignettes

and process recordings were based on develop-mental models of social work students (Holman& Freed, 1987; Saari, 1989) and other helpingprofessionals (Friedman & Kaslow, 1986; Ralph,1980; Stoltenberg et al., 1998).

Prior to beginning the study, two fieldinstructors familiar with these developmentalmodels reviewed the vignettes and processrecordings for content validity, resulting inchanges that more fully reflected the devel-opmental characteristics of students to beemphasized in the seminar. The questionnaireconsisted of 12 open-ended questions coveringthe following areas: student's level of trainingand rationale; process recording feedback;immediate supervisory goals and strategies;levels of support, structure, and autonomyrecommended for the student; semester goalsand strategies; and supervisory focus and ra-tionale. Ademographic questionnaire includedinformation about field instructors' previoussupervisory experience and training.

The second instrument was an evaluationof the seminar that Held instructors in the ex-perimental group completed during the finalseminar meeting. Field instructors used a ratingscale (from 5=extremely useful to l=not useful)to rate their satisfaction with the usefulness ofseminar content and teaching methodologies.The evaluation included an open-ended ques-tion regarding field instructors' use of informa-tion learned during the seminar.

Students. The third instrument was aquestionnaire completed by students of fieldinstructors participating in the study. This ques-tionnaire was based on supervisory strategiesrecommended by the developmental modelslisted above as well as relevant items fromprevious studies of student satisfaction (Elli-


son, 1994; Fortune & Abramson, 1993; Knight,1996; Lazar & Eisikovits, 1997). Students useda rating scale (from 5=very satisfied to l=verydissatisfied) fo rafe 27 ifems fhaf assessedfheir satisfaction wifh fheir Held insfrucfors'educafional approach. Sfudenfs used fhe samerafing scale fo rafe fheir safisfacfion wifh fheirsupervision's focus and fheir supervisionoverall; frequency of supervision was rafed ona scale from 5=weekly fo l=never.

Data Collection

The sfudy used a prefesf-posffesf ex-perimenfal design. In early fall, prior fo fhebeginning of fhe seminar, field insfrucforsin bofh fhe infervenfion and confrol groupswere mailed a vignef fe of a hypofhefical MSWsf udenf, a process recording represenf ing a cli-enf inferview conducfed by fhe sfudenf, and aquesfionnaire composed of fhe 12 open-endedquesfions as described above. Field insfruc-fors were randomly mailed eifher Vignef fe Aor Vigneffe B along wifh a brief demographicquesfionnaire.

Field insfrucfors in fhe infervenfion groupfhen parficipafed in a 12-hour seminar (fourfhree-hour weekly sessions) co-led by fhe firsfaufhor and fhe school of social work's assisfanfdirecfor of field insfrucfion. The seminar hada dual focus: (1) acquainfing field insfrucforswifh MSW sfudenfs' normafive affecfive, cog-nifive, and behavioral changes from enfry fograduation; and (2) providing fhem wifh sug-gesfions on how fo modify fheir supervisoryfocus, sfrucfure, and feaching mefhodologiesfo address fheir sfudenfs' changing needs.Guidelines for supervisory meefings and wrif-fen feedback on sfudenfs' process recordingswere provided. A summary of fhe curriculum

is provided in Table 1 (see Deal, 2002, for a fulldescripfion of fhe seminar).

Posffesfs were adminisfered af fhe end offhe fall semesfer, 6 weeks affer fhe complefionof fhe seminar. Field insfrucfors in bofh fheinfervenfion and confrol groups were mailedfhe second sfudenf vigneffe, process recording,and quesfionnaire using a crossover designfo reduce fhe pracfice effecf. Field insfrucforswho received Vigneffe A as a prefesf, receivedVigneffe B as a posffesf, and vice versa. Afthis same fime, sfudenfs of all field insfruc-fors parficipafing in fhe sfudy were mailed aquesfionnaire as described above.

Data Analysis

Dafa for fhis sfudy were broken info fhreecafegories: sfudenf dafa, field insfrucfor vi-gneffes, and Held insfrucfor evaluafions. TheHeld insfrucfor vigneffes were evaluafed usingan independenf f wo-person rafing sysf em. Thefwo rafers were experienced Held insfrucforswho followed a speciHc rafing guide developedby fhe Hrsf aufhor. Each field insfrucfor's re-sponse fo each of fhe 12 quesfions was rankedwifh a score of 1 (barely minimal or no un-dersfanding), 2 (parfial undersfanding), or 3(clear undersfanding). The overall inferraferagreemenf was 72.6% wifh 77n°lo agreemenf onVigneffe A and 68.0% agreemenf on Vigneffe B.All differences in raf ings were discussed by fheHrsf aufhor and fhe fwo rafers unf il a consensuswas reached. This decision was made prior fobeginning fhe rafing process, based on fhe useof an unfesf ed insf rumenf and fhe higher degreeof dif Hculf y in acfueving reliabilif y when rafinglarge unif s of f exf (e.g., paragraphs; Weber, 1985).Using SPSS 10.0 a MANOVA was performed foexamine differences befween pre- and posffesf


TABLE 1 . Summary of New Field Instructor Seminar Content

Session 1

• Composite model of the cognitive, affective, and behavioral characteristics of beginning andadvanced MSW students

• Beginning students: high anxiety; dependent on Held instructor; self-focus due to self-con-sciousness; concrete thinking leading to concrete interventions

• Advanced students: decreased anxiety; ability to think in more complex, symbolic termsleading to increased complexity in understanding clients; ability to view client-worker rela-tionship as interactional process; possible dependency-autonomy crisis

• Setting learning goals consistent with student stage of development

• Homework: Assess your student's view of a client and her helping role.

Session 2

• Primary variables to consider in supervision: degree of structure, level of autonomy, focus (client,student, client-student relationship)

• Supervisory approaches and behaviors recommended for each stage of student development

• Beginning students: Help student lower anxiety; provide high degree of structure; give adviceand suggestions; provide rationale for why interventions did/did not work; keep supervisionclient focused; assign cases student can handle

• Advanced students: Provide more complex observation on student's work; help studentidentify underlying themes; include student's reactions, countertransference, and relationalprocesses in supervisory focus; allow for greater autonomy

• Applying principles of differential supervision to the supervisory conference

• Homework: Write case notes on your next supervisory session including goals, summary, andevaluation of your supervision.

Session 3

• Process Recording Guidelines describing beginning, middle, and advanced levels of 11 interview-ing skills

• Conveying empathy, moderating activity level, individualizing client, maintaining focus,demonstrating flexibility, understanding interpersonal processes, collaborating on goals,differentiating tasks and responsibilities, forming a positive bond, using self-disclosure ap-propriately, recognizing countertransference

• Using the Process Recording Guidelines to provide developmentally appropriate written and verbalfeedback to students: practicing identifying levels of student skills; brainstorming responses

• Homework: Assess your student's skill levels using one of her process recordings.

Session 4

• Review and integration of information from previous sessions

• Strategies to help students progress to the next developmental stage: using students' realizationthat they do affect clients; timing the assignment of more difficult cases; promoting greater au-tonomy; consistently monitoring students' work

• Effective field instructor behaviors that transcend students' developmental stages based on find-ings from the extensive student satisfaction literature

• Seminar evaluation


scores befween fhe confrol and intervenfiongroups. The sfudenf dafa, which were collecf edin fhe form of rafing scale ifems, were enferedinfo SPSS and independenf samples t fesfswere complefed on fhe ifems. Because of fheinnovafive nafure of fhe sfudy and fhe smallsample size, fhe use of several t fesfs could bewarranfed despife increased Type I error rafe(Sfevens, 2002). The field insfrucfor frainingevaluafions were analyzed by calculafing fhemean scores of each individual ifem.

Results

Field Instructor Data

The field insfrucfors who parficipafed in fhesfudy had a mean age of 42.80 years (SD=8.74)and an average of 11.67 years of experience associal workers {SD=724). Similar f o fhe sfudenfdemographics, fhe Held insfrucfors were pre-dominanfly Caucasian (84.2%; n=32) wifh fheremainder of fhe group being African American(15.8%; n=6). Gender was predominanflyfemale(94.7%; n=36) and males represenfed 5.3% offhe sample (n=2). Independenf samples t fesfsshowed no significanf differences befween fheconfrol and infervenfion group wifh regard foage (t=-.110, p=.913), and years of experience(f=.018,p=.986).Inaddifion,achi-square analy-sis showed no significanf differences befweenfhe confrol and intervenfion group with regardfo race (x2=.O38, p=.846) and gender {x^=.0l7,p=.896) of fhe field insfrucfors.

A MANOVA was performed fo examinedifferences befween fhe confrol and inferven-fion groups in regards fo pre- and posffesfscores. Using prefesf and posffesf scores as fhedependent variable, order effecfs were foundbefween fhe infervenfion and confrol groups

(F(l, 30)=41.734, p=.OOl). The group effecf(F(l,30)=.004,p=.951) and fhe inferacfioneffecfof group by order (f (l,30)=.415, p=.525) werebofh nonsignificanf. The order in which fhe fieldinsfrucfors received fhe vigneffes influencedfhe resulfs. Scores on Vigneffe A were higherf han scores on Vigneffe B regardless of whef herVigneffe A was complefed before or affer fheinfervenfion. If appears fhaf fhe vigneffes werenof comparable, wifh fhe advanced sfudenfvigneffe (B) being more difficulf fo analyze.Overall 89.5% (n=34) of fhe field insfrucforsmisidenfified fhe B vigneffe as a foundafionsfudenf. Therefore, scores of parficipanfs whoreceived B firsf, fhen A af posffesf, wouldshow improvemenf regardless of fheir groupassignmenfs.

MSW Student Data

Sfudenfs who parficipafed in fhe sfudyhad an average age of 30.55 years (SD=10.73).The enrollmenf sf af us was fairly mixed wifhfull-fime advanced sfudenfs comprising36.6% of fhe sample (n=ll), full-fime founda-fion sfudents 33.3% (n=10), parf-fime foun-dafion sfudenfs 26.7% («=8), and parf-fimeadvanced sfudenfs 3.3% (n=l). Sfudenfs werepredominanfly Caucasian (69.7%; n=23), wifh24.2% of fhe group being African American(n=8). The sample included one Hispanicsfudenf (3%) and one sfudenf idenfified asofher race (3%). The sample was predomi-nanfly female (93.9%; n=31) while malesrepresenfed 6.1% of fhe sample (n=2). Anindependenf sample t fesf used fo evaluafefhe rafing scale dafa collecfed from fhe MSWsfudenfs found no significanf differences inage (t=-.259, p=.84O) befween sfudenfs whohad a field insfrucfor in fhe confrol versus


the ir\tervention group. Chi-square analysisalso indicated no significant differences be-tween level of education {x^=?,.7Q5, p=.395),race (x2=L678,p=.642),and gender (x^=3.275,p=.358) of the student and v^hether he or shewas working with a field instructor in thecontrol or intervention group.

Several significant differences in studentsatisfaction with their field instructors' educa-tional approach were found between the controland intervention groups. Students of trainedfield instructors were significantly more satis-fied than students of untrained Held instructorsin their field instructors' support of their workat the agency, provision of specific feedback ontheir work, use of theoretical concepts whendiscussing clients or situations, and explana-tions for why an intervention the student useddid or did not work (see Table 2).

Overall student satisfaction and satisfac-tion with the focus of supervision were alsoexamined. All students who participated inthe research rated their satisfaction with bothsupervisory focus and overall satisfactionas high. The control group rated satisfac-tion with supervisory focus with a mean of4.45 (SD=.686) and overall satisfaction witha mean of 4.40 (SD=.94O). The interventiongroup's ratings were only slightly higherwith a satisfaction with focus mean of 4.50(SD=.522) and an overall satisfaction mean of4.58 (SD=.515). A MANOVA was completedto test for significance using the two satisfac-tion ratings as the dependent variables andwas found to be not significant (F(4,60)=.392,p=.814). There were no significant differencesfound between frequency and length of su-pervision sessions between the control andintervention groups (see Table 3).

Participant Evaluation of the Seminar

Seminar participants evaluated the semi-nar highly. On a 5-point rating scale (from 5=ex-tremely useful to l=not useful), participants'mean ratings for the usefulness of the fourmajor content areas covered in the seminar intheir role as field instructors were: the normalstages of student development (4.9); supervi-sory techniques recommended for each stage(4.8); assessing skill levels in student processrecordings (4.5); and helping students progressto the next developmental stage (4.2). In termsof teaching methodologies used in the seminar,participants found handouts (4.9), talking withother Held instructors (4.6), small group exer-cises (4.4) and homework assignments (4.2) themost helpful while a power point presentation(3.7) was less useful. Participants rated theseminar as having met (n=5; 35.7%), exceeded(n=3; 21.4%), or greatly exceeded (n=6; 42.9%)their expectations.

All participants reported having begun toapply the seminar content to their supervision.In response to an open-ended question askingwhich information and techniques they wereusing. Held instructors identified information onstudents' developmental stages {n=7), supervi-sory strategies and methods ()i=ll), and assess-ing process recordings {n=7). SpeciHc strategiesmentioned included increasing the structure ofsupervision, balancing direct suggestions withexploring students' ideas, and making supervi-sion client, rather than student, focused.

Discussion

Strengths and Limitations

The study had several important limita-tions. The use of one school of social work, the


TABLE 2. Differences in Resuits of T Tests on Student Satisfaction BetweenStudents Witii Fieid Instructors in Controi (N=20) and intervention (N=13) Group

ControlGroup

Survey Items M SD

InterventionGroup

M SD

5.892.431

2.919

Supports work at agencyHelps make supervision safeGives specific advice about ways to help

your clientsCommunicates understanding

of the student roleUses theoretical conceptsReassures you that difficulties in learning

are to be expectedIs clear about his/her expectationsEncourages you to experiment using

different approaches with clientsAllows you to work independentlyGives you sufficient guidanceProvides specific feedback on your workStructures your supervision meetingsAcknowledges areas in which you

are capableConsiders your current learning needs

in making assignmentsMakes connection between theory

and practiceExplains why an intervention did

or did not workModels good social work skillsCommunicates empathy with

your role as studentProblem solves any difficulties in

your student-Held relationshipHelps you develop greater self-awarenessHelps you identify underlying themes

in what client does/saysRelates your work to your learning contractSuggests a more complex way to

understand your clientsProvides constructive criticism of your work .228Assigns cases that are neither

too difficult nor too easy for youHelps you anticipate potential problem

situations with clientsHelps you learn ways to talk with clients

about your relationships with them

4.161

.021

.517

.098

.050

4.50

4.55

4.35

.827

.686

1.04

4.00 1.49

4.834.66

4.66

4.67

.389

.651

.492

1.1275.874

2.527.818

.145

.0492.6315.430

.412

.276

.186

4.606

10.694.355

.297

.022

.112

.373

.706

.826

.115

.027

.526

.603

.670

.051

.003

.556

4.053.40

3.953.85

4.454.804.204.253.80

4.25

4.40

3.45

3.454.70

1.101.70

1.611.35

.887

.5231.111.021.40

1.07

1.10

1.57

1.87.923

4.584.41

4.504.50

4.334.834.754.833.83

4.58

4.41

4.35

4.674.75

.792

.669

.798

.904

.887

.577

.622

.3891.59

.793

.792

.779

.651

.452

.651

.072

.920

3.818.110

2.524.228

2.816

2.105

3.867

.790

.345

.060

.742

.123

.637

.104

.157

.059

3.053.90

4.104.25

4.354.30

4.35

4.40

3.75

2.191.41

1.211.02

1.18.801

1.04

1.14

1.65

2.834.50

4.794.45

4.584.58

4.75

4.67

4.58

2.29.797

.622

.793

.669

.669

.622

.651

.669


small sample size, and the volunteer nature ofthese motivated participants cautions againstgeneralization of the findings. The use of alarger non-convenience sample would provideuseful information about the extent to which thecontent and focus of this training might assista broader range of field instructors. The studyincluded no measure of field instructors' actualsupervisory performance, relying on students'level of expressed satisfaction with their fieldinstructors' behaviors. The addition of an ob-jective measure of field instructor performancewould strengthen the study.

Due to the small sample size, power was aconcern for the data analysis. In order to achievesufficient power, p<.05 was used as the sig-nificance level for all analyses. Several authorssuggest that it is important to balance Type Iand Type II errors, and that in exploratory, hy-pothesis-generating studies with small samplessizes, the use of p<.05 is appropriate withoutcorrection for the number of tests (Black, 1999;DeVaus, 2002; Lipsey, 1998). While, the use ofmultiple t tests increases the risk of Type I errorand ideally, either multivariate analyses (e.g.,MANOVA) or a data reduction strategy (e.g.,principle components analysis) would havebeen used to reduce the number of analysesconducted, such analyses would not havebeen appropriate with the current sample size.(Because the Bonferroni correction is overlyconservative [Stevens, 2002] and our goal was

to maintain sufficient power, it was not usedin this study.) Therefore, all results should beinterpreted with caution, and findings shouldbe replicated. However, these findings are in-dicative of areas that are promising for futureinterventions and evaluations.

The low level of interrater reliability forthe case vignettes limits the reliability of theseresults. In addition, problems with these dataillustrate the difficulty in establishing equiva-lent vignettes. The study's use of a crossoverdesign, however, was helpful. If such a designhad not been used, and all field instructors hadbeen given Vignette B as a pretest and VignetteA as a posttest, for example, the results couldhave been misinterpreted as an increase inknowledge. Interestingly, the findings fromthis part of the study suggest the difficulty inidentifying the gradual changes that occur inthe clinical work of advanced MSW students.The advanced student described in Vignette Bwas misidentified as a foundation student by89.5% of field instructors. This error may bedue to a lack of clarity in the vignette. How-ever, the misidentification is also consistentwith the learning principle (Saari, 1989) thatgross distinctions are understood first (e.g.,beginning students can be distinguished fromexperts), while subtleties and nuanced distinc-tions require additional time and experience.Field instructors, therefore, may require moreexperience and practice to be able to identify

TABLE 3. Comparison of Length andControl and Intervontion Group

Group

ControlIntervention

Requency

Length

M

2.132.02

of Supervision

in Hours

SD

.24

.31

Sessions Between

Frequency

M

1.231.27

per Week

SD

.04

.13

SUPERVISING STUDENTS DEVELOPMENTALLY 3 0 1

more advanced levels of a skill, for example,those illustrated by the student in VignetteB. This finding suggests the need for greateremphasis onhelping Held instructors recognizewhich changes, new or incremental, are likely tooccur in cognitive and behavioral skills amongadvanced students.

Implications for Fieid Instructor

Training

Similar to other studies that examine stu-dent satisfaction (Fortune & Abramson, 1993;Fortune et al., 1985; Kadushin, 1992; Strozieret al., 2000), students in this study expressedan overall high level of satisfaction with theirfield instructors as seen in the mean satisfactionscores in Table 2. This high level of satisfactionserves to highlight areas in which significantdifferences in student satisfaction levels werefound. Students of trained field instructorswere significantly more satisfied than studentsof untrained field instructors in several areasexplicitly covered by the seminar: supportingtheir work at the agency, providing specificfeedback on their work, using theoretical con-cepts when discussing clients or situations, andexplaining the reasons why an intervention thestudent used did or did not work.

It is important to note that student sat-isfaction with field instructors' educationalstrategies is not a measure of instructors' actualperformance, despite its frequent use as anoutcome measure in studies of student learning(Fortune et al., 2001). Its utility in this study,however, is based on using student satisfactionas a way to measure whether teaching fieldinstructors' specific supervisory skills could bedetected by their students and make a positivedifference to them. The finding that items of

difference in students' level of satisfaction wereskills explicitly emphasized in the seminar of-fers some support for the idea that trained fieldinstructors learned and implemented seminarcontent and that students found these supervi-sory behaviors to be helpful in their learning.

In their evaluation of the seminar, alltrained field instructors identified ways theywere immediately applying information andskills they learned; this self-report is consistentwith student evaluations. The primary area ofdifference between the trained and untrainedfield instructors that was found in this studyis that field instructors who received trainingwere valued by their students for providingconceptually-based, specific feedback. Oneparticular type of feedback that emerged asimportant was field instructors' provision ofa rationale for the effectiveness of students'interventions with clients. The utility of thistype of feedback was stressed during the semi-nar because it offers students opportunities toincrease their conceptual understanding andbehavioral skills. Conceptually, providing arationale for why students' interventions didor did not work helps students develop a morecomplex and differentiated understanding ofthe helping process (Saari, 1989), for example,why clarification worked well in response to cer-tain client statements, while affective empathywas more effective at another time. As studentsappreciate and understand the complexity ofthehelping process, they are better able to chooseappropriate interventions.

Because of the innovative and exploratorynature of this study, supervisory behaviorsdemonstrated by trained Held instructors thathad a signiHcance value of p < .10 were of interest(Black, 1999; DeVaus, 2002; Lipsey, 1998). Four


areas of difference had p values between .05and .10 and thus appear promising for futureresearch. Students of trained Held instructorsexpressed greater satisfaction with the extentto which their field instructors communicatedempathy with their role asa student, made con-nections between theory and practice, helpedthem identify underlying themes in client mate-rial, and helped them learn to talk with clientsabout the client-worker relationship (see Table2). Three of these areas are of particular inter-est. First, the ability of field instructors to assiststudents in identifying underlying themes inclient material is an important step in helpingstudents move from a focus on the concrete(the specific facts of the client's situation) to thesymbolic (the meaning underlying these facts).The seminar emphasized the role of the fieldinstructor in facilitating this process, consistentwith Saari's (1989) statement that the student's"capacity to utilize symbols is only developedout of an interpersonal sharing of perceptions"(p. 40). Second, in helping students learn howto discuss the client-worker relationship withtheir clients, field instructors are facilitatingstudents' ability to see their work in relationalterms, a significant cognitive shift from beingprimarily self or client focused (Ralph, 1980).Students are expected to be developmentallyready for these skills in their advanced year;however, the study's small sample size madeit impossible to compare field instructors ofadvanced versus foundation students. Third,students' perception of the supervisoryrelationship as supportive and empathic isimportant because empathic understanding,support, trust, and acceptance are crucial foreffective supervision (Muse-Burke, Ladany, &Deck, 2001; Rich, 1993; Stoltenberg et al., 1998).

Given the importance placed on the aboveskills in the literature on student development,determining whether field instructors can fa-cilitate student learning in these areas throughspecific training suggests a promising area forfuture research.

There were many areas in which no sig-nificant differences were reported betweenstudents of trained versus untrained field in-structors. Students of field instructors in bothgroups reported similar levels of satisfactionwith the supervisory environment includingthe ability of their field instructors to providesafety, structure, reassurance, clear expecta-tions, and understanding of the student role.There were no significant differences betweenstudents' satisfaction with field instructors inboth groups in encouraging experimentation,allowing students to work independently,and helping to solve difficulties in the stu-dent-Held instructor relationship. Students ofHeld instructors in both groups also reportedsimilar levels of satisfaction with a numberof supervisory methods that field instructorsused, including modeling social work skills,providing guidance, making appropriate caseassignments, relating students' work to theirlearning contracts, anticipating potentialproblems with clients, and suggesting morecomplex ways to understand clients. TheseHndings suggest that students were similar intheir satisfaction with their Held instructors'performance in many areas. Because several ofthese supervisory skills were included in theseminar (e.g., the uses of structure, when andwhy to allow students greater independence,modeling problem solving in the student-Heldinstructor relationship), replication of this studywith a larger sample could help determine


which supervisory skills need to be explicitlyemphasized with new field instructors.

Field instructors completing the seminarrated the content as very pertinent to theirteaching role and reported immediately apply-ing the material. The enthusiasm with whichparticipants shared experiences with eachother suggests that the seminar served the ad-ditional purpose of normalizing the questions,doubts, and fears associated with becoming aHeld instructor (Urdang, 1999). Consistent withother studies, field instructors preferred teach-ing methods such as small-group discussionsthat reflect adult learning models (McChesney& Euster, 2000). The seminar provided fieldinstructors with university support for theirnew role by addressing their learning needsand awarding them Continuing EducationUnits for their participation.

Conclusion

Abramson and Fortune (1990) concludedfrom an earlier study that future Held instructortraining should include ways to help Held in-structors learn to provide speciHc, conceptuallybased feedback and structure students' experi-ences to meet their learning needs. By includinginformation on how Held instructors can modifytheir supervisory approach depending on theirstudent's developmental needs, this seminarseems to have taken a step toward addressingthis gap. This study, by testing the utility of abrief seminar to train new field instructors inmodels of MSW student development, addsto the literature recommending training ineducational theories and methods for Heldinstructors. While methodological problemsarose with the vignettes used to assess Heldinstructors' knowledge of the seminar content.

data evaluating the impact of the seminar onstudent satisfaction supported the positiveeffect of the training on several importantsupervisory behaviors. Additional models ofHeld instructor training need to be developedand empirically tested so that the most relevanteducational skills needed by new Held instruc-tors can be emphasized.

Field instructors play a critical role insocial work education. Although the role ofpractitioner is helpful, it is insufHcient toprepare Held instructors to educate and as-sess students (Caspi & Reid, 2002; Hawkins& Shohet, 2000; Kadushin & Harkness, 2002).The counseling profession is establishingstandards to credential clinical supervisors inorder to assure their competency (Getz, 1999).Britain has developed a nationally recognizedcredential for practice teachers (field instruc-tors) that involves 150 hours of training, fol-lowed by extensive evaluation of their skills inteaching, monitoring, and assessing students(Rogers, 1996). Research continues to build,which supports the necessity of training newHeld instructors in the educational aspects oftheir role. If social work education programsin the United States are to progress towardrecognizing, supporting, and enhancing thevital educational role of Held instructors, weneed empirically tested training models andfurther evidence that helping Held instructorsdevelop skills as educators makes a differencefor our students.

References

Abramson, J. S., & Fortune, A. E. (1990). Improving

Held instruction: An evaluation of a seminar

for new Held instructors, /ourna/ of Social Work

Education, 26, 273-286.


Armour, M. P., Bain, B., & Rubio, R. (2004). An

evaluation study of diversity training for

Held instructors: A collaborative approach

to enhancing cultural competence. Journal

of Social Work Etiucation, 40,27-38.

Black, T. R. (1999). Doing quantitative research in the

social sciences: An integrated approach to research

design, measurement and statistics. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Borders, L. D. (1992). Learning to think like a super-

visor. The Clinical Supervisor, 10,135-148.

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

vision in social work. New York: Columbia

University Press.

Deal, K. H. (2000). The usefulness of develop-

mental stage models for clinical social work

students: An exploratory study. The Clinical

Supervisor, 19(1), 1-19.

Deal, K. H. (2002). Modifying Held instructors'

supervisory approach using stage models

of student development. Journal of Teaching

in Social Work, 22(3/4), 121-137.

DeVaus, D. (2002). Analyzing social science data: 50

key problems in data analysis. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Doueck, H. J., & Kasper, B. (1990). Teaching practice

evaluation to Held instructors: A compara-

tive study. Journal of Teaching in Social Work,

4,105-125.

Ellison, M. 1. (1994). Critical Held instructor be-

haviors: Student and Held instructor views.

Arete, 18,12-20.

Fortune, A. E., & Abramson, J. S. (1993). Predictors

of satisfaction with Held practicum among

social work students. The Clinical Supervisor,

11,95-110.

Fortune, A. E., Feathers, C. E., Rook, S. R., Scri-

menti, R. M., Smollen, P., Stemerman, B., &

Tucker, E. L. (1985). Student satisfaction with

Held placement. Journal of Social Work Educa-

tion, 23,92-104.

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

(2001). Student learning processes in Held

education: Relationship of learning activities

to quality of field instruction, satisfaction, and

performance among MSW students. Journal

of Social Work Education, 37,111-126.

Friedman, D., & Kaslow, N. J. (1986). The develop-

ment of professional identity in psychothera-

pists: Six stages in the supervision process.

The Clinical Supervisor, 4,29-49.

Getz, H. G. (1999). Assessment of clinical super-

visor competencies. Journal of Counseling and

Development, 77, 491-497.

Hawkins, P., & Shohet, R. (2000). Supervision in

the helping professions (2nded.). Philadelphia:

Open University Press.

Holman, S. L., & Freed, P. (1987). Learning social

work practice: A taxonomy. The Clinical Su-

pervisor, 5,3-21.

Kadushin, A. (1992). Social work supervision: An up-

dated survey. The Clinical Supervisor, 10,9-27.

Kadushin, A., & Harkness, D. (2002). Supervision

in social work (4th ed.). New York: Columbia

University Press.

Knight, C. (1996). A study of MSW and BSW stu-

dents' perceptions of their field instructors.

Journal of Social Work Education, 32,399-414.

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

Held instructor relationship: BSW and MSW

students' views. Journal of Teaching in Social

Work, 20,173-201.

Lacerte, J., & Ray, J. (1991). Recognizing the educa-

tional contributions of Held instructors. In D.

Schneck, B. Grossman, & U. Glassman (Eds.),

Field education in social work: Contemporary

issues and trends (pp. 217-225). Dubuque, I A:

Kendall/Hunt.


Lazar, A., & Eisikovits, Z. (1997). Social work

students' preferences regarding supervisory

styles and supervisor's behavior. The Clinical

Supervisor, 16,25-37.

Lipsey, M. W. (1998). Design sensitivity: Statistical

power for applied experimental research.

In L. Bickman & D. J. Rog (Eds.), Handbook

of applied social research methods (pp. 39-68).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

McChesney, M., & Euster, G. L. (2000). Evaluation

of an active learning teaching method for

field instructor training. Journal of Teaching

in Social Work, 20,201-215.

Muse-Burke, J. L., Ladany, N., & Deck, M. D. (2001).

The supervisory relationship. In L. J. Bradley

& N. Ladany (Eds.), Counselor supervision:

Principles, process, and practice (pp. 28-62).

Philadelphia: Brunner-Routledge.

Platt, S. (1993). The process of leaming in clinical so-

cial workstudents (Doctoral dissertation,Smith

College School for Social Work, 1992). Disserta-

tion Abstracts International, 53(08), 2987

Ralph,N.B.(1980).Leamingpsychotherapy:Adevel-

opmental perspective. Psychiatry, 43,243-250.

Raschick, M., Maypole, D. E., & Day, P. A. (1998).

Improving field education through Kolb

learning theory. Journal of Social Work Educa-

tion, 34, 31-42.

Raskin, M. S. (1983). A Delphi study in field edu-

cation: Identification of issues and research

priorities by experts. Arete, 8,38-48.

Raskin, M. S. (1994). The Delphi study in field

instruction revisited: Expert consensus on

issues and research priorities. Journal of Social

Work Education, 30,75-89.

Reardon, K. M. (1988). The effects of learning a

model of clinical learning on supervisory

behavior. Dissertation Abstracts International,

48(07), 1888. (University Microfilms No.

AAC 8721977).

Rich, P. (1993). The form, function, and content

of clinical supervision: An integrated model.

The Clinical Supervisor, 11,137-178.

Rogers, G. (1996). Training field instructors Brit-

ish style. Journal of Social Work Education, 32,

265-276.

Rogers, G., & McDonald, L. (1992). Thinking

critically: An approach to field instructor

training. Journal of Social Work Education, 28,

166-177

Saari, C. (1989). The process of learning in clini-

cal social work. Smith College Studies in Social

Work, 60, 35-49.

Stevens, J. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics

for the social sciences (4th ed.). Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Stoltenberg, C. D., McNeill, B. W., & Delworth,

U. (1998). IDM Supervision: An integrated

developmental model for supervising counsel-

ors and therapists. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Strozier, A. L., Barnett-Queen, T., & Bennett, C.

K. (2000). Supervision: Critical process and

outcome variables. The Clinical Supervisor,

19, 21-39.

Urdang, E. (1999). Becoming a field instructor: A

key experience in professional development.

The Clinical Supervisor, 18, 85-103.

Weber, R. P. (1985). Basic content analysis. Beverly

Hills, CA: Sage.


Accepted: 12/04

Kathleen Holtz Deal is assistant professor, School ofSocial Work, University of Maryland, Baltimore.Jennifer A. Clements is assistant professor. Department of Social Work and Gerontology, Shippens-burg University.

The authors thank Donna Harrington, associate professor at University of Maryland, Baltimore, forher valuable suggestions on this manuscript.

Address correspondence to Kathleen Holtz Deal, University of Maryland School of Social Work, 525

West Redwood Street, Baltimore, MD 21201; e-mail: [email protected].

BUILDING LEADERS INS0CIALWORK EDUCATION

Pathways to SmcessA TWO-DAY SEMINAR PBSSENTED BYTHE COUNCIL ON SOCIAL WORK EDUCATIONChose a date and location convenient for you!

^ February 3-4, 2007Francis Marion HotelCharleston, South Carolina / \

The Charleston Seminar will include Site Visitor^Training on Friday, February^, 2007. It will alsoindude the Gero-Ed Forum, February 2-4, 2007 '(separate registration required).

* February 10-11, 2007Phoenix Marriott MesaMesa, Arizona

The Phoenix Seminar will indude Site VisitorTraining on Friday, February 9i 2007.

Important Dates•May 3, 2006• September 8, 2006• Sqitember 15, 2006• October 13, 2006• January 5, 2007•January 26, 2007

to RememberCall for Proposals OpensRegistration OpensCall for Proposals DeadlineProposal Notifications IssuedEarly-Bird Registration DeadlinePre-R^trat ion Deadline

Call for ProposalsCSWE is seeking proposals on the subjea of leader-ship development for presentation at either theCharleston or Phoenix meetings.

CSWE particularly encourages proposals that willprovide tangible learning experiences to meetingparticipants who are considering a leadership rolewithin the social work program, in other areas oftheuniversity, or beyond the academic setting. Theseinclude best praaices, case studies, and hands-onworkshop formats. All proposals will be reviewed bya group of volunteers from CSWE's Council onLeadership Devdopment and Council on Conferencesand Faculty Development.

All proposals should be submitted online. No papersubmissions will be accepted. For fiinherinformation and submission guidelines,including specific topic areas, please visit theCSWE Web site at www.cswe.org.

CouNCii ON SociAi. WORK EDUCATION

www.cswe.org • [email protected]

Documents

SUPERVISING STUDENTS DEVELOPMENTALLY: EVALUATING A … · teered, 47 retained an interest in the study when subsequently contacted by telephone. An inter-vention group was composed