Social Work Field Education: Field Educator as Travel Guide between Two Worlds: Integrating theory and practice in field education

Abstract

Notwithstanding the importance attributed to teaching students to integrate theory and practice in field education, little is published of how Field Educators undertake this task. This thesis explores how Field Educators worked with students to teach them how to integrate theory and practice. The research adopted a social constructionist perspective and used a qualitative methodology to analyse a series of case studies undertaken with six Field Educators as they supervised students. The participants were experienced Field Educators working in diverse contexts of practice with students from a range of universities and social work programmes in Australia. The method incorporated two steps. First, a supervision session was videotaped as it occurred between Field Educator and student, followed by a review of the session with the Field Educator to further elucidate the reasoning behind the strategies and processes used in their session with the student. This process resulted in three groups of data—one from the video-tapes, another from the session review and a third from the observational data which consisted of the researcher’s analysis. The findings were investigated using thematic analysis. The results were analysed first within cases and then across cases, building a picture of common themes in the processes used to teach students. The results showed that, while Field Educators developed linkages between theories and practices with students, they did not focus primarily on this. Nor did they use the concept of integration. The findings also indicated that Field Educators did not use models, competency-based teaching or evidence-based practice. Rather, they developed their own epistemology for supervision. They employed a fluid process of discussion and reflection as they co-produced theoretical concepts with students. This discussion moved between facilitative and didactic processes, according to the Field Educator’s considered assessment of the student’s abilities in the context of practice issues which students raised. They viewed this aspect of supervision as one part of their role of assisting students to achieve their learning goals as they progressed along a pathway to becoming competent practitioners. They saw themselves as practitioners, rather than educators. They appeared to know little about what the universities were teaching, and made few references to the supervision requirements of the Australian Association of Social Workers. Overall, they appeared to take the context of their practice for granted and did not discuss the discourses at play in their work. These supervisors seemed to work largely in isolation, raising questions about the adequacy of preparation for social work in an Australian environment which is hostile to the values of the profession.