2 Discussions - w9

danmelvanderson_i01c

IDENTIFYINGSTUDENTCOMPETENCIES.pdf

Home >Psychology homework help >2 Discussions - w9

IDENTIFYING STUDENT COMPETENCIES IN MACRO PRACTICE: ARTICULATING THE PRACTICE WISDOM OF FIELD INSTRUCTORS

Cheryi Regehr University of Toronto

Marion Bogo University of Toronto

Kirsten Donovan University of Toronto

Susan Anstice Community Care East York

April Lim University of Toronto

Although a growing Uterature examines competencies in clinical practice, com-

petencies of students in macro social work practice have received comparative-

ly liftle attention. A grounded-theory methodology was used to eUcit field

instructor views of student competencies in community, organization, and pol-

icy contexts. Competencies described by field instructors encompassed 2 broad

dimensions: meta competencies and procedural competencies. Meta competen-

cies included characteristics such as self-awareness, compassion, motivation,

and conunitment to social justice. Procedural competencies included project

management and presentation skuls, and the abüity to articulate and imple-

ment steps to attain goals. These identified competencies provide a basis for

development of a tool to assess student performance of competencies in macro

practice.

ALTHOUGH DETERMINING THE practice Compe-

tence of social work students has always con-

cerned social work educators, the current

CouncU on Social Work Education's (CSWE)

Educational PoUcy and Accreditation Stand-

ards (EPAS; CSWE, 2008) require more system-

atic approaches to obtaiiiing outcome data

about schools' success in meeting their objec-

tives. Obviously reUable and vaUd assessment

of students' learning and performance in the

field practicum constitutes an important com-

ponent of any evaluation strategy. It is there-

fore imperative that educators develop effec-

tive measures for evaluating student field

performance. The first step in this process is

identifying the competencies that are required

for eftective practice. Core competencies for

the foundation of practice articulated in the

EPAS for MSW programs are expected to

also prepare for advanced practice through

3 0 8 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION

"knowledge and practice behaviors specific to a concentration" (p. 3). In this regard macro practice is seen as one such concentration.

The scholarly literature with respect to the identification and evaluation of practice competencies has focused primarily on micro or clinical practice across disciplines including medicine (Farrell, 2005; Resnick, 1993), pas- toral care (Gordon & Mitchell, 2004), respira- tory therapists (Cullen, 2005), dentistry (Al- bino et al., 2008), psychology (Spruill et al., 2004), nursing (Bondy, Jenkins, Seymour, Lan- caster, & Ishee, 1997), and social work (Bogo et al., 2004; Regehr, Regehr, Power, & Bogo, 2007). In this literature, two components of competency have been identified (Bogo et al., 2006; Kane, 1992; Talbot, 2004). One is a set of procedural skills including such aspects as conducting an assessment, implementing an intervention strategy, and communicating that strategy to other members of the treat- ment team verbally and in writing. These pro- cedural aspects of competency have been the focus of competency-based assessments. This is in part due to the overt observable nature of such skills and in part due to the fact that such skills are relatively amenable to measurement. These skills can be taught by field instructors in the practicum and in practice courses. They can be acquired by students with practice and mentoring.

The second component of professional competency involves personal qualities that students possess when they enter the practicum. Kane (1992) has described this as the judgment needed to combine knowledge, skills, and abilities into effective solutions to client problems across a wide range of situa- tions. Talbot (2004) refers to meta competen-

cies of professional practice that include rela- tionship, self-development, analysis, and judgment. Bogo et al. (2006), in conducting interviews with experienced clinical field instructors with regard to student competen- cies expected to identify a set of skills and competencies that field instructors would use to describe the differences between exemplary students and problematic students. What emerged instead was a constellation of per- sonal qualities possessed by students that were perceived as affecting their approaches to learning, their interactions with others in the organization, their relationship with the field instructor, and their ability to develop relationships with clients. Exemplary students were described as bright, intuitive, motivated, enthusiastic, self-directed, engaging, and tact- ful. Problematic students were described as irritable, defensive, judgmental, nonempathic, shy, needy, and demanding. It was concluded that these personality characteristics seemed to take precedence over skills and behaviors, with the skills and behaviors used more as supporting evidence for these underlying traits than as evidence of having achieved or fauing to have achieved competence.

A more limited literature exists with respect to competencies in community, organ- ization, and policy contexts. No doubt this is largely due to the fact that only about 10% of social work MSW practicum are in macro practice (Raymond, Teare, & Atherton, 1996) and few MSW programs offer macro concen- tirations (Mor Barak, Travis, & Bess, 2004). The existing literature generally focuses on specif- ic issues such as projects to develop advocacy skills (Hermoso, Rosen, Overly, & Tompkins, 2006), partnerships to develop leadership

STUDBIT COMPETENCIES IN MACRO PRACTICE 309

skuls (Mertz, Fortune, & Zendeü, 2007), and the safisfacfion of macro pracfice students with respect to their field pracficum experi- ences (Deal, Hopkins, Fisher, & Harfin, 2007).

Hardina and Obel-Jorgensen (2009) sug- gested that eight skuls or competencies are necessary for social action or advocacy pracfice: self-awareness and cultural compe- tency, engagement, problem identification and assessment, facilitating consfituent self- determinafion and empowerment, verbal and written communicafion, weighing the ethical implicafions of sftategies, taking acfion, and evaluating outcomes. The Nafional Network for Social Work Managers (Wimpfheimer, 2004) developed a set of core competencies for social workers in adminisftafive and manage- rial pracfice based on a review of the literature and further modified by Mor Barak et al. (2004) that include advocacy; program evalu- ation; resource development and financial management; program planning, develop- ment, and management; public relafions and marketing; governance; and human resource management.

However, limited evidence suggests that these competencies may not be taught in MSW programs. Deal et al. (2007) found that macro students perceived that they had limit- ed learning opportunifies that they believed were in part due to the complexity of the set- ting, in part due to the chaüenges in linking theory and pracfice, and in part due to limited avaüabüity of supervision. This perhaps sug- gests an increased need for self-directedness in students in macro pracficum. In a survey of 200 social work managers and admirüstrators, however, only program planning and devel- opment, program evaluafion, and advocacy

were routinely avaüable in mezzo-macro stu- dent field pracficum (Mor Barak et al., 2004). Thus it appears that there is limited exposure in the pracficum setting to the range of skuls required in macro pracfice and thus Hmited opportunifies to develop these skuls.

Macro pracfice that aims to bring about change through community organization, adminisftafion, and policy development is cenftal to social work pracfice and in some ways defines the idenfity of social work (Net- ting, Ketfiier, & McMurfty, 2008). Although relafively few social work students specialize in this concentrafion, it is essenfial that we arficulate a set of advanced competencies, ensure they are included in MSW curricu- lums, and design methods for assessing the degree to which students possess these com- petencies at various points in their educafion.

Method

The purpose of this study was to eUcit field insftuctors' views of student competencies in commimity, organizafion, and poUcy pracfica, an area that has been largely neglected in the social work literature. The study was guided by a discovery-oriented quaUtafive design. This approach is parficularly useful for idenfi- fying and buüding knowledge and generating theory in the relafively uncharted area of inquiries (Creswell, 2007). The long-interview method of data gathering was selected to gather a wide range of views and experiences (McCracken, 1988).

A purposive sample (Padgett, 1998; Pafton, 2002) was drawn ftom au of the macro field instructors of a large graduate program in social work who offered pracficum in com- munity, organization, and policy practice.

3 1 0 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION

Inclusion criteria were: being an experienced field instructor (i.e., 5 years or more); possess- ing strong competencies as a field instructor as determined by the pracficum director; and recent supervision of students (i.e., within the last 3 years). Parficipants were recruited by telephone. AU who were contacted agreed to parficipate. Approval was obtained from the Research Ethics Board at Urüversity of Toron- to and written informed consent was given by aU parficipants at the beginning of each inter- view. The sample of 18 field instructors con- sisted of 16 women and 2 men representing community, organization, and poUcy practice settings or some combination of these meth- ods. Participants had an average of 9 years (range: 1-23) of practice experience with their current employer. Sixteen of the field instruc- tors held master's of social work degrees. In total, participants had a mean of 21 years (range: 6-35) of social work or related practice experience, with an average 13 years (range: 3-30) of experience with the school's practicum program. The majority (89%) also were field instructors for other schools of social work.

Trained quaUtative interviewers conduct- ed aU interviews. Each field instructor was asked the same set of open-ended, gmding questions. First, they described one exemplary, one average, and one problematic or strug- gling student in general terms. Second, they described student performance in each of the foUowing practice dimensions: engagement v^th learning, behavior in the organization, linking poUcy and practice, relationships with- in the organization, differential use of self, assessment and analysis, intervention plan- ning, leadership, verbal communication, writ-

ten communication, values and ethics, and deaUng with diversity. Some of these factors were identified through reviewing research on competency . in clinically focused students (Bogo et al., 2004; Bogo et al, 2006) and others were identified from the Uterature on macro pracficum placement (Hermoso et al., 2006; Mertz et al., 2007; Mor Barak et al., 2004). Probing questions were used to eUcit concrete examples of student behaviors and practice interactions. The interviews were audio taped to ensure accuracy of data and transcribed.

The data was then subjected to an itera- tive process of data analysis that involved the research team engaging in open coding, which aUowed for the development of broad cate- gories for grouping data. Selective coding was subsequently used to develop a theoretical imderstanding of competencies in macro social work practice that was grounded in the themes that emerged. This theory was then chaUenged through reengagement with and reexamining of the data. Further, theoretical triangulation with relevant literatures was implemented after themes began to emerge. Member checking was used by presenting the emerging theoretical understanding to anoth- er group of field instructors to assess trarisfer- abüity and confirmabiUty (CresweU, 2007; Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, & AUen, 1993).

Findings

Snapshots of Student Competency in Macro Practice

Field instructors were first asked to provide a brief description of each of the three types of students they had taught in a macro prac- ticum: exemplary, average, and problematic.

STUDBIT COMPETENCIES IN MACRO PRACTICE 3 1 1

This aUowed for a beginning analysis of core competencies that were viewed as important in these tj^es of social work environments.

Exemplary students. A number of common

themes emerged in the descripfion of exem- plary students. The first theme clustered around the term "open-minded learners." In this domain, field instructors explained that in fast-paced and diverse m âcro pracficum set- tings, students needed to have an awareness of their learning needs, an abUity to arficulate their needs, and flexibUity with respect to learning opportunifies that would meet these needs. A second theme emerged regarding self-directedness and confidence, whUe main- tairung an abiUty to ask for assistance if it is required. Next, the abiUty to conceptualize complex poUfical and systemic issues and the manner in which polifics directed pracfice intervenfions was viewed as a sign of exem- plary ability. Several instructors used the terms seeing or developing "linkages" between

issues and concepts. Other instructors noted that these students were able to see the broad- er picture, synthesize complex informafion, or had highly developed analyfic skiUs. Engage- ment skiUs that resulted in producfive rela- tionships with both colleagues and client groups were also viewed as important. Within this was the ability to show respect and empa- thy for marginaUzed individuals. Terms fre- quently used in this domain included warmth, caring, considerate, engaging, collaborative, cul-

turally sensitive, and professional. FinaUy, a

commitment to social jusfice and a parficular passion for community development and advocacy work were viewed as important. Nevertheless, field instructors were quick to note that this needed to be tempered by an

ability to listen to divergent views. One instructor noted, "She wasn't imposing her idealisfic viewpoint on them and she was able to hear, frankly, some very conservative points of view from our parficipants and work without judging them."

Average students. Perhaps due to the nature of the research interview, average stu- dents were generaUy described in contrast to exemplary and problemafic students. Average students, for instance, were described as "less confident" and not knowing exactly what they wanted to do in contrast to exemplary students. One instructor stated that "they need to get up to speed, whUe the excepfional student hits the ground running." Another stated, "The difference between an average student and an exemplary student is the aver- age student needs support to encourage her or to push her a Uttle bit." Average students were viewed to need a Uttle more introducfion and a bit more guidance. But "once given, they can carry out the project and be trusted with the work." Further, the average student was viewed to produce work that benefits the organizafion. Yet, although "the excepfional student produces work that stands on its own," the average student's work needs greater supervisor involvement. "It would be

more of a coUaborafive project Whereas the poor student, often the end product is some- thing that looks like a make work project."

In contrast to problemafic students, aver- age students are described as having a good sense of judgment regarding what they know, do not know, and what they need to know. "The average MSW students tend to be reaUy good at linking what they're learning in the classroom with what they are doing in the

3 1 2 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION

practicum. So, they tend to be reaUy active in vocalizing what they're learning, what they're interested in, and then being able to ask for opportunities in the practicum that they want." Average students were seen to need some time to develop and grow. However, they are viewed as organized, responsible, and punctual. To manage lack of confidence, they tend to be weU-prepared, but stiU need reassurance. Field instructors reported that average students respond to guidance and fulfiU tasks that are assigned, but they rarely initiate their own tasks.

Problematic or struggling students.Themes

that emerged with respect to struggling stu- dents included lack of self-confidence, "diffi- culty shifting gears and balancing a bunch of baUs," lack of compassion and empathy, lack of knowledge, lack of enthusiasm, and diffi- culty working as a team member. Field in- structors did not think that problematic stu- dents had a clear sense of their career goals. They were viewed as needing a great deal of direction on tasks, seemed unmotivated, and took undue amovmts of time to complete tasks. In the end, it was reported that prob- lematic students seem to have accompUshed Uttle in the practicum.

In a macro setting ideology can also be problematic. As an instructor stated, "The one student who was the most difficult had a dif- ferent ideological base, and I wondered why they had come to the agency. There was not a good mesh between goals and what the agency does." These students can have a neg- ative influence throughout the organization. "I've had students who all they do is point out negative things that are happening but they don't want to be part of implementing

changes. They don't want to be part of solu-

tions to fix things."

Macro Competencies in Core Practice Dimensions

This next analysis considers core competen- cies that have previously been identified in cUnical social work students (Bogo et al., 2004; Bogo et al., 2006) and in the Uterature on macro practicum placements (Hermoso et al., 2006; Mertz et al., 2007; Mor Barak et al., 2004). The field instructors were asked to comment on engagement with learning, behavior in the organization, linking poUcy and practice, rela- tionships within the organization, differential use of self, assessment and analysis, interven- tion planning, leadership, verbal communica- tion, written communication, values and ethics, and deaUng with diversity. In analyz- ing the data, six categories emerged that relate particularly to macro practice. Specifically identified were learning and growth; behavior and relationships; leadership; critical think- ing, analysis, planning, and implementation; written and verbal professional commimica- tion; and values and ethics. In each category, specific skuls or attributes that are valued by field instructors are described below.

Learning and growth. The snapshot de-

scriptions above demonstrate that learning and growth are central to the manner in which student competencies are viewed in macro practice. This included students' interest in learning and the extent to which they are able to identify learning goals. Core competencies in this area included being self-directed and independent, self-aware, proactive in seeking learning opportunities, curious, enthusiastic, organized, and willing to chaUenge them-

STUDENT COMPETENCIES IN MACRO PRACTICE 3 1 3

selves. Ability to accept corrective feedback and understand the role of the student within the organization was also viewed as impor- tant by field instructors.

Behavior and relationships. As noted, en-

gagement skills were described by field instructors as critical to macro practice. It was identified that it was important for students to have the ability to understand the importance of workplace relationships and the impact of their behavior on the organization. Core com- petencies described in this domain included the ability to work coUaboratively with others, contribute positively to the team and the work of the organization, be respectful, adapt one- self to the organizational culture, maintain professional boundaries, and be self-reflective.

Leadership. Competencies related to lead- ership included three themes: self-leadership, task-oriented leadership, and leadership of others. Self-leadership involved the student's abuity to develop his or her own program of work and identify opportunities. Task-oriented leadership refers to the ability to identify ways to contribute to the agency, such as developing a new resource or tool, or making a presenta- tion. Project management skills were also included in this domain. Leadership of others was described as effectively leading stakehold- er groups or making contacts with other organ- izations for the benefit of their practicum organization and its stakeholders. Another skill noted here was the ability to lead peers by tak- ing on a role of a senior student or leading oth- ers by example. On a more general level, lead- ership was described as the ability to take risks.

Critical thinking—Analysis, planning, and

implementation. This domain was summarized by one instructor as "the ability to move in

two directions to apply policy to practice and practice theory to policy development and implementation." Competencies in this area included the ability to see the broader picture, while understanding, articulating, and imple- menting the sequence of steps necessary to achieve desired outcomes. Awareness of poli- cies and practices and their differential effect on stakeholder groups were also noted as important. The ability to critically evaluate organizational practices "without being offen- sive to staff," while still being able to function within organizational constraints, was de- scribed as essential to macro practice.

Professional communication. Competent

writing was described as demonstrating that the student had absorbed and understood the issues, dimensions, and various perspectives regarding the policy or plan. Reports were expected to be professional, well-researched, and sophisticated. Basic skills such as using proper grammar; clear organization; and being succinct, concise, and cogent were iden- tified. In preparing reports, understanding and appropriately addressing the audience was also identified as important.

Competent students are able to effective- ly communicate ideas to others in a profes- sional manner suitable to the audience. This includes using appropriate tone and lan- guage, being articulate and a quick thinker, and paraphrasing ideas and insights well. Oral presentations were viewed as critical in macro practice. Competence in oral presenta- tions involved being well organized, clear, accurate, djmamic, engaging, and inspiring. Confidence in presenting and the ability to respond to both expected and unexpected questions was identified as important.

3 1 4 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION

Values and ethics. Competent students are described as having a clear sense of personal values on which they base acfions, relafion- ships, and their work. They understand the values and ethics of both the agency and the profession of social work. Such students are sensifive to diversity issues and are commit- ted to anfioppressive pracfice. They are able to integrate these values into their daüy interac- fions. They are able to acfively raise quesfions about values and ethics in the conduct of their work. These students are able to examine their own values and biases and work with clients in a nonjudgmental manner.

Discussion

A considerable body of theorefical, educafion- al, and empirical literature about field educa- fion for undergraduate and graduate social work students exists with related field pracficum policies, field educator ftaining, best pracfices for field educafion, identificafion of competencies, and assessment of student learning. The literature is relevant and applica- ble to generalist social work pracfice taught in baccalaureate programs and to micro, or clini- cal pracfice, taught in master's programs. However, field educafion for macro pracfice at the MSW level has received scant aftenfion in the social work educafion Hterature, despite estimates that approximately 10% of students focus their study in this concenftafion (Ray- mond et al., 1996). Accordingly, this study aimed to conftibute to field educafion for stu- dents in macro pracficum through developing a theorefical understanding of core competen- cies for macro social work pracfice.

Interviews with experienced field instruc- tors focused on their refiecfions on students

they had previously supervised. First, this involved giving "snapshot" descripfions of students who demonsftated exemplary, aver- age, and problematic performance. Next, instructors were asked to comment on specif- ic competencies as they applied to macro social work pracfice. This data was then ana- lyzed themafically to derive a theoretical model for understanding competency in macro social work pracfice.

Previous research on clinical students resulted in a model of understanding compe- tency as having two primary and interrelated dimer\sions: procedural skiüs and meta com- petencies (Bogo et al., 2006). These meta com- petencies are higher order, overarching abiU- fies and qualifies that are of a difterent charac- ter than skuls (Cheetham & Chivers, 1998, 2005) but affect the way students and profes- sionals learn, assess pracfice situafions, and intervene to bring about change. Simüarly in this study field instructors discussed students' performance in a holisfic manner wherein stu- dents' qualifies and abilifies, knowledge, val- ues, and skiüs were evident as they engaged in learning and performed in a range of macro pracfice assignments in the setting.

The snapshot descripfions provided by field instructors of both exemplary and prob- lemafic or struggling macro pracficum stu- dents focused primaruy on what might be thought of as personal characterisfics or meta competencies, suggesting that these compe- tencies are cenftaüy important to macro social work practice. Exemplary students were described as self-directed, competent, open- minded, analyfic, respectful, caring, consider- ate, engaging, and professional. In conftast, problemafic students were described as lack-

STUDENT COMPETENCIES IN MACRO PRACTICE 3 1 5

ing in compassion, empathy, knowledge, direction, motivation, and enthusiasm. Fur- ther, commitment to social justice was seen as differentiaUy appUed by students who were exemplary versus those who were problemat- ic. That is, exemplary students could be respectful of other viewpoints and accepting of those who held them, whereas proble- matic students were described as judgmental and negative when faced with divergent viewpoints.

The focus on meta competencies was also evident in the discussions regarding specific areas of competence. That is, in the areas of learrüng and growth, behavior in the orgarüza- tion, leadership, and values and ethics, per- sonal characteristics were key elements of the competencies described. In addition, the area of critical thinking, analysis, plarming, and implementation also contained elements of meta competencies, such as the abuity to view issues broadly and from multiple perspecfives.

Interestingly, although meta competen- cies clearly differentiated exemplary students and problematic students, descriptions of average students contained more competen- cies that might be thought of as procedural or practice skUls. These included the ability to carry out a project, writing skiUs, and linking classroom knowledge with the practicum experience. Other practice skiUs feU into cate- gories of planning and implementation, and professional communication. Such skills included awareness of poUcies, articulating and implementing steps required for produc- ing change, project management, report writ- ing, and presentation skuls. A summary of meta competencies and procedural skiUs can be found in Table 1.

From the participants' rich descriptions it appears that strong students at this level in their practice development demonstrate ini- tiative and self-direction in aU areas of the practicum. This is observed by field ir\struc- tors in the students' abuity to articulate their learning needs and find opportunities to meet those needs; in having confidence; being inde- pendent, versatüe, and flexible; and being able to work on one's own and produce high- quality work. High levels of competency also involve strong conceptual and analytic abuity as seen in critical thinking and the use of diverse theoretical perspectives, being open- minded, and thinking broadly and from a social justice and empowerment perspective. Strong performance also includes the capacity to form and maintain respectful professional relationships—^with coUeagues in the work- place, in productive work in teams, and with a wide range of commurüty stakeholders. As well, strong quaUties include cultural compe- tence, the abuity to work with marginaUzed cUent groups, and the abiUty to hear and con- sider divergent opinioris. The organizational context of macro practice and the social change goal requires the abuity to work with- in rules imposed by the organization and to appropriately chaUenge them as well. Proc- edural or operational competencies such as project management, planning, implementa- tion, report writing, and presentation skuls were aU described as reflecting these broad dimensions.

Conciusion

As social work educators strive to articulate and assess advanced practice specific to a con- centrafion, they are confronted with the need

3 1 6 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION

eo o a

S '5 o O)

u a

•a e w S

a (0 .S'5

H Ul EQ

01 u •.C u ra

I *s o

il (U N

ra - H y

s 5 ë ¡il U

! C

er s

'S ê

0> tn

's0) m bo ra I bo Pi S

I •

í i í 2 s ^

§ bO

2 to O,

il bO C ra S

ra O

Si ra o

•V

STUDENT COMPETENCIES IN MACRO PRACTICE 3 1 7

to conceptualize that practice in a way that authentically reflects student levels of per- formance in a practicum. A review of the lit- erature on macro practice competency finds descriptions at a global level that need to become more specific to assist in the con- struction of assessment tools for field practicum. On the other hand, the tendency to describe competencies in longer and longer lists of discrete skills appears ill- advised. A considerable literature critiques such inventories as portraying social work practice as mechanistic and reduced to a set of discrete operations (Kelly & Horder, 2001; Skinner & Why te, 2004). Such inventories and assessment formats tend to omit the cru- cial internal cognitive processes and inter- personal and subjective factors that affect competence (Cheetham & Chivers, 2005; Eraut, 1994; Kane, 1992) and that appear to constitute key dimensions these field instruc-

tor participants drew upon when they dis- cussed their students. These findings remind us that the traditional means for measuring competence using Competency Based Edu- cation models misses the essence of profes- sional practice. That is, not all skills are equal. Rather, professional practice rests on meta competencies that allow professionals to differentially use skiUs based on a broader understanding of the social context in which the skiUs are required and an understanding of multiple outcomes of any given behavior (Ericsson & Charness, 1994).

In keeping with the spirit of the compe- tency firamework of EPAS (CSWE, 2008)— that knowledge, values, and skills are evident in complex practice behaviors—^new assess- ment tools are needed that incorporate both broad and specific factors, what we have termed as meta competencies and procedural competencies.

References

Albino, J., Young, S., Neumann, L., Kramer, G., Andrieu, S., Hervson, L., & Hendricson, W. (2008). Assessing dental students' competence: Best practice recommendations in the performance assessment Hterature and investigation of current practices in predoctoral dental education. Journal of Dental Education, 72(12), 1405-1435.

Bogo, M., Regehr, C, Powers, R., Hughes, J., Woodford, M., & Regehr, G. (2004). Toward new approaches for evaluating student field performance: Tapping the impUcit criteria used by experienced field instructors. Journal of Social Work Education, 40,417-425.

Bogo, M., Regehr, C, Woodford, M., Hughes, J., Power, R., & Regehr, G. (2006). Beyond competencies: Field instructors' descriptions of student performance. Journal of Social Work Education, 42,191-205.

Bondy, K., Jenkins, K., Seymour, L., Lancaster, R., & Ishee, J. (1997). The development and testing of competency-focused psychiatric nursing clinical evaluation instrument. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 11(2), 66-73.

Cheetham, G., dr Chivers, G. (1998). The reflective (and competent) practitioner: A model of professional competence which seeks to harmorüse the reflective practitioner and competence-based approaches. Journal of European Industrial Training, 27(2), 267-276.

3 1 8 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION

Cheetham, G., & Chivers, G. (2005). Professions, competence and informal learning. Cheltenham,

UK: Edward Elgar.

CresweU, J. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions (2nd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Council on Social Work Education. (2008). Educational policy and accreditation standards.

Alexandria, VA: Author.

Cullen, D. (2005). Clinical education and clinical evaluation of respiratory therapy students.

Respiratory Care Clinics of North America, 21(3), 4 2 5 - ^ 7 .

Deal, K., Hopkins, K., Eisher, L., & Hartin, J. (2007). Field practicum experiences of

macro-oriented graduate students: Are we doing them justice. Administration in Social

Work, 31(4), 41-58.

Eraut, M. (1994). Developing professional knowledge and competence. London, UK: Ealmer Press.

Ericsson, K., & Chamess, N. (1994). Expert performance: Its structure and acquisition.

American Psychologist, 49, 725-747.

Erlandson, D., Harris, E., Skipper, B., & Allen, S. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry: A guide

to methods. London, UK: SAGE.

Farrell, S. (2005). Evaluation of student performance: Clinical and professional performance.

Academic Medicine, 12(4), 302e6-302el0.

Gordon, T., & Mitchell, D. (2004). A competency model for the assessment an delivery of

spiritual care. Palliative Medicine, 18{7), 646-651.

Hardina, D., & Obel-Jorgensen, R. (2009). Increasing social action competency: A fiamework

for supervision. Journal of Policy Practice, 8, 89-109.

Hermoso, J., Rosen, A., Overly, L., & Tompkins, C. (2006). Increasing aging and advocacy

competency: The intergenerational advocacy pilot project. Journal of Gerontological Social

Work, 48,179-192.

Kane, M. T. (1992). The assessment of professional competence. Evaluation in Health Professions,

25(2), 163-182.

Kelly, J., & Horder, W. (2001). The how and the why: Competences and holistic practice.

Social Work Education, 20,689-699.

McCracken, G. (1988). The long interview. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

Mertz, L., Eortune, A., & Zendell, A. (2007). Promoting leadership skills in field education:

A imiversity-community partnership to bring macro and micro together in gerontological

field placements. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 50,173-186.

Mor Barak, M., Travis, D., & Bess, G. (2004). Exploring managers' and administrators'

retrospective perceptions of their MSW fieldwork experience: A national study.

Administration in Social Work, 28(\), 21-44.

Netting, E, Kettner, P., & McMurtry, S. (2008). Social work macro practice (4th ed.). Boston, MA:

AJljm and Bacon.

STUDENT COMPETENCIES IN MACRO PRACTICE 3 1 9

Padgeft, D. (1998). Qualitative methods in social work research: Challenges and rewards. Thousand

Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Pafton, M. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Ra)rmond, G., Teare, R., & Atherton, C. (1996). Do management tasks difter by field of pracfice.

Administration in Social Work, 20(1), 17-30.

Regehr, G., Regehr, C , Power, R., & Bogo, M. (2007). Can we buüd a befter mouseftap?:

Improving measures of social work pracfice performance in the field. Journal of Social Work

Education, 43, 327-344.

Resrdck, R. (1993). Teaching and testing technical skuls. American Journal of Surgery, 165,

358-361.

Skirmer, K., & Whyte, B. (2004). Going beyond ftaining: Theory and pracfice in managing

learning. Social Work Education, 23, 365-381.

Spmiü, J., Rozensky, R., Sfigaü, T., Vasquez, M., Bingham, R., & Olvey, C. (2004). Becoming

a competent clirücian: Basic competencies in intervenfion. Journal of Clinical Psychology,

60(7), 741-754.

Talbot, M. (2004). Monkey see, monkey do: A crifique of the competency model in graduate

medical educafion. Med Educ, 38(6), 587-592.

Wimpfheimer, S. (2004). Leadership and management competencies defined by pracficing

social work managers: An overview of standards developed by the Nafional Network

for Social Work Managers. Administration in Social Work, 28(1), 45-56.

Accepted: 0 3 / 1 1

Cheryi Regehr is vice-provost and professor, Marion Bogo is professor, Kirsten Donovan is research assistant, and Aprii Lim is a PhD candidate at the University of Toronto. Susan Anstice is a social worker at Community Care East York.

Address correspondence to Cheryl Regehr, Factor-lnwentash Faculty of Social WorK University of Toronto, 27 King's College Circle, Toronto, M5A l S l , Canada; e-mail: [email protected].

This research was generously funded by the Sandra Rotman Chair in Social Work.

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.