SOCW 6520 Assignment 1: Week 1 Blog

SOCW6520wk1resource1.pdf

Home >Social Science homework help >SOCW 6520 Assignment 1: Week 1 Blog

FiELD EDUCATION AS THE SIGNATURE PEDAGOGY OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION

Julianne Wayne University of Connecticut

Marion Bogo University of Toronto

Miriam Raskin George iVIason University

In its EPAS, CSWE (2008) identifies field education as the signature pedagogy (Shulman, 2005b) of social work education. This article analyzes the field edu- cation-signature pedagogy fit. It finds congruence in selected organizational arrangements that are pervasive and routine, and disparities with respect to expectations about public student performance, peer accountability, the view of adaptive anxiety, and accountable talk. This article asserts that practicum effec- tiveness could be enhanced by a broader application of Shulman's criteria through a greater emphasis on group structures for learning/teaching in the ñeld.

THE 2008 EDUCATIONAL POLICY a n d Accreditation

Standards of the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) identifies ñeld education as the signature pedagogy of the social work profession. "Signature pedagogy is a central form of instruction and learning to socialize students to perform the role of practitioner— it contains pedagogical norms with which to connect and integrate theory and practice" (CSWE, 2008, p. 8). The term was tirst coined by Lee Shulman (2005b), who explains it as characteristic forms of teaching and learning used in a particular profession. These forms of

teaching serve the purpose of preparing stu- dents in the profession's fundamental ways of thinking, performing, and acting with integri- ty. The CSWE recognition of field education as the profession's signature pedagogy arguably elevates its importance and status in social work education. However, a close examina- tion of Shulman's (2005a, 2005b, 2005c) crite- ria reveals areas of congruence and disparity between the way he defines signature peda- gogy and the implementation of field educa- tion in social work education. This article examines his criteria of pervasive and routine

3 2 8 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION

activities, public student performance, peer

accountability, adaptive anxiety, and account-

able talk. It argues that the use of signature

pedagogy in its fullest sense could strengthen

the effectiveness of social work education.

Signature Pedagogy in Reiated Professions

In the past decade, the Carnegie Foundation's Preparation for the Professions Program, has provided 2- and 3-year studies of the art and science of education in five professions: med- icine (Whitcomb & Nutter, 2002), law (Sullivan, Colby, Wegner, Bond, & Shulman, 2007), nursing (Benner, Sutphen, Leonard, & Day, 2010), engineering (Sheppard, Macatan- gay, Colby, & Sullivan, 2008), and the clergy (Foster, Dahill, Golemon, & Wang, 2005a, 2005b). These studies identified the ways in which preparation builds professional under- standing, skills, and integrity so that gradu- ates are prepared to meet their responsibility to society (Shulman, 2005b). Shulman's dis- cussion of signature pedagogy reflects obser- vations drawn from these studies.

Each study drew data from direct obser- vation of the actual teaching and learning experiences of students, focus groups, and intensive interviews with faculty members and students. In addition, the researchers reviewed teaching materials and evaluation methods. Numerous schools participated in the study of each profession, supporting the conclusion that signature pedagogies are not unique to individual educational programs. Rather they are replicated throughout pro- grams in each profession and across local and regional boundaries.

A detailed review of these studies is beyond the scope of this arficle. However, it is noteworthy that a systematic process of research on teaching and learning practices was undertaken to identify distinctive educa- tional pedagogies. Furthermore, in their analysis these educafion researchers critically examined both the strengths and limitafions of the dominant pedagogical practices in their particular profession. The application of sig- nature pedagogy to law, medicine, the clergy, and nursing, the four professions that inter- face with social work, is illuminated here.

In the study of legal education, the Socratic case-dialogue method of teaching is highlighted, especially in the first year. This approach results in students learning to "think like a lawyer" (Sullivan et al., 2007, p. 5), despite their wide-ranging academic and social backgrounds. The authors conclude that the case-dialogue method develops stu- dents' analyüc capacity to understand legal processes, to see both sides of legal argu- ments, to sift through facts and precedents, to use precise language, and to imderstand the applications and conflicts of legal rules (Sullivan et al., 2007). These legal education researchers also note what is not taught, or not given emphasis: how to use legal thinking in the actual practice of law, and the develop- ment and integration of ethical and social skills with legal analytic thinking. They rec- ommend an integrated curriculum through- out the years of the program that brings together formal knowledge of legal doctrine and analysis; the experience of practicing law with responsibility for clients; and developing students' identity, values, and dispositions as

FIELD EDUCATION AS THE SIGNATURE PEDAGOGY 329

lawyers. Legal educators need to communi- cate with each other, work coUaborafively, and commit to a common purpose of preparing legal professionals to change curriculum and pedagogical practices (Sullivan et al,, 2007),

In a review of pedagogies for preparing medical practitioners, Whitcomb and Nutter (2002) note the introduction of problem-based learning, technology-based teaching pro- grams, and the use of simulated patients. The fundamental role played by apprenficeship in clinical educafion is underscored: "Medical students and doctors in training learn how to practice medicine by observing skilled clini- cians caring for patients and by parficipating in the care of patients under the supervision of skilled clinician teachers" (Whitcomb & Nut- ter, 2002, p, 25). Shulman (2005b) elaborates on the components of medical rounds that lead to its designafion as the signature peda- gogy of medicine. In their review of contem- porary challenges to preparation, Whitcomb and Nutter (2002) note that trairung takes place in major teaching hospitals (largely pro- viding tertiary care), which limits students' experience with the common health condi- tions they will encounter in community prac- tice. They recommend different settings for different stages in medical students' develop- ment and the need to develop and support a cadre of clinical educators.

In the study of preparing clergy, the researchers idenfified that across situafions such as classes, field educafion, community worship, and spiritual direction there are com- mon intenfions that guide a wide range of teaching pracfices (Foster et al., 2005b). These intenfions, referred to as a signature pedagog-

ical framework, are interpretaüon of texts, sit- uafions, and relafionships; spiritual and voca- fional formation; work to heighten conscious- ness of historical and contemporary contexts; and the culfivation of performance and ways of thinking in clerical roles. The importance of reflective seminary educators who sustain, model, and coach students is noted. The for- mation of professional idenfity is emphasized as well as engagement in a community of teaching and learning practice. Recommenda- tions for improving clerical education relate to insfitutional capacity to reflect on and engage in dialogue for educational improvement, internal consistency in the program, and cur- ricular balance beyond divisions of theory (class) and practice (field) to view "all forms of seminary learning as inherently involved in the cultivation of clergy pracfice" (Foster et al,, 2005b, p, 10).

A review of the nursing literature in the Carnegie study included a brief summary report (Benner & Sutphen, 2009) and an article comparing nursing and clerical education (Benner & Sutphen, 2007). The literature appears to offer a multifaceted description of the signature pedagogy of nursing education. Some interesting commentary in editorials in nursing education journals is also instructive because all pieces argue for multiple signature pedagogies based on teaching methods or philosophical perspecfives (Bargagliotti, 2006; Ironside, 2006), For example, the Carnegie study researchers report a set of signature pedagogies in nursing that includes coaching, simulation, role-modeling, postconferences, preclinical preparation, postclinical confer- ences, and an articulation of experiential

3 3 0 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION

learning (Benner & Sutphen, 2009). In a spirit- ed guest editorial. Ironside (2006) argues for multipedagogical approaches that include conventional competency or outcomes-based education along with teaching approaches based on feminist and critical social theories, phenomenology, and postmodern discourses because the latter approaches refiect the com- plex nature of nursing practice in ever- evolving contexts. She stresses the need for "a robust evidence base on which to base current and future pedagogical decisions" (p. 52) and the importance of preparing and valuing nursing education researchers able to conduct multiparadigmatic studies.

In this brief review of the study of signa- ture pedagogy in related professions, it appears that educators are identifying not only one central approach to preparing stu- dents, signature pedagogy, but also additional teaching methods, philosophical perspectives, and contextual issues to be addressed in con- tinuous processes of pedagogical, curricular, and institutional evolution.

Pedagogy in Sociai Worit Fieid Education

Field education was originally based on the belief that students learn to practice the pro- fession through an apprenticeship supervised by expert practitioners (George, 1982; Wijn- berg & Schwartz, 1977). Contributions from adult learning theory (Knowles, 1980) and Kolb's model of experiential learning (Kolb, 1984) provide the theoretical underpinnings for field education. Specifically, students learn to practice the profession through active involvement with "real" experiences in which they perform a service or helping role, and

opportunities are provided for study of their practice. Ideally, practice is studied through two interlinked processes. One is subjective reflection about students' understanding and reactions to the practice situation (Bogo & Vayda, 1998). The second process involves conceptualization of the practice situation and interventions, through making connections to theory, providing conceptual frameworks, and supplying explanations from the field instructor (Fortune, McCarthy, & Abramson, 2001; Knight, 2001). Insights gleaned from these processes are then used to plan interven- tions for subsequent practice.

Traditionally, the one-to-one field instruc- tor and student educational or supervisory conference is the structure for enacting a wide range of pedagogical techniques to ground this view of student learning, none of which are practiced universally. Students' "real" practice can be accessed directly by observing, listening to audiotapes, or watching video- tapes and indirectly through reading stu- dents' process or summary reports and logs, or listening to their verbal reports. Students can also observe and discuss the practice of others. Reflection, conceptualization and inte- gration of theory and practice, and future planning occur largely through field instruc- tors and students' review and discussion of students' practice material and feedback about the students' performance. The field instructor-student relationship is the context for learning, and the relationship is expected to be both supportive and challenging (Fortune et al., 2001; Knight, 2000). A rich edu- cational and empirical literature on field edu- cation explicates pedagogical processes, tech- niques, and tasks for field instructors (Bogo,

FIELD EDUCATION AS THE SIGNATURE PEDAGOGY 3 3 1

2005; Bogo & Vayda, 1998; Caspi & Reid, 2002;

Fortune et al., 2001; Hendricks, Finch, &

Franks, 2005; Raskin, 1989; Wayne & Cohen,

2001). These are yet to be systematically incor-

porated in all students' learning experiences

in field education.

Surprisingly, despite the importance of

field educafion pedagogy and the existence of a

substantial knowledge base, the EPAS offers no

pedagogical standards related to supervisory

structure, format, or learning/teaching process-

es. It limits its attenfion to required hours in the

field and the qualifications of field instructors.

Shulman's (2005a, 2005b) criteria of a signature

pedagogy extend well beyond these standards.

The following section analyzes Shulman's crite-

ria in the context of social work educafion and

idenfifies areas for further deUberafion and

study by social work educators.

Signature Pedagogy in tiie EPAS:

Shuiman's Criteria Appiied to

Fieid Education

" . . . Signature pedagogies are both pervasive

and routine. . . . From class to class, topic to

topic, teacher to teacher, assignment to assign-

ment, the routine of pedagogical practice cush-

ions the burdens of higher learning. Habit

makes novelty tolerable and surprise suffer-

able" (Shulman, 2005b, p. 56). This criterion

refers to a shared view of how to best impart

knowledge.

Certain aspects of field education are per-

vasive throughout. Students are assigned to

practice settings, are required to have a field

instructor with a social work degree who will

offer supervision of their field experiences,

and are spending a prescribed minimum num-

ber of hours in the field. However, beyond

those factors, there is great variafion from set-

ting to setting and program to program.

What Shulman (2005c) says about teacher

education could well apply to social work

education. "Every candidate is assigned to a

different place; there is enormous uncertainty

about what they're going to see, what they're

going to do, and how their own learning and

performance will be monitored and guided."

Further, he reflects, "Can you tell me that if

you go to five different student teaching

placements in the same morning in five differ-

ent schools, you can predict what the student

teacher is going to be doing in each of those

places?" His answer to his own quesfioh is

"no." "So the first problem that I see in teacher

education is the incredible uncertainty of the

pedagogical models of pracfice" (Shulman,

2005c, p. 16).

Neither are social work field educafion

experiences filled with across-the-board edu-

cational routines that foster social work

"habits" or "rituals." Field instructors do not

have a "shared view of how to best impart

knowledge." They vary in their use of written

materials and supervisory formats and sched-

ules. Content varies in the balance between

theorefical and practical emphases and in the

analyses of past actions versus planning

future strategies (Wayne, 1988; Wayne, Bogo,

& Raskin, 2006). There is wide variafion in the

nature of student assignments. Some students

are assigned to shadow or observe seasoned

practitioners, while others are sent into solo

practice experiences from the start (Fortune &

Kaye, 2002; Homonoff, 2008; Mumm, 2006).

The lack of consistency is notable.

"Another feature of signature pedagogies

is that they nearly always entail public

3 3 2 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION

student performance" (Shulman, 2005b, p. 57). Signature pedagogies "remov[e] the cloak of invisibility" (Shulman 2005a, p. 22) for students.

Students engaged in tield education are not entirely invisible. All students have assigned roles involving other people and are held accountable for their work. The degree of their accountability varies with the effective- ness of agency and school monitoring prac- tices. Though there is a degree of visibility of students' performances, there is not—^because of the breadth of social work practice—and carmot be equal public visibility of all students' performances. Although macro and to a lesser degree group work practice offer opportunities for visibility, most practice with individual clients takes place privately. For the most part, field instructors rely on either written or oral reports from students about what occurred in their meetings with clients (Maidment, 2000; Mumm, 2006; Rogers & McDonald, 1995). Many arguments support the development of structures for greater direct observation of practice. Students may be subjective in their perceptions of what transpired; may be unaware of their own nonverbal behavior, such as tone of voice or body language; have faulty recall of their experience; neglect to include moments with clients that they regard as insignificant; or may offer a skewed report of their experience to gain approval. As Gambrill (2001) noted, to assess students' ability to per- form the core functions of the profession effec- tively, instructors must examine their interac- tions in practice situations.

Signature pedagogies expect students to be both active and interactive. "Students are accountable riot only to teachers, but also to

peers in their responses, arguments, commen- taries, and presentations of new data" (Shulman, 2005b, p. 57).

Accountability to peers is an important component of a law classroom and medical grand rounds. In social work field education, however, the student is responsible to the client system, field instructor, agency, and the school through the faculty liaison, but rarely are students accountable to other students through group structures in any form. Though not mandated by EPAS, BSW pro- grams usually have field seminars in which field assignments are discussed. These vary, however, in their degree of focus on the study of students' own practice and on assigned topics for the class, that is, between inductive versus deductive learning. In MSW education, many students go through their entire educa- tional program without any formal discussion with another student about any aspect of their field assignments. Though it may occur in some places, student-to-student accountabili- ty is not built into the fabric of social work field education. Currently, as noted earlier, the one-to-one student-field instructor relation- ship is in the forefront of field education, and field-related educational group structures are in the background. Shulman's (2005b) criteria would reverse this perspective. The current structure of field education contributes to the complications of developing this criterion. Most students are placed in settings in which they are the only social work student.

Students must experience "adaptive anxi- ety" (Shulman, 2005b, p. 57) as a necessary feature of learning in a signature pedagogy. "Uncertainty, visibility, and accountability inevitably raise the emotional stakes of the

FIELD EDUCATION AS THE SIGNATURE PEDAGOGY 333

pedagogical encounters" (Shulman, 2005b, p. 57).

According to Shulman (2005b), students, to learn, must be emofionally invested in their work and experience some anxiety. Most edu- cators would agree social work students bring anxiety into their field placement even without student-to-student accountability. Interest- ingly, social work field educators are concerned about reducing student anxiety (Gelman, 2004; Wayne & Cohen, 2001; Zosky, Unger, White, & Mills, 2003). Shulman (2005b) considers anxiety a mofivafing factor that stimulates students to work harder. In any case, social work students usually do experience anxiety. They are con- cerned about serving their clients well and about their own performance rating. Although social work students do not develop social work "habits" to deal with uncertainfies, they do have uncertainfies.

"Accountable talk is one feature of signa- ture pedagogies. The student must build on what somebody before has said; he or she must respond, must offer counterargument, new data, and cogent commentary" (Shul- man, 2005a, p. 22).

Rarely, if ever, are students informed about the need to offer accountable talk in their verbal participafion in class or field. Most teachers are happy to have a class in which there is lively discussion, without mon- itoring the relafionship of each student's com- ment to what was said by another student just before. The addition of such rigor adds a dimension to any discussion and is consistent with aspects of the EPAS standard that addresses crifical thinking (CSWE, 2008). In its explanation of critical thinking, the EPAS states that it "requires the synthesis and com-

municafion of relevant information" (p. 4). In this sense, student input of anecdotal material or far-reaching tangential thoughts does not meet any definifion of signature pedagogy. It is sometimes difficult to recognize that similar points are being discussed in different venues, if discussions in each are more scattered than focused. The parallel approaches of account- able talk in the classroom and the field could help students recognize the relatedness to each other of the content in each of these edu- cational arenas.

Applying Signature Pedagogy to

Sociai Woric Fieid Education

The latest EPAS idenfifies field educafion as social work's signature pedagogy. As dis- cussed earlier, Shulman's criteria of signature pedagogy include pervasive and routine edu- cational experiences, public student perform- ance, active and interactive processes with peers and teachers, adaptive anxiety, and accountable talk.

This article has identified areas in which social work field educafion meets and does not meet his criteria. Field education is perva- sive and routine in that it is required of all stu- dents for the same minimum number of hours (400 for BSW and 900 for MSW), and it must be supervised by a field instructor with a social work degree. Beyond these organiza- tional factors, social work field education con- tains few components of Shulman's (2005a, 2005b, 2005c) signature pedagogy.

The social work literature is replete with calls for modifications to field education as currently implemented in the face of the changing context of social work education (Jarman-Rohde, McFall, Kolar, & Strom, 1997;

3 3 4 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION

Lager & Robbins, 2004; Raskin, Wayne, & Bogo, 2008; Wayne et al., 2006), The introduc- tion of signature pedagogy into the social work education lexicon can serve as a stimu- lus and guide for change that would help the profession meet the challenges it faces. Shulman (2005a) recognizes that all signature pedagogies "must adapt to changes in the conditions of work and in society and to evolving norms of practice" (p, 23). He notes the phenomenon of "pedagogical inerfia"— that is, maintaining the status quo simply "because nothing deflects [a way of doing things into] . . . another direction" (p. 22), This arficle cites recommended changes to the sig- nature pedagogies of law, medicine, the cler- gy, and nursing. The criteria of signature ped- agogy could provide both impetus and direc- fion for more effecfive social work education.

This article has already discussed the inconsistency in students' field experiences. Though many pedagogical principles are widely used from setfing to setting, none are pervasive and routine. Ironically, the concept of signature pedagogy, including Shulman's requirement of consistency, is introduced in the EPAS (CSWE, 2008) at the same fime as the EPAS calls for differentiation among pro- grams. Programs are to identify their unique features based on their mission, goals, and context and the way they design the explicit and implicit curriculum. Despite the reduced call for standardization of social work pro- grams, there is merit in considering which, if any, pedagogical principles are worthy of becoming a universal component of social work educafion.

According to Shulman's criteria, a major modificafion of field educafion as currenfly

carried out would be the addition of sfudent- to-student accountability and greater student visibility of their field education performance. The most widely used one-to-one field educa- fion structure runs counter to this criterion. Since the inception of field education, the pri- mary arena for the study of students' practice has been the student-field instructor confer- ence, which provides no opportunity for student-to-student accountability and limits performance visibility. When the profession relied heavily on psychodynamic theory to inform direct practice (during the 1930s through 1960s), the one-to-one supervisory relationship itself was viewed as a critical component of the educational experience (Wijnberg & Schwartz, 1977), The parallel processes of supervision and pracfice often served as a model for how pracfice should be conducted. Our current reliance on this model of field instrucfion could well have its roots in those times.

Field education could incorporate Shul- man's (2005a, 2005b) criteria of student-to- student accountability, the addition of public student performance that removes the "cloak of invisibility," and the acfive interaction with students and peers through the greater use of educational group structures. The maxim "All of us are smarter than any of us" lends sup- port to the use of educafional group venues. The group process has the potenfial to foster greater in-depth crifical thinking and integra- tion of theory, knowledge, and practice than what can usually result from the student-field instructor exchange alone. Shulman (2005a) describes a medical grand rounds experience and notes, "Everyone in the system was learn- ing. In fact, an assistant professor ran the ses-

FIELD EDUCATION AS THE SIGNATURE PEDAGOGY 335

sion, with full professors leaming alongside third-year clerks" (p. 20).

Field seminars, group supervision, or what Teigiser (2009) terms opportunities for "collective learning" (p. 139) could emerge as major educational arenas for the study of each student's practice. Peer learning is a central, highly valued component of adult education theory and practice (Knowles, 1980). Expand- ing its use in social work field education would bring the additional benefit of provid- ing students with both the skills and mind-set to engage in peer evaluation and accountabil- ity. Accountability to peers remains a major characteristic of all professions.

As models of education in groups are implemented and studied, educators would build the knowledge base for social work's signature pedagogy. An example of a possible model would have the group meet weekly, with a varied format that could use sessions to focus entirely on a particular student's work or on a common denominator of practice issues that have emerged. The teachers/ supervisors would need to be highly skilled educators of practice. They would also need to be skillful in the use of group processes for educational purposes (Bogo, Globerman, & Sussman, 2004a, 2004b). Teigiser (2009) de- scribes a field education format that contains many of these elements, with groups organ- ized by geographic areas.

The field seminar could be considered part of field education, without granting addi- tional credits or requiring additional time. Each student would still have an on-site field instructor, who could be invited to participate in the field seminar. The seminar teacher and field instructor could work out the focus and

content of the seminar. Or group teaching could take place in learning centers with sev- eral students placed at a single site (Bogo & Globerman, 1995, 1999). Such organizational arrangements could facilitate the develop- ment of shared learning-teaching transactions between students and teachers.

The use of group structures taught by carefully selected teachers also addresses the concern about the uneven quality of field instruction. Most schools do not engage in a thorough screening of field instructors be- yond the required credentials. Few, if any, pro- grams require reference letters or conduct in- person interviews. Though field experiences have a powerful influence on a student's edu- cation, there is usually a less rigorous process for selecting field instructors than adjunct classroom teachers. Although field instructor training may be provided, it is often not mandatory and is not always sufficient to develop master teachers. There is something disquieting about leaving the profession's sig- nature pedagogy in the hands of an unevenly qualified cadre of volunteers. It should be taught by the best educators in the profession.

A pedagogical group structure taught by teachers who are known to meet the highest standards of education and practice would modify the nature of another labor-intensive and challenging area in social work education: the role of the faculty liaison. Faculty liaisons are responsible for monitoring the quality of each student's field experience, and to that end, they serve as educational consultants to each field instructor. If students learned from master teachers in a group context, on-site field instructors would no longer carry near total responsibility for educating students, and

3 3 6 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION

a share of resources currently allotted for

monitoring could be shifted to teaching.

The purpose of this article is to offer edu-

cational arguments for modificafions in field

education rather than to explore the pracfical

implications of what is being proposed. The

proposed changes in educational structures

could well require reallocation of resources in

insfitufional environments that offer greater

rewards for scholarship and grant writing

than for excellence in teaching. Some schools

in research universifies have responded by

creating non-tenure-track faculty positions

that permit faculty to direct energies to educa-

tion for practice without being penalized for

reduced scholarly producfivity. As discussed

previously, resources can be shifted from tra-

difional areas such as faculty liaison roles to

new ones such as the development of field

practice seminars taught by master teachers.

Social work educators have shown creafivity

in helping educational programs remain

responsive to ever-changing social and educa-

fional contexts. We remain hopeful that a com-

mitment to teaching effecfiveness will moti-

vate the continuation of the creativity we have

shown in the past.

Conciusion

It is common for students and alumni to state

that their best learning occurred in the field.

Labeling field educafion as the signature ped-

agogy of social work provides an opportunity

for educators to examine and analyze the

learning and teaching processes that lie behind

this widespread comment. A logical next step

is to implement and study teaching and learn-

ing processes that social work educators

would agree are disfinctive and recognizable

as unique to social work field educafion.

This arficle suggests an example of a

model of field instruction that incorporates

many of Shulman's criteria of signature peda-

gogy. It is hoped that further examination of

the subject will stimulate the development of

additional approaches that could enrich the

field experience of students and convert the

notion of field education as the profession's

signature pedagogy from an aspiration to a

reality.

References

Bargagliotti, L. A. (2006). Taking the risks of

eagles. Nursing Education Perspectives,

27(6), 294.

Benner, P, & Sutphen, M. (2007). Learning

across the professions: The clergy, a case

in point. Journal of Nursing Education,

46(3), 103-108.

Benner, P, «Si Sutphen, M. (2009). Study of nurs-

ing education. Stanford, CA: Carnegie

Foundation for the Advancement of

Teaching.

Benner, P., Sutphen, M., Leonard, V., & Day, L.

(2010). Educating nurses: A call for radical

transformation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass.

Bogo, M. (2005). Field instrucfion in social

work: A review of the research literature

1999-2005. Clinical Supervisor, 24(1/2),

163-193.

Bogo, M., & Globerman, J. (1995). Creafing

effective university-field partnerships:

An analysis of two inter-organization

models for field education. Journal of

Teaching in Social Work, 11(1/2), 177-192.

FIELD EDUCATION AS THE SIGNATURE PEDAGOGY 3 3 7

Bogo, M., & Globerman, J. (1999). Inter-

organizational relationships between

schools of social work and field agencies:

Testing a framework for analysis. Journal

of Social Work Education, 35, 265-274.

Bogo, M., Globerman, J., & Sussman, T.

(2004a). The field instructor as group

worker: Managing trust and competition

in group supervision. Journal of Social

Work Education, 40,13-26.

Bogo, M., Globerman, J., & Sussman, T.

(2004b). Field instructor competence in

group supervision: Students' views. Jour-

nal of Teaching in Social Work, 24(1/2),

199-216.

Bogo, M., & Vayda, E. (1998). The practice of

field instruction in social work: Theory and

process (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Colum-

bia University Press.

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

supervision in social work. New York, NY:

Columbia University Press.

Council on Social Work Education. (2008).

Educational policy and accreditation stan-

dards. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Fortune, A. E., & Kaye, L. (2002). Learning

opportunities in field practica: Identi-

fying skills and activities associated with

MSW students' self-evaluation of per-

formance and satisfaction. Clinical Super-

visor, 21, 5-28.

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

S. (2001). Student learning processes in

field education: Relationship of learning

activities to quality of field instruction,

satisfaction, and performance among

MSW students. Journal of Social Work

Education, 37,111-124.

Foster, C. R., Dahill, L., Golemon, L., & Wang,

B. (2005a). Educating clergy: Teaching prac-

tices and the pastoral imagination. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Foster, C. R., Dahill, L., Golemon, L., & Wang,

B. (2005b). Educating clergy: Teaching prac-

tices and the pastoral imagination. [Media

summary.] San Francisco, CA: Carnegie

Foundation for the Advancement of

Teaching

Gambrill, E. (2001). Evaluating the quality of

social work education: Options galore.

Journal of Social Work Education, 37,

418-429.

Gelman, C. R. (2004). Anxiety experienced by

foundation-year MSW students entering

field placement: Implications for admis-

sions, curriculum, and field education.

Journal of Social Work Education, 40, 39-54.

George, A. (1982). A history of social work

field instruction. In B. W. Sheafor & L. E.

Jenkins (Eds.), Quality field instruction in

social work (pp. 37-59). New York, NY:

Longman.

Hendricks, C. O., Finch, J. B., & Franks, C. L.

(2005). Learning to teach, teaching to learn.

Alexandria, VA: CSWE Press.

Homonoff, E. (2008). The heart of social work:

Best practitioners rise to challenges in

field instruction. Clinical Supervisor, 27(2),

135-169.

Ironside, P. (2006). Reforming doctoral curric-

ula in nursing: Creating multiparadig-

matic, multipedagogical researchers.

Journal of Nursing Education, 45(2), 51-52.

Jarman-Rohde, L., McFall, J., Kolar, P., &

Sti-om, G. (1997). The changing context of

social work practice: Implications and

3 3 8 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION

recommendafions for social work educa-

tors. Journal of Social Work Education, 33,

19-^6.

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

field instrucfion relationship: BSW and

MSW students' views. Journal of Teaching

in Social Work, 20(3/4), 173-201.

Knight, C. (2001). The process of field instruc-

fion: BSW and MSW students' views of

effecfive field supervision. Journal of Social

Work Education, 37, 357-379.

Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of

adult education. Chicago, IL: Associafion

Press/Follett.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Ex-

perience as the source of learning and devel-

opment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prenfice Hall.

Lager, P B., & Robbins, V. C. (2004). Field edu-

cation: Exploring the future, expanding

the vision. Journal of Social Work Education,

40, 3-11.

Maidment, J. (2000). Methods used to teach

social work students in the field: A

research report from New Zealand. Social

Work Education, 19,145-154.

Mumm, A. M. (2006). Teaching social work

students practice skills. Journal of Teaching

in Social Work, 26(3/4), 71-89.

Raskin, M. (Ed.). (1989). Empirical studies in

field instruction. New York, NY: Haworth

Press.

Raskin, M. S., Wayne, J., & Bogo, M. (2008).

Revisiting field educafion standards. Jour-

nal of Social Work Education, 44,173-188.

Rogers, G., & McDonald, P L. (1995).

Expedience over education: Teaching

methods used by field instructors. Clinical

Supervisor, 13(2), 41-65.

Sheppard, S. D., Macatangay, K., Colby, A., &

Sullivan, W. M. (2008). Educating engi-

neers: Designing for the future of the field.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Shulman, L. S. (2005a). Pedagogies of uncer-

tainty. Liberal Education, 91(2), 18-25.

Shulman, L. S. (2005b). Signature pedagogies

in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52-59.

Shulman, L. S. (2005c). The signature pedagogies

of the professions of law, medicine, engineer-

ing, and the clergy: Potential lessons for the

education of teachers. Irvine, CA: National

Research Council Center for Educafion.

Sullivan, W. M., Colby, A., Wegner, J. W.,

Bond, L., & Shulman, L. S. (2007). Educa-

ting lawyers: Preparation for the profession of

law. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Teigiser, K. (2009). Field note—New ap-

proaches to generalist field education.

Journal of Social Work Education, 45,

139-146.

Wayne, J. (1988). A comparison of beliefs

about student supervision between micro

and macro pracfifioners. Clinical Super-

visor, 6(3/4), 271-297.

Wayne, J., Bogo, M., & Raskin, M. (2006). Field

note—The need for radical change in field

educafion. Journal of Social Work Education,

42,161-169.

Wayne, J., & Cohen, C. S. (2001). Group work

education in the field. Alexandria, VA:

Council on Social Work Education.

Whitcomb, M. E., & Nutter, D. (2002). Learning

medicine in the 21st century: A background

paper commissioned in 2002 for Carnegie's

medical education study. Stanford, CA:

Carnegie Foundafion for the Advance-

ment of Teaching.

FIELD EDUCATION AS THE SIGNATURE PEDAGOGY 3 3 9

Wijnberg, M. H., & Schwartz, M. C. (1977). Zosky D. L., Unger, J. M., White, K,, & Mills,

Models of sfiident supervision: The ap- S. J, (2003), Non-tradifional and tradifion-

prenfice, growth, and role systems mod- al social work sfiidents: Percepfions of

els. Journal of Education for Social Work, field instructors. Journal of Teaching in

13(3), 107-113. Social Work, 23(3/4), 185-201.

Accepted: 1 0 / 0 9

Julianne Wayne is director of field education and associate professor at the University of Connecticut, Marion Bogo is professor at the University of Toronto, Miriam Rasifin is professor at George Mason University,

Address correspondence to Julianne Wayne, University of Connecticut, School of Social WorK 1798 Asylum Avenue, West Hartford, CT 06117; e-mail: julwayne@comcast,net.

content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.