DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 100 262 HE 006 163

AUTHORTITLE

PUB DATENOTE

ERRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

ABSTRACT

Krop, Lois P.Developing and Implementing Effective Modes ofCommunication Between the School of Social Work andAgency-Based Faculty.5 Apr 7452e.; Practicum presented to Nova University inpartial fulfillment of the requirements for Thedegree of Doctor of Education

ME-$0.75 RC -$3.15 PLUS POSTAGE*Communication Problems; Educational Needs;Educational Quality; Effective Teaching; *FieldExperience Programs; *Governance; *Higher Education;Social Work; *Teacher Administrator Relationship

This investigation is based on the belief that it isimperative to establish operative school-agency communication if thefield instructional agency is to be an educationally focused learningexperience for the student. Through the existing governmentalorganizations, a subcommittee was formed to work toward thisobjective. The subcommittee evaluated existing methods ofcommunication, revised those that were deemed ineffective, andimplemented new ones. It is anticipated that better communicationbetween the school and agency based faculty will improve the qualityof field instruction by enabling clinical faculty to: (1) achieve abetter relationship with the school, (2) integrate class and fieldteaching, (3) give their teaching roles greater priority, and (4)

participate more actively in the governance of their college.(Author)

ON00 011.,

DEVELOPING AND DIPLEMNTING EFFFZTITE MODES 0F CoMMUNIOATI0N

STWEEN

TFE ScpuoL uF ;OCTAL iCRIC ANM AG YCY-DASFM FAC"LTY

coLLnol-: GrATIMNAME ?MLR

by

Lois P. Vrop, n4

Barry College

DA. J Zr.13 CLUST%R COORDIWOR

A PRACTICUI/I PRI;SI'M7D fIsk VOA Invhasrnr.IN PARTIAL Fs C7 171;F, ft-,,,ZrIRFY",NTS Fi.11 VT;

of DOCTOR OF FZUCATION

NOVA UNInRSITY

APRIL 5, 1974

2

S Of PAIRTMEhif Of NEAT TN,EDUCATION A WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

EDUCATIONTHIS nrCIIM, SIT HA` : wf0, (10 l'NACI:v 41'. 44'1 ' I I. 1 IdOS,r,t Of W,,ON 044' C4F2(4ANIZAT,ON ow (,1114AT T POINYSOf VIEW 01.tST.OF0 C70 NOT NECi YsAkti v wf ORFSEN f 011 f PC,IA. NA t tC1NA NSI$I'llIf 04I DO(A 110N 00'0110N 014 POI It V

C 0 r T 1% r

SFLTION

1. INTRODUCTION

BACKGROULD

ROCEDLUES

4. R.SULTS

5. MO T.17.:NDATIONS

iY

APPENDIX

3

rAns

1

3

10

16

22

ABS2NACT

of

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

=ELOPING AM INPLIMNTING EFF'EcrivE moms Off' COMNICATION

between

THE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WURK and AGENCY.BASM FACULTY

In social work education, instruction of students takes place in two

localities . the school and the social agency. Recaus( of these two distinct

loci, and because field instructors' primary role is srLial work practice

and not teaching, there is a crucial problem of establishing effective com-

munication between the school and agency-based faculty.

This investigation is based on the belief that it is imperative to

establish operative school-agency communication if the field instructional

agency is to be an educationally-focused learning experience for tle, student.

The purpose of this practicum is to develop and implement improved communica-

tion between the Barry (ollege Graduate School of Social Work and agency-based

faculty.

Through the existing governmental organizations, a subcommittee was

formed to work toward this objective. The subcommittee evaluated existing

methods of communication, revised those that were deemed ineffective, and

implement'3d new ones. It is anticipated that better communication between

the school and agency-based faculty will improve the quality of field in-

struction by enabling clinical faculty to: a) achieve a better relationship

with the school, b) to integrate class and field teaching, c) their

teaching roles greator priority, and d) participate more actively in the

governance of their college.

INTRODUCTION

We shall never understand one another

until we reduce the language to seven words.

Kahlil Gibran

The word "communication" is derived from the Latin "communicare," "to

make understood, to share, to impart, to transmit." A basic problem in mod-

ern society is communication. As colleges and universities become larger

and more complex, how to keep lines of communication open among staff and

faculties is an increasing dilemma. This ilmotigation is an effort to create

understanding among a college faculty without r.r the language to seven

words.

This practicum has been designed to investigate the problem of develop-

ing and establishing more effective communicht ion between the parry College

Graduate School of Social Work and its aoncy-based faculty. Ina-2equate com-

munication exists in many schools of social work primarily because their teicLing

takes place in two distinct loci - the school camy_us and the field instruction

agency. The investigation is based on tbe belief tiat operative communication

between the school and the agency is imperative if the field instructional

placement is to be an educationally-f,vused learning experience for the stu-

dent.

It was decided to work toward effecting change through extension of tie

existing governmental channels. A subcommittee of the standing Field Instruc-

tion Committee was formed to develop improved school-agency communication.

Existing lines of communication were studied and assessed. The modes which

were deemed to be ineffective at present are being revised. New methods of

communication are being implemented and evaluated by the sacommittee.

The intent of this stud" is to improve the quality of field instruction

.as an important component of social wirk education. :1 is anticipated that

bettor communication will enable clinical faculty to a) feel more closely

associated with the school, b) integrate class and field teaching, c) give

greater priority to their teachin roles, and d) participate more actively

in college governance.

One of the_perennial problems of education which has become more .acute

as universities and colleges grow larger is the dilemna of how to develop .

effective communication among faculties and between faculties and administra-

tion. Barnard has written that collaboration and coordination in any human

enterprise is possible onl when communication is effectimo.1 Charles A. Mon-

roe highlights the importance of efficient functioning modes of communication

in his profile of the community college. In discussing the nature of college

governance and decision.making, Monroe concludes:

The basic principle for effective administration is freeand open communication. No ndministratinn can functioneffectively unless there is a team rolatimship among thestaff and the faculty. All institutions depend on open, two -waycommunication for the develojment of trust anti dependence.'

In his book on governance of colleges and universities, John J. Corson

points out the apparent lack ;I-communication among many college faculties.

The four factors heittates underlie this yroblem are: 1) the great special-

ization among meMb'irs of the staff, 2) the individuality of thought typical

of faculty members, 3) the hierarchy of deans and department heads which can^

not be ordered to communicate and interpret to the faculty, and 10 the confusion

which exists about what matters to communicate. These factors prevail in many

schools of social work and Corson says they "make difficult the establishment

of a broad context of understandings that welds faculty and staff into dynam-

ic collaboration in creating an enriched educational environment)

1. Chester I. Barnard, The Functions of the Executive (CambxIdge: Vailiard Uni-

versity Press, 1938), p. 91.

4. Charles R. Monroe, I rofile of the Community College, (San Francisco: Jossey.

Bass Publishers, 1973777771).

John J. Corson, Governance of College;: and Universities (New York, Toronto,

LOndon: rCGraw-Fill Book Comrany, Inc., 196 0, 5707.33.

Schools of social work have a. crucial problem of communication partly

because their teaching_ takes place in two distinct localities the school

campus and the field instruction agency. The school is viewed primarily as

the place for teaching acwJemic theory and knovlodge, while the agency is the

setting for integrating knowledge into practice.

The objective of social. rk education is to provide students with

'adequate background and exper14. .a for responsible entry into practice. There

is general acceptance that *the learning experiences provided through field

instruction are essential to the achievement of the objectives of the social

work curriculum.4 Class and field instruction should be closely coordinated

and integrated if it is to accomplish its purpose.

A viable partnership between social agencies and the school of social

work is necessary in order to articulate clams and field learning. Effective

school-agency communication is required to strengthen and maintain that part-

nership since there must he a coordinated effort between agency and school

if the student is to achieve maximum learning. If the objectives of social

work education are to be realized, it is essential to infuse greater vitality

into the communication that makes an eduoational partnership between school

and agency possible.

In the Barry College School of Social Work most students spend three

days a week in the social agency and two days in class. The faculty is divided

into two categories, 1) academic faculty who are responsible for instruction

based in the school, and 2) clinical faculty who are responsible for instruc-

tio based in the social agency. Clinical faculty spend the large majority of

their time in their social agencies where they are usually responsible for giving

Official Statement of Curriculum 1olicGraduate PiTfessional Schools of Social WorkWork VT07.7.77-----Educatior

for the Nasterls Dey roe cio rairTn

8

Now York: Council on Social

direct service to clients as well as teaching social work students. They are

expected to be both practitioners and educators. Partially because they are

;paid by the agency and not the school, and 'because they are trained in social

work practice, not education, they often consider their teaching role to be

a secondary one. Thus, field instructors tend to feel a certain alienation

from the school.

In the six-year history of the Barry College Graduate School of Social

Work, the issue of school- agency communication has often arisen. For example,

in 1970 the previous dean and the curriculum committee (on which there were no

students or field instructors represented) decided to reduce the amount of time

the students spend in the agency. The students then informed their field in..

structors that they would be in their agenc7 placements one day less each week

the next semester. The clinical faculty's reaction was that this was a dicta_

torial decision made without consulting them and which they opposed. They

considered it to be a complete breakdown in communication.

The clinical faculty rallied together to form the Association for Agency.

paid Field Instructors. Their major objectives were to include field teachers

in school decision-making and to improve communication between the school and

agency.based faculty. Their statement asserted that since field instructors

are scattered throughout the area in many diverse agencies, they felt the nec-

essity for greater rapport among themselves and with the school. They also

stated that there was a pressing need to strengthen the relationship between

the school and the agencies in order to help agency instructors become a more

integral part of the school, and tc provide a uniformly high quality of field

instruction for students.5

5. Puipoll of Barry Coff1755GFERTEETfiiency-filid Field InstructWict7College, riami, 1970), (Vmeographed),

Due to the pressure exerted by the Association for Agency-paid Field

Instructors, the dean rescinded the decision to decrease the time students

spend in agencies. Through this Association, Field teachers began to seek

direct participation in the formulation of policies that govern the perform-

once of their duties. Through the efforts of the Az.;ooiation, field instruc-

tors were granted faculty status as well as one voting representative on each

standing committee of the school (see Appendix A and B for models of the line-

staff organization of Ba:ry ^,allege and the ScLool of Social Work).

When Dr. John Riley, the present Dean of the School of Social Work,

arrived in June, 1972, he met with the executive corn ittee of the field in..

structors' association and agreed to inclu,ie thorn in all phases of school

decision-making. In 1973 the academic faculty forma'ly acted to increase the

number of clinical faculty on each standing committee twofold. Thus, the clin-

ical faculty was given a more proportionate representatin in planning and

implementing school programs and policies. Ir. Riley fools that "one of the

factors preventing the clinical faculty from being a responsible force in gov-

erning the school is the lack of effective communication between school and

Agency -based faculty."

Another example of a breakdown in school-agency communicrition occurred

in 1973. Students were given a course assignment to examine agency policies,

particularly as they showed evi:ience of institutional racism. Since field

instructors are not notified of class a5signments, even when they relate to

the field, the majority of stuilents researched and wrote the assii;nment with-

out benefit of field teachers' supervision. The result was several contro-

versial papers which were wilely disseminated and with all,,ptinns

against agencies, the majority of which were Later proven to he fairo.

10

on November 29, 1973, eight different issues and concerns were pre_

slanted to the Barry College clinical faculty during a regular meeting of

the field instructors. .School-agency communication was identified by these

agency teachers as being the most problematic. They felt that the rapid growth

of the school and the increasing specialization among mombers of the staff

has made solutions to this problem more critical. Clinical faculty who at.

tended this meeting expressed feelings of alienation and lack of connection

with the school. They stated concerns such as: "We dIn't know what's going

on in the school," and The school doesn't understand what is happening in

the field." Dr. David Fike, Chairman if the Field Instructors Committee and

also a member of the academic faculty, stated: "More effective modes of corn.

munication between the school and agency must be developed to bring the clini-

cal faculty into closer contact with the school and thus enhance students'

learning in the field." From comments of clinical faculty and administration

it BOOMS that school-agency relationshirr suffer from egregious lack of artic-

ulation about their mutual responsibilities.

A review of the literature of social work education reveals that there

are few publiditai'reports of projects undertaken by schools to help resolve

their communications dilemma. However, there is a great deal of discussion

about the need for more positive avenues for free interchange of ideas and

concepts between school and agency, with little mention of concrete suggestions

for alleviating the problem.6

CourrlcileFSocial Work Education, The FutgrtlaIngLinaLEastkajangz:School Commitwent and CommunicatioTTROtork: Council on Social Work Edu-

cation, 1963), pp. 10-15.

I

i3EcT Ct11-1# LL

There is general agreement that "adequate comanication is grossly

. lacking in ',he rolationst:ii. vetweon noeneloa and schools of social work:7

Over the years, curriculum policy statements have consistently affirmed the

central importance of field instruction and the necessity for close school-

agency collaboration.6

In a conference of representatives of schools and social agencies

held by the Council on Social Work Education on dune 25-26, 1964, it was

agreed that it is necessary to develop a "broader system of communication"

between school and agency in orier to effect a true rartnorship 9 Although

there are many references in the literature to the need for developing more

effective communication, I have not been able to find any published reports

of projects undertaken by schools to helr resolve this dilemma*

The necessity or better lines if' oommunicntion between school and

clinical faculty is also discussed in articles concerning the integration

of class and field exrerionces. The literature of, social work education re-

flects constant concern with gaps between class and field learning.1°

Field instructors are'forever asing Vat is being taught in school

so they can relate to it. To narrow this gap, relevant inf'ornation must be

shared between academic and clinical faculty. Several rapers about reorgan-

"Potentials and FroLlems in the Changinr `;c1 o,1 -Agency Relationships in SocialWork Education," Background materials, and papers prepared for discussion at theCouncil on Social Work Education rouse of Delegates m eting, January 24, 1964,Salt Lake City, Utah (Mimeographed).

8. Betty Lacy Jones (ed.), Current latterns in Vitae Instruction in Graduate SocialWork Education (New Yoilk: Council on Sociol !;Irk Mucat1777179R77.713E.

9. Pens Dana, "The Role of National pencie:; in Stimulating the Improvement andExpansion of Field Instruction Resources, Field Instruction in graduate SocialWork Education (New York: Council on Social ';:.)11: :1,ducation, 1966, pp. 57-a7

ID. Dijelo C. Russell, "The Faculty Advisor in Social Work Education," DoctoralStudents Look at Social Work Education, ed. Leila Calhoun Deasy (New YorksCouncil on Social Work Educati(m, 197r, . 6P.

12

9.

ization of the classroom curriculum emphasize that improved communication

between school and agency is necessary since classroom m.ateriil is reinforced

by its implementation 3n field practice.11

Quaranta and Stanton state: "More than ever before the close collabor-

ation between school and agencies is necessary, with particular emphasis on

filling the communication gaps which so often develop if one relies on long

and tried professional relationships with presumed concurrence of conceptual-

ization.12

Arthur L. Leader summarizes the overall problem well:

There is no doubt that the school-agency relationship withrespect to education for practice continues to be a mostcomplicated, controversial and troublesome area of mutualconcern. Over the years the literature, with its repeatedreferences to problems and gaps in communication, makes thisclear. There are many exhortations and pleas for better com-munication with the understandable implication that oppor-tunities for more discussion would somehow improve the stateof affairs.13

In conclusion, four problems in the relationship between the school of

social work and its agency-based faculty have been pointed out: 1) the clinical

faculty often feels alienated from the school, 21 field instructors find it dif-

ficult to integrate class and field instruction, 3) many of the clinical faculty

give priority to direct service to agency clients over their teaching function,

and 4) field instructors frequently do not actively participate in college gov-

ernance and decision-making. It is anticipated that these problems would be

ameliorated by more effective school-agency communication.

II7-757ird Porsu!,:, "ArIncy.School Com-Inication: The Influence of ChangingFntterns of education, "Current Pattern: in Field Instruction in graduate SocialWork Education ed. Betty Lac7.r Junes 71 7vrk: Council on ',oc:131 work thica-

tion, i9 PP. 51-59.

12. Mary Ann Quaranta and Greta Stanton, "planning Curriculum Change in a LargeTraditional Field Instruction Program," Journal of Education for Social Work,(Winter, 1973) , oo.

lj.3 Arthur L. Leader, "An Agency's View Toward Educntion for Practice," ALcm.....nalof Education for Social Mork, (7all, 1971), 19.

PROCEDURFS BEsr COPY .11M:LABLE

It was decided to worl: toward change within the established govern-

mental organizations. The Barry College Graduate School of Social :Mark has

seven standing committees which are composed of academic faculty, clinical

faculty, and students (See Appendix '13. purnoses of these committees

include the development of communication, participation by students and staff

in formulating college policies and programs, and a forum for resolving con-

flict.14

On November 29, 1973, several areas of concern were presented to the

Field Instructors sleeting where it was gent,rally agreed that the question of

school..agency communication was the most problem2tic. I then met with Dr.

John Riley, Dean of the f'chool of Social. orl:, who re-affirmed the imrortance

to the school of mitigating this problem. In a subsequent meeting with nr.

David Fike, Chairman of the Standing Field Instruction Committee, he a,pointed

me chairman of a subcommittee newly created to help develop more effective

lines of communication between the school and clinical faculty.

The subcommittee was organized with Henry Ashmore's basic principles

for college committees as a framework:

1. Purposes and problems should be clearly defined and unlerstoodby the committee members.

2. The committee should know when and to whom it will report.3. The committee will produce effectively if they know that their

recommendations will receive serious consideration.4 There must he follow -up, in communications and action, of the

committee's recommendations.5. The administration of the college should consider committee

reports carefully.6. There should be specific and administrative regulations con..

corning committees.7. There should be a clear understanding that, the chief adminis-

trative officer has the authority to overdo a committ ©e roFortbased upon specific reasons for doing so.

1 Clyde E. Blocker, Robert 1;4, Mummer, and Aicnard C. rtichardson, Jr., TheTwo -year Calle e: A Social S nthesis, 0,nglewood Cliffs, '.J.: irentice-gall,Inc., 19 5 , pp. 140-91.

15. Fenry L. Ashmore, "The Committee in Administratili Junior College Journal,XXIX (September 19:L). pp. 40.42.

As chairman, I was given the authority to naue tLe members of:the sub-

committee. Line representatives were co Leen 'rum administration, academic

faculty, clinical faculty, and students. Individuals who demonstrated a prev-

ious interest in working on tLis topic were selected. %Very person contacted

accepted with alacrity, expressing their feelings that a crucial need exists

for better sc!ool-agency communication.

The entire subcomittee attended the first meting on January 30, 1974.

The problem was defined and discussed (See Idnutes. Appendix D). It was em-

phasized that communication must flow both ways and that the school has to be-

come more aware of and sensitive to new developments in the field as well as

vice versa.

Present modes of communication were discussed with the following being

identified:

1. School newsletter

2. Faculty advisor

3. Field instructor meetings

4. Clinical faculty representation on college committees

5. Memos and correspondence

6. Annual field instructors' seminar

7. Word-of-mouth through students

8. Field instructors' manual

The committee decided to form task forces to investigate the effective-

ness of the existing methods of communication, devise new ones, and evaluate

them. Task forces were set up in (wrier to;

1. Contact other schools asking what they are doing to cope with the

problem

Organize and set up regul.,r worlcshops for faculty

15

Revise the Field. Instructors, Vanual

Survey clinical faculty to ascertain which modes of

communication they consider most effective and their

opinion of proposed new methods.

The subcommittee officially and unanimously recommended that the school

prepare an informative memo to clinical faculty to make suggestions about the

management of field assignments for students so that learning in the field ties

in with learning in the classroom. As chairman, I was instructed to take this

recommendation to the Field Instructors Committee for their approval and im-

plementation.

In the ensuing month betwoen subcommittee meetings, there was a great

deal of positive action by committee members. I prepared and sent a survey

to the 104 clinical faculty, designed to ascertain their feelings about the

effectiveness of the school's present lines of communication, and how helpful

they felt some proposed new approaches would be (f:tar, Appendix E and F).

The subcommittee felt it was important to find out how field instructors per-

ceive existing modes of communication and their feelings about projected inno.

vations. This survey was also viewed as a means of letting clinical faculty

know that their opinions carry weight in formulating school policy.

Another survey was constructed to find out what methods other schools

are presently using to communicate with field faculty, their feelings about

the relative value of these modes and what new methods they would institute

if they had the resources (See Appendix 0 and R). This survey was sent to

the Director of Field Instruction of 84 Graduate Schools of Social Work through-

out the United States and Canada, with a cover letter asl.:ing for their coopera-

tion.

Several members of the subcommittee proceeded to wor on revision of

16

13.

the Field Instructors' ::'anual. This revision was designed to serve as a base

from which clinical and acadreAc facult:'_could worn together to provide those

learning experiences essential to the application of concepts presented t'oth

in field instruction and in course material. The manual was last revised in

1968 and does not reflect the innovations and changes in social work practice

and in educational methods which have taken place since then.

A task force met to set up workshops for faculty. The survey sent to

clinical faculty questioned whether they felt periodic workshops sponsored

by the school would be helpful and whether they preferred these workshops to

focus on 1) explaining course content, 2) discussing field teaching methods,

or 3) field instructors presenting their methods of field teaching. The task

force was directed to organize workshops in accordance with the preferences

expressed in response to the survey.

On February 13, 1974, I reported to the Field Instructors Committee

on the activity of the school-agency communication subcommittee (See Appendix I).

That committee fully supported the subcommittee's recommendation that in the

Fall of 1974 a document be furnished to clinical faculty describing course

content and the nature and timing of course assignments for which agency ex-

periences and/or agency materials would be useful.. It was referred back to

the subcommittee for further development of specifics.

I met with Dean Riley again to bring him up to date on the thrust of

the subcommittee on communication and to verify that their proposals would

be implemented by the school. The results of the survey sent to clinical

faculty were reviewed with him. He felt the school could implement the com-

mittee's recommendations to revise the Field Instructors' Panual, provide

regular workshops for clinical faculty, and send field teachers a memo delin-

eating course assignments and explaining course content. He requested that

17

14.

the subcommittee prepare guidelines for t',e information the: feel clinical

faculty need from academic faculty. re re- affirmed thot the subcommittee has

his support in instituting changes and innovations which they recommended.

The second meeting of the subcommittee was held on February 27, 1974

(See Appendix J). Task forces reported tint 1) the Field Instructors' Yenual

is being revised, 2) letters and surveys have been sent to 84 graduate schools

of social work, 3) workshops are being planned, and 4) the Field Instructors

Committee endorsed the subcommittee's proposal for an informative memo about

classroom content and assignments to be sent to clinical faculty in the Fall

of 1974. An outline of information wh ch the committee felt should be com-

municated by teachers of all required c)urses was devised (See Appendix r).

Preliminary results of the survey sent to clinical faculty were retorted and

discussed.

The subcommittee felt that the results of the clinical faculty survey

confirmed their belief that the present faculty advisor system is not working

optimally. They recommended that the faculty advisors' role be more clearly

defined and strengthened with their function as a means of communication em-

phasized. Subsequently, a letter was sent to Dean Riley containing the out-

line devised by the subcommittee, and suggesting that a.greater effort be made

to use the faculty advisor to develop and maintain useful communication links

with field faculty (See Appendix Q).

The workshop task force met tle following week and scheduled the first

workshop for April 5, 1974 (See Appendix R). The topic will be "New Idebs

in Field Teaching - Come and Help Us Develop Them." I was asked to conduct

the first session on utilizing a modern systems approach to instruction in

social work field teaching (See Appendix S). Following the presentation, the

clinical faculty will break into small groups and meet in workshop sessions to

create their own teaching modules. ;each group will have academic faculty

members from a social work practice sequence to serve as a resource person.

The systems approach to education, using pers)nalized instruction packages,

is viewed as an innovative method for integrating class and field learning.

The subcommittee perceives this series of workshops, which involve both clin.

ical and academic faculty, as one means of opening communication among the

faculty.

The next meeting of the subcommittee is scheduled for April 17, 1974.

The subcommittee will continue to meet to evolve new decIsions which will be

executed and evaluated in the future. This is an on -going process which we

hope will continue to effect innovation to alleviate the problem of ineffect-

ive school - agency communication.

19

BEST COPY AVRABLERESULTS

Up to t!ds point, 40 responses have boon received from the survey

sent to 84 graduate schools of social work. These responses came from all

sections of the United ntates, Canada and Since we are receiving

answers Daily, the results reported here are only preliminary. The follow-

ing methods of communication between the school and agel.zy-based faculty are

used by other schools:

12.5% have newsletters

67,54 exchange news with field teachers

95.0 use liaison persons

85.0 give course descriptions to field teachers

60.0% give training sessions

62.0; have periodic workshops

65.0 have annual (fall and/or spring) workshops

SiA schools ass re ort having field instructors on committees. Five

schools report having a field instructors organization. Five permit field

instructors to take courses in the school. Eighteen schools indicate that

the liaison system is the primary key to successful communication and four

of these acknowledge that theirs doesn't work very effectively. Eight said

they felt seminars were the best communication medium.

If they had additional resources, nineteen indicated they would want

to do more training of field teachers rind seven tliouv:ht a newsletter would

be valuable. Five advocated changing to school-paid field instruction in

teaching centers.

When enough time has elapsed for all the resronsen to he received, the

data will be analyzed and evaluated.

Of the 104 surveys mailed to field instructors, $1 were returned. This

20

is a 77 ,e% return, which is excellent, particularly in view of the fact

that no return envelope was'enclosed. This hift percentage of returns seems

to indicate that clinical faculty bas oneern about fecilitntinr elmmunica.

tion between themselves and the school. lt also suiTests that they are in-

terested in influencing school policy and decision-making, especially about

matters which affect their rerformance.

Meaningful comments wore written on the queationnaire by 214 of the

respondents. Several mentioned that, clinical faculty would have an oppor..

tunity to feed back to the unisrsity the insights they have rained in the

action laboratories of practice. Suggestions were made tlIst clinical faculty

should have a chance to be involved in the classroom, in college governance,

and in curriculum planning of courses. For example, "We need moro input into

policies made by the school."

The questionnaire was divided into two sections. The first section

asked for clinical instructors' feetings about the effectiveness of our pres-

ent methods of school- agenc'r cmmunication. The results are;

VeryEffective Effective

a, school newsletter

b. faculty advisor

c. field instructor meetings

d. clinical faculty representa-tion on standing collegecommittees

el. memos and correspondence

annual field instructors'seminar

7,4:4 56.r,

16.0 35.V

7.4% 34.5%

12.3i;

59.2

13.5,1 42.0%

VotEffective Answer

27.2;; 8.6%

43.31; 4,91,

46.2n 9.Z

19.7: 22.2%

7.4%

22.2% 22.2%

Those modes of communication considered least of are the faculty

advisor and the field instructors' meetings. It is interesting to note that

2i

16% of the respondents considered t:..e faculty advisor_to_beArery effective.

.From written comments on the survey, it appears that these were situntins

where there had bean regular metings between the field instructor and faculty

advisor, or whore the student had a pnrticalr problem with which the faculty

advisor helped the agency instructor. Eleven respondents commented that

faculty advisors are potentially an extremely effective communications measure

if their roles were properly defined and strengthened. It was suggested that

they make periodic visits to field agencies. One clinical instructor said,

"The faculty advisor was the first contact with Parry in which I felt I had

been heard." The majority said they had little or no contact with their

faculty advisor.

Field instructor meetings were described as "too large," "dry and boring,"

"vague and general" and "involving too many people with too many specializa-

tions." They received the largest percentage of "not effective" tallies and

are clearly in disfavor.

The largest number of "no answers" was 2 2.2A regarding clinical faculty

representation on standing college committees. Thirteen respondents stated

that they had no experience with these committees and did not understand their

function. Typical comments were, "The field does not hear what is happening

in committees," "I've never been asked to be on one," and "I don't know what

committees do."

Clinical faculty consider the most effective existing lines of communica-

,tion to be MOM: and correspondence from the school, the school newsletter,

clinical faculty representation on standing college committees and the annual

field instructors seminar. The large number of "no answers" on the field in

structor seminars seems related to many statements that respondents had not

attended any seminars and hnd no experience with them. Some of them may be

new to the faculty, and no seminars have trr held yet this year,

The second section cif the questionnaire dealt with how helpful clin-

ical instructors felt proposed new methods of communication wJuld be. The

results are:

Very Not No

!!elpful ZelEttil jielpful Answer

a. detailed descriptions ofcontent of academic courses 60.54 30.8:4 3.7%

b. specific suggestions forrelating course contentto field work 58.0,7) 35.84 2.4% 3.7%

c. listing of written courseassignments relating tofield work 51.8?; 35.8;A; 7.43 4.9%

d. school sponsored periodicworkshops for the purpose of1) explaining course content 48.3 28.4;4; 14.6; 8.6:;

2) discussing field teachingmethods 59.3; 28.4$ 6.11,; 6.1:

3) field instructors presentingtheir methods of field teach-ing 53.1 27.24 14.9

The majority of respondents rated all of the suggested new lines of

communication very helpful. Comments were all positive, such as "treat idea,

and This would be a big help." Workshops explaining classroom course content

were slightly less preferred.

In general it appears that the existing means of communication were

rated significantly lower than the now modes proposed, which suggests that

there is dissatisfaction with the comnmication now in effect and therefore

clinical instructors are inclined to be enthusiastic about trying new methods.

23

19

In conclusion, the result: i of this practicum have been manifold. An

analysis of the data received from tie ourwv of the clinical faculty and

the preliminary results of the survey sent to other schools of social work

were presented to the subcommittee on communication. The response to the sur.

vey shows that field instructors are frequently dissatisfied with the existing

means of school agency communication, especially the faculty advisor and field

instructors' meeting. The subcommittee reacted to these findings by recommend-

ing that the faculty auvisor's role be strengthened and emphasis put on their

function as school-agency liaison persys. It also decided to replace field

Instructor meetings with p!riodio school-s onsored workshops since this was

clearly the preference of the clinical facult7. The first workshop has been

set up and will focus on field teaching methods because clinical faculty pre-

ferred this topic Oee Appendix S, U and V.

A majority of respondents to the survey felt detliled descriptions of

the content of academic courses, specific swTestions for relating; course con-

tent to field work, and listing of written course assignments relating to the

field would all be very helpful. Therefore, an outline of information that

should be provided to clinical instructors from teachers of required academic

courses was devised and will be put into effect at the beginning of the Fall

semester, 1974 (ceo Appendix F).

At the outset of this study, there was little effective communication

between the clinical faculty and academic faculty at the Barry College School

of Social Work. The clinical and academic faculty occupy horizontal positions

in the line-staff organization of the college (See Appendix Ti). In discussing

line-staff charts of colleges showing the rositiors in the hierarchy and the

structures of the institution, Mocker, flummer and Richardson point out that:

24

RFST :OPY PAILAL3LE

"In practice, tht success of an organization depnds as much upon !Triz)ntal

cooperation and coordination as it, does upon velical implementption of auth.16

ority and responsibility.#

Coordination aLd cooperation betwocn academic and clinical faculty are

necessary in order to have meaningful and edueati-nal prorrams for

students, but the raucity If comrunioation made it difficult for the two to

work together. Through the ingtitution of joint workshops for faculty, re.

vision of the field instructors' manual, sharing inl'orrative memos concerning

class content an assignments, and an imnroved faculty advisor liaison vstem,

the subcommittee is undertaking to mao it ossible for clinical and academic

faculty to coordinate thRir instructional efforts.

16. Blocker, Flummer:and Aichardson, op.cit., p.

25

21.

=411.01

RECUMDATIONS

In view of tho enthusiastic and p..oduotive activity of the subcomittop

to develop mare effective school-agency communienti.)n, and the alacrity of t.P

school a irlinistration to implement the subcommittee's suggesti.s, it is rec-

emmondeu

1. l'he subcommittee continue to hrim: to fruition the projects

it is now In the process of executing:

a) revising the Field Instructors' anual

b) re-defining and strengthcming the Faculty Advisor's role,

especially in relation to scl,00l-agency cc)mmunicrition.

c) regular school-consored workshops on field teaci.Ln4

d) initiating a system whereby !lassroom content and agency-

related assignments are oorrunicated to field teachers.

2. The agency-based clinical faculty of the tarry College 3raduate

.school of Social ':ork be apprised or the results of thc, :survey

sent to them and informed that the irojects t:ley endorsed are

being put into effect In an effort to inlrove school-agency

communication.

The final results nr the survey sent to the Director of Field

Instruction of C1 graduate schools of social work be tabulated

and analyzed.

4. Suggestions received fmm nthrr schools be considered by the sul,-

committee for utilization at :icirT College.

5. The new methods of communication that are being instituted also

be evaluated to deturrine their effectiveness in improving com-

munication bf!two,-,n the school and agency-based faculty:

26

a) workshops

b) revised manual

c) informative memo for clinical faculty

d) strengthening the faculty advisor liaison system

The subcommittee continue co function to discuss, inrovnte and

implement change in order to develop and institute r..)re effective

communication between the school and agency-based faculty.

7. A rej.ort of this investigation be published in order to m3Le

available to other ::shoals specific suggestions flr with

problems of communication.

If these recommeniations are carried through, as seems yrnba'ole

time, it is expected that they will bring about, more effective communication

between the school of social work and agency -hosed `'acuity. potter communica-

tion should improve the quality of field instruction by enabling clinical fac-

ulty to: a) achieve a better relItionship with the school, b) articulate class

and field teaching, c) give their teaching roles greater priority, and d) parti-

cipate more actively in the governance of their college.

As that groat Ai erican philosopher,rogo, once sa4', "'4e have met VII

enemy, and it is ust"

27

Ashmore, Renry L. "The Committee in Administration,"(Soiteber 19.51, 1.

Junior College Journal, Kra

Barnard, Chester I., The Functions of the 71xecutive. Cambridge, T.7assachusetts: Parvard

University Press, 193.

Mocker, Clyde 1;., Plummer, Robert Y., and Richardson, Richard C., jr. The Two-Year

College: A Social Synthesis. Er.levood Cliffs, row Jc,rsey: rrentic-Yall,Inc.,

1963.

Cohen. Arthur '7. Dateline '79 Ire:rattail Concerts in the Communit, Celley;e. Beverly

Hills, California. )lencoe press, 1969.

Corson, John J. Governance of Colleges and universities, New York: re/raw-T-11a Rook

Co., 1960.

Council on Social Work Education. The Future for ri010 Instruction: Agency-School

Commitment and Communication. New "brk: Council on :Iocial Wort:: Education, 1963.

Dana, !less, "The Rolo of rational Agencies in Stimuliting the Imprayement and Expansion

of Field instruction Resources," Field Instruction in Graduate 2ccial Work Edu-

cation. New York: Council on Sodria70771Tatioil777.

Jones, Betty Lacy (ed.). Current Patterns in Field Instruction in nraduate Social Work

Iducation. New ''ark: Council on Social ilor% Education, 1969.

Leader, Arthur L. "An Agency's View Toward Education for Yractice," Ocalrnal of Educa-

tion for Social Work, Fall, 1971.

Monroe, Charles R. irofile of the Community Celllev. San Francisco: Jossey -Pass Pub-

lishers, 1973.

Moore, William, Jr. Mind ran on a Freeway. San Francisco: Jossey.?ass Publishers,

1971.

"Potentials and Problems in the Changing School-Agency Relationship in Social Work Edu-

cation," Background materials and papers prepared for oiscussion at the Council

on Social Work Education house of Delegate reeting, January, 1964, Salt Lake

City, Utah. (Fimeographed).

"Purpose of Barry College? Association of Agency.4aid Field Instructors," Miami, 1970.

(Mimeographed).

Quaranta, Mary Ann and Stanton, Greta. "Planning Curriculum Change in a Large Tradi-

tional Field Instruction i'rogram," Journal of Education for.Social Wbrk, Winter,

1973.

Reynolds, Bertha Caper. Learning and Teaching in the Practice of Social 'York. rew York:

Russell and Runsoll, Inc., 19 -65;

28

APPENDIX

29

BO

AR

D O

F T

RU

STE

ES

PRF;

SID

EN

T

VIC

E P

RE

SID

E :I

' OF

AC

AD

EM

IC A

FFA

IRS 1

tco ti 2i4

co°

"7- FA

CU

LT

Y, T

EC

LU

DIM

Gui

danc

e Pe

rson

nel

DIR

FC:',

2 O

F-

CO

MU

NIT

Y A

FFA

IRS

MA

INT

EN

AN

CE

, OFE

RA

TIO

NS

& F

OO

D S

ER

VIC

ES

STA

FF

Gov

ernm

enta

l Yod

el o

f L

ine-

Staf

fO

rgan

t,at i

on o

fB

arry

Col

lege

SM

UT

S'

IGR

ISV

AN

CE

CO

r'IT

TM

DF

.AN

Ov

GR

AD

UA

TE

SC

HO

OL

()F

s:r

iAL

won

I

1M

ID Ir

ST

RU

CT

ION

CiF

FIC

E

it.g

e co

O.

=im

amD

EA

N41

...01

11IA

CR

D-n

= F

AC

IA"!

CU

RR

ICU

LUM

Cul

laT

TE

E

ST

AN

DIN

G C

alaT

TE

ES

DE

AN

'SA

DV

ISG

RY

CO

MM

IES

a

Lin

e-St

aff

orga

niza

tion

of G

radu

ate

Scho

ol o

f So

cial

Wor

k

APPI:NDIX C.

REMIYD7.1!

Meeting of the committee ro eevelon more ofcommunication between the school ane agency-basedfaculty.

TIM:: Wednesday, 4!30 p.m,DATF: Jnnulry 10, 1974PLAC7.: Social Worlr. Lounge

Parry College

Committog Members

Sharon AllyWilliam BnrrDavid FikeCarolyn ColdrathMildred IshoimSohn McCormickJames MorrowDale raulisonReva Wise

Chlirman: Lois Krop

32

eEsx COP1 AVAILABli.

Aeeting ct sul:tecq r1:%

11110:Mtt011!;; t'ArA

rorid Fiku ; find Carolyn Co.1.4.41.11

,-"APFT:DIX

41).3 tri0a.Z7.blg '`'ill C;P'::71-; I .i. V'l 0 1 1,- 0 - 7., 7' , c: ;.):1.,x'Ay of v.:(tqlt41%.,Avozit.w to(".V., eLrel i lad :S.0.67i,:k.%."..,`,t,',7:.;'S 01:4.3 JY.4 ':'4"',i ),, ti.:' ' r A':, . ,, A!, Julop 4 Sh Dcnitts.hxi t: be. Item-t*7r thatthil cv,,;,a-af4 stfaus i': t'LlId *,i.s... ,0.6 t.lntlal fileuRy vnibc.21: hadbeen a rem.a),..; cf ale o7ganizaVicn cf- 0:1...! A:3c4,ni..1 of.. Agency Paid Fitt",ixi InstrAlc-tos in X969, .3utp,;(114loV7 ,,Wwk,. f.:11A os ;.-'LF104:1 ':di Plead 1T,,w1:.!...tort, on co{° otc., had fct1.11 1,,-.'..:.,

The c:in';ensus cf leho Otav; muLh Ccwumicatint doe!- nice placebut r.1 osto !1'7.);Ir:45 that Az Aallr, of cir,,,rmaz,Itcaticnineludo !ntrx:Ital thrutTO %,c1-1cchops, molthly .7!^:t11-0;44serminaTLi9 ot vh,.7 ctf ..11v.i..,c,2:to..:stit the f7T3tyand tile mamtal. TM croup wwkic:wr.i d.1ty pcv,r1.* ovAtiltva to asic fm Mr: gm qvIeral.Teetinv rlIcn 1'1? .`v: r-VV1u Is aN;:ftplivhcld in thvTI It a.?, 72parenivyn the dif7cuse3:!tlt 1:101 c?A opti 0.) a ieelAng o1 c;...Wl!ao.t.. and in-vOlvement in ho 6ohr:A; 01 :i2enific vhat theil? sv!uleots oeedLQs various clasl-,ra et;-:d Choy cemw7tly 2.fw:nieg; ,Anv.1!char7T3 in em(Auling9

The tole of rhi faculty oe1471...7,fro weir*. its adqiuney ,15

4.res.t;4ng the 3timitt7 c; time *;he aciv,sc,!:. hat, avahlo elpj thelack of clat%I.ty the t;.1(::.

The Tanual 7as seen as fi e 14,(imuvirlatir.4:1 clad is belmj urdated, JohnV.zeormick off c1-7ed vc) i<ega

boo ',-Ash,:_va on Oast CO'rtt: faeuXy %(.?e idea, %.,,,th e;-Tlitn:v:;.1t7=of lat is termed by 02 (c.:!.71m% (the i'jojd tei t3 cont!ent. Ye:.41bacXthe ficad cwld be irl.:Audol, Thel,o zcF1.1 inrgq TA.Inthly

The is a need fo, n,pc,cAfich itom the .1(!ho.O. an Z:o t,hat is eta edrd 1st ttlA, vay OLcaso for pl7ticalAy.7 valL141n7! et;,' oTarc:ss reccr.4dipcj is nft#1,. ;.U;:"-Ork Al.th (poupcit eV2. fcr. cat.e 'w:s;c1 Ae,5:lig, bydate Mflould be s7nt to rhe Al7o, i:7h2 .0(1. reds to vAltint63deilOh agon-y has avai1c,blo t,,ay oral eys'elt?Azas a4d a9r,:41 s'(:udentsaCemAing?.y %,:ith great caze.

It .as annOunced thadt tro workshops AM Wallfqi i.0.1z this spring avould ten contentof field instvuctim, arLd theso r.n. .;'to the .,:eoo7,above, Mildrod Ishei3 arwit Dalt% Vauliso-.:4 cf:14rli vork A.th R, tvioel OA this.

It an also :vggetted that t-he (tcw-v.,011.6 s. f t h athfm :lohoolA rt'43 1( as to hot they londlgr coTmoticaon, otm Llot:To40 oft axed to orit on c.hi.3.

Lois )(rap suggested that she i:aike 04 Atgcoon to tho ettinulum Committee that an infozmative meo be t,eag: L1.13wuritoc fr.; ,m e6,ch academie:ingtructn7 YI-och As .Joy pw;c;T7c171.!:. orMkrm;7for students to tic) in 0.Cil

33RW:ip

1Ze4 Ailtfully submitted.,

Reva 'dine

AFFItINDIX 3

FNO TO: Minim", Fw!'

FRoM: Lot!: 1. r7L:i rpoc,!,,,,,

DATE: vf,brnit 14 '74

A cpmmittee devolor more offoctivP communication

between Plrry Collerfe nei.00l of rociAl Woe, and arr,encv-bssud nac,;ltv.

Wo wonld al)!)recilto rof-;,r)nnes t.c tho attacl,d roc,

PA ;r1,1 ni r I AT, 1.4oRK

'1.'1E111 INSTIVir lofi!31 I rit\N AIR%

1. Mow effective you fool each of the followinr ar at, prftient in establishing

communication between school and agency?

school now!ilAtter

fac'.;Ity advisor

field instructcr meetings

d) clinical facial t.7* representnt ion

on standing!: college committees

e) memos and correspondencm

f) arnunl reld instructors'seminar

;I)

Very 1.:Alective Xffective Not Efroctive

rramermaa m

111'

whim AN& ...AM

. . marrempramm ammm. rd. man Me rap.. we!

Pow helpful would the followin t,e to 'you in your teaching of social workstndents in thn field?

Very uelpful Not vol pful

detailed descrirtinns of contentof academi2 courses

specific sqi!retions relntino:mrse content to field work

C1 listing of written course assirn-merits relating t'.) field woric

d) school s!lonnored periolil work-shops frar the pur!'ose of:

1) explaininr course content

2) di!7c,issing field tencilitig

mothods

3) field instructon pr,sentirrtheir mothods of field teaching

a.. MamMar

DO ylo have anv surgestiPlns for faolitnling communication hotween the school

and clinical fac,Ilty, If so, lease re'qrt them the hack of this sheet.

Please return to:

Tois r. Krnr2001 N.F. 195th Drive

No;-,h Viami nnaoh, Fls. '9162

BARRY

COLLEGESCHOOL OFSOCIALWORK

Director of Field Instruction

Dear Sir:

APPENDIX

February 21, 1974

The Field Instruction Committee of parry College Graduate Schoolof Social Work is at present searching for new or improved methodsof communication between field instructors and the school. In

attempting to improve this communication we are calling upon theassistance of the graduate schools of social work throughout thenation. We would be more than grateful for your responses tothe enclosed questions and any additional comments 7ou feel wouldbe helpful to us.

It is the intention of this committee to provide the results offindings to each school of social work requesting these findings.Thank you for your cooration and 'lease signify if you wouldlike a copy of our findings.

MOT)nclosure

Very truly yours

Jame: MorrowField Instruction Committee

36

11300 N.E. SECOND AVENUE MIAMI SHORES, FLORIDA 33161 TELEPHONE (305) 7583392

APPEMIX B

HAW COLLEGE SCMCL 0? ScCIAL WQRK

serca,Fino AGENCY CanNICATION

Which of the following methods do you use for communication with your

field faculty?

Other;

regular newsletter ( information memos ( )

Faculty liaison persons ( )

course descriptions given to field instructors ( )

training sessions ( ) Periodic workshops (

annual fall workshop (or planning session) ( )

II. Comment on the relative value of these methods, as you see it.

III. What other mlthods would you use if you had additional resources?

Please return tos

James YolrowField Instruction CommitteeEia;try College 5chool of Social Work

11300 N.B. 2nd Avenue

Yiami, Florida 33161

Names

School:

37

Mr.::C Fioid Tnerriir:-1( .1

navi

1.,It tt ^ h-,,o

meetin-

417-,rftnn

APPrEllIX I

wro,cvlrv

.71,141.010 t4 "0 0,11r1Thel;i1 Inul,0 1r Thvor:11 (1'17. nCtiVo.11w 1.11 ;In'. of tilflm for rhP 1'1111

Lo4.' 7r07, his t-thlired "cN !7ehnni-tv,eiti, 70*-1-111n icntion 3W7s-1.74 rtm.7.Thar rc..11.-.1 rhr, inl :7t1f,r':Ion of :1 rm! .rientstionto formation cr!ch7;n,7r, ;sr 'the schonl.

Nino we nlve hr=.1n lsT!n14 by th1+ leal rn rho irnrIncr the felIn r1.1 7.chnnt" lne rn rec:),nne 1 cltin-

n..enc,7 in the ,7*vl!lt r.hlr !1rohth4rive, cIst 1-10/or Ilrrv,1lhtlitv rhnttl,1 Tilfr* it fc,r inPOr f:1:111 t- to f;,in-tain r:virrcInt f!nlrl schrd.,11r,

Vlolse come. And nle1,1^ hrin, thete mntrerr.

1111...mm

D7:j*-)

cc: ')eln

L. Kron

.111110.14,M. ...MOP

MEMO;

Ate LIAPPMDIX iT

To: Agency eased Field Instructors

From: Executive Committee, Assn. of Agency Based Field Instructors

Re: Association meetings

In the past, ue have met primarily monthly prior to Mr. Barr':

regular monthly meeting. Now we have 114 members, which is an

unwieldy number.

The Association has been the instrument through which we voiced

our concern to the school. Our concerns from last academic year

were presented to the school in a meeting in August, 1973. We

have been assured that ue will know uhich students are to be placed

at our agencies sooner than in the past. All of you should have

received itotice Of re: courses field instructors can take at Barry

and too procedure.

Our biggest concern has been bottrir communicatibn ectueon the -

school and the field. Some of you uigned up at the last Field

Instructors' meeting_ta work on tank foroos or subcommittees of

the Field Iltstructipn Committee. One of those subcommittees is

currently working on this area, and is nsking input from Field

Instructors. Members should got some feed back as to prcigreso from

this subcommittee.

Thus, it seems that regular meetings may not be needed as in the

pest. We would like to recommend that association members contact

a member of the executive committee re: any concerns you may have

that should be brought to the total membership and meetings can be

called as needed. Also, if any of you object to this plan, please

let the executive committee know in writing.Dale Paulisen, Chairman Marcia Frumberg, Sec.TreasurerEvelyn Milledge, ViceChairman

39

YEM; Day.;A

Voortmmy

RL: Voa.Ao sici oAi

Ccm

IC

suticnicua I; r.1A47citJAIr; cht!, meta=

and pvc,i;e3: kAY%,aesN Clas)1 4.: fa;lulty,

07,o 1,,a,.-w.or.dztfl 'oe 19-,! dcz%ulTi*.t. should ;2 fuzilichod

to :neld lats:rucw- th7.1 no.vioe ex,0 tirokag ol .iove:so ssrigu-

ments fc '41-.1ch r,:pevtnv.zos 4:1:4,;0? Tnnr:tals v.oubd ba useiul

(or cvlscal)

Tc g'Ne us 41 buu5pni,lg idea ow.t: vi dcz.omoui: that vould

ba yva Onase gis7,2 m5 0 1:°,:o Oatievoiy,ci :4o natttwi ok sueh amigv-

a.GAt!, in zhe qtr:LiudI :$-J0;.nvs) :Jot- you t(Isight (017 att teaahiog)

thin yoJr? Tf ouch cui!Aungwatts ,;)..tL:on !,our comise oUiio, yoll

could mt.31:tt that.

neaso also cCret, 2..etmr.inuc.1 itleas ah(vZ this sugme'ion

Thank you.

'ardp

40

1 ,

1..74

nr.41

Co:?17t t ror,

T'

: 1.1-

,A' 1 It 4! 4'

, . 1 _ . f 1 ,io17 1 i)",

Olt . -' . 1 .

..44 1 r! R

.

"") -4, 4 `r} r ny -- r, -

1 7, ;

r c'T'" 7'47 t"' t"

S.

4vti! 1

,F

't

v.;I-4

444

-)frs1

44:1

c

,.-4.44

"It"'

r

'lritt

,., ^

`,." -

414 1 444144 ; 44 "' / rs, .

APPENDIX L

! . , v veer, 4. 44 4,

r 1." ; " f: 1 4' 44, C4-1 I-4, v.

Ar7"7-:t7f7"74

ryTOI e

r.1

trs."1 f1C1111-'7

; -4t4

46

A

4.1. 41' 1 ,

APPFATZX

K

1;1

rnkt.: f... .71 1. Ct .1. V

7 c3r4 inq w,brk

r7:4jcct: r 1:ftc ,610.,13. pd

,Igc.11C

i5 rev -I-, 11)1 .20

S" LOLIS CI 4" t " i t 1, :7 t 1)C1 '41 1 r/ ier4

p3z.;11-111

flease 1-J-eref are, c-.7,Tvp 4 r C'...; ill(' tZ110:.1

(1. r o. urn it- r, s

:PP

rt kl% ti LIM

42

:;

u v

f- 1 1 I.ft, ,,!4

1:41c1^,.

'1

I: i7 1.1r;

lei 1,,

.1. .t

A

i`

F

r.

7, a .)77'77 ": A 'io .

`"i6 , I, ;

43

Lcic Kr op

-rRom:

to,rmcPAr1r)1.1 N

.0.1=INNYINIPM DATE

)0yau idovil Brry CQhool of t;oaial Work lie

Fiehl Ticructor' uoLtionna' o Aid-Wition

MtiloLl out tilt: enclo,-,ed with memo) to 1:11t,

linac.:,:kt,d n.0110, on yonr 01 elinicl 1.tonity (onclut;od). You

not ioo I 1 noLo. vc,livdinq iIu litJ on it: for

your bunei it. Dr. :ikt wrote Liu., mLuu ,Accompany the quot,t,..-qukciv

I 'igntql your nlme to it Nith initials). Hope that's 0.k.

Ti there is anything iurther I can do, please let me know.

_:ample 2nd edition quetionnaire

raoulty LltA:

WintcrHt.con .111(!!LionnAirc

Out lirke of information to be provided to clinical instructorsI

from teachers of required academic courses at the t eginning of theFall semester, 1974.

1. Title of Course

2. Student's Field 'lark Semester

1 . 2 3 4

3. Basic Textbooks used

4. C 'noise Summary of course content:

Assignments which relate to field work.

Late completion of each assignment is expected.

Dr. JohlDc,nSch-lo l of loctol

1110h 7. / Avenuo$ rlo,.401 111(1

Dear Jac c:

Cur committee. r,entir- In r,*!,,lorrTo 1- ,....i to!,17

our s%rvey$ the corn.rttte re,co-1-1-r ,e-4 4.-:t-uctorrbe r,rovidoe 4-#7,achrr ofreqtilree acirlemix nt of the f,11 se,rter.1T7/4. nronos,!d ,mtli.no for ths..7

1. -Ttt1a Co,-,-

?. tur'ortnl1-1-

1. lastc To.,-tt-oolrr eIrr:1/4. Concts--, ,-1mnr.,r of

5, AsstIn-,entr ,1pf. to fiold '.tor . ",trcomplotiol of rssi71-1r,-t

T ^1 hooinp, thit i7 rhT 1.i.nr3 of Fob n-t 1171.ch 4'0,1 folt bepractical to imple-nent. Clr 11t 4f$ hcv,t can be dorl, ro tttl 11-r!'. tr tc, co-1-4.tt:c?

Th corvnittee also folt that 1,17,740 or thl. r4,ru1 tr of th- so.rvo7zo fir, the role of the., lr'vtrorThey recom-lend that fvolOt- ,0,0111e, -111

(ffort to develol nr41 cm--smicitior 14,°Psthe field Instructorr. :o von ,-,1 r, 11r"

Ti'rks for "'Qtly con-nr^ttor.

cc: David FiAe

46

BAidel COLLEGE - SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WORK

N Ci1.1711N1C,\TION 2N Fr= INSTRUCTION

March 3, 1974. - Noon

Present: rrs. Wise, Yrs. Yrop, ts. Ischeim,Nrs. Faulison, and Mr. Barry, guest.

a

1. It was decided that the workshop should be moved to Friday, April 5,to allow enough notice to field instructors.

Lois Krop described the development and use of learning modules inthe field, giving the teaching of relationship as an example of a

-.

module. -She described it as a useful tool in relating the field ex.perience to the classroom. From this developed the idea of usingthe group sessions to work with faculty in the social work practicesequence on the creation of selected learning modules.

3, .To involve as many field instructors as possible, the committee willappoint facilitators and recorders for each group as well as hostsfor the coffee and registration.

The goal of the worksho? is to involve field instructors and class-room faculty in specifying learning objectives and devising learningactivities to meet these objectives. Faculty will need to have someobjectives already selected and resource material available.

RW: jp

3/13/74

47

YttIqN

1.7-; !---.

4 ..A.*t7r0A:!:' ( )" mi.1A

4t, 114 ELL C.%:t;: liS 1:)}.V,1,10;.:P

Pokroz'y .(!ot)floo Llbrary01.3 I T.) ,,3., i. t1 t Loy:11.,

p.yoc, tr 1,151%

*V 4* O. .11. an A... t t ,. vs, af

'ut-h2 71:m gyf Titachtn.q:

l,t) 17:el

FRt'AK

2.3 4 r:1

=UP iii:i:!US:-.104

;rcia:k ot A111(1 r Wi; Ille:At ;xi :nortrz-t2az their taa-r...x.9 164)e Earl; gi.oup

4.3..1. haw; a t.',E11.1ty ct"il rractli..74sequtnce Ivr-442 >,,f,:cott:Nce: te:::iortl. E.t.a g.xn,Tv,0.17it on a seloct§.,,ii. unit of lottaniric gtitzti -wr.13.ationEhipu"intake inTervian9*" or PuvuLes rivozdtmf to fenniletet

t1o41.1ilf, YatA,.1.1.1r. for use LI eiCtr 1 1614set t2.11y).

RF.,U4RC f#Ahr.; :11

depr).0:z4.JATe-AlX0 4 423,ion

4 y e n . 4 : 30.1, v..... .6 ...moo,. 6,

FEEDBACK SE,7 ION -- SUM= .)1 !DM 4 EXELRIENCE3

M.e 41=PP 0. 1.,. 1.. ..11 mope. me,*

For additi*nal inforvonon ptione Reqm 7$5-E3129 Extension :q:.;

PLEASE Rrrtza EN ED ;<ECI.Vritikri'

777.- 7-7.7:777:.17.7 -7:77

INANK You.

/13

NP.F: C01,

, ,La tc 1 r fit 0,49 -tr.:. (41 ,,1,47u.'i !A.-10" 1%8

00?../ c

4..!yr!

. :4.;

,0;

.111 !%chozls

tne

, sehor.wor';

U,S rcr,d The JA-1::Nrf.,11AJYL.;A: 1yN

-7

-

Iv;A af2 502

hA:,fv.1, 1'; ',at.,

nr n4rDt gr? y1 T77!'-

!;aly V. !r:2

\:1,1

-A.1!% 041,frol Mr' 111,-1'-: --; a !A 0.101;htn, rIVILI/A1,e v.:Tv? 4.y 1 t,''p it% 1. 7\). J,4;! 40%1' ;IL 011ft

t-he t aodfaculty. aim 5.1,..17.2 cif

uas gc.ctd hat. e .70,;;

as Yilculty 1;t: tdv:?.rti,-* .-!11-0,3 beeiJer a7. !",V ar, A

tL.v..311111 c.*-44:1

4 I.41 z.kbAc$: cjxon tl th4, Jtd nst*:guc0.-A P.crilmteeablat: tht--) tivi G;4:! i 1. r

Of studontfJ their wao4 1.743, ej,L\nIt1)';, Tipz (:.t: ice gavotht idea a '' 5 hAilc thifi Subcotitv, fo-f

viork. is ...4,?nr.;,y dre 2:111,1 fr.ri.ry C !WI 344.sr.t.tet..,:ve-,

y':-''T:.'.-'-'-";'-"':".'"1.11.111-11 was nutri-, frn th llc;111,4 tk v4101101:forlia or iirzorme.i. aod t.--.1.1:m4viull. Coe., skvdo.:7' CYP (.7hrov,0 .;.1..tstr.ue71.:01%

It decidod drial.',-; a im:A t,o RnAVi

S. Rua 'Asti mvortfild chat' the c;rywitAl., w5.1 /,m mrrletir4g flextwot44_ w11.1, 10,',)e a r.101':°4:iA We..1,11::v)

,. 49

BARRY COLLEGE - SCHOOL OP SCCIAL WORKCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATION BETWEENSCHOOL St FIELD IRSTRUCTCRS PRESENTS:

A Workshop for. Stsala.Systems Field Instructors1:00-4:30 P.M.

impwommilowww. ..... wommemempowm40.40411000011wW4WWWwWwimosimmilimmlibew*WWftseWOWa~4~WwWalkummiftwo,

1:00 - 2.00 P.M.

uThe Use of Packaged Teaching: Modules IR Field lastruction"LOIS OOP

2.02.mils P.M.

COFFEE BREAK

4 00 P 14.

GROUP DISCUSSItli SESSIONS

Small groups of field instructors will meet in workshop sessionsto create their own teaching nodules. Each group will have a facultymember from the social work practice sequence to serve as a resourceperson. Each group will work on a selected unit of lisarnigg suchas *relationship,* "intake interviewing,* or !process recording* toformulate individualized teaching modules for use in theSx fieldsettings.

RESOURCE PARTICIPANTS :AND SUBJECTS:

"Educational Diagnosis"

*Helping a Student Know*

*Interviewing the Agency"

*Termination"

*Feelings People Bring to Groupe

4:00 4:30 P.N.

FEEDBACK SESSION ow WARING OF IDEAS &EXPERIENCES

JUGS PURDON

JAMS MARTIN

ALIO =MIRama MB

WILLIAM BUR

011100104400wWWWW40wWWM .....WW4001*0114.000100001-ftwoimemOWAPWANOMIdommomilmoilowiew*wWW0ftimmoropepopyrommopmmaimmoppWr

_COesittee Neebers;

. _ .

Sharon AllyDavid PikeMildred MeinJames Norm.Rave Wise

50

SawCarAyn GoildrathJolts IdeCorackDale PaulisonLois Mope Chairporson

34,

A WovItOop Lots !iroJA t;yv:emsFleild Tas;!ructots

EyA7AATICA

All'EVILLI V

eR.

This vivAshop has bego dealgAe.4 tc' 'beet tne :tiqueez of field instruvtv:s forihomsed communiaation betmem the field and the classroom. We luvt %Tiedto tic this by pInvid'Ing dIA ekercine n cm classroon_Q,ox4teht1.3 taaching.-tve would :iit%) kit w wise;:hod,, this exercise wets usefulir, helping you to plan your owe teaching vtth iceck studeuts in thefAld. ladcmuttionfrnm these quest:Junta:acts will be used to plan fAurevforkshcps for rield Iili=Lators9

I found_this wo4iisl.op

a) vet? iluexes.t:ing p modlrately lateresting 0 dull

Is the corAcept: of tiwhing c.,dules applicable in ycuragency sett i:4?

a; yes h possibly

Would you the wodule ecttv.01' is field instrucgionT

as diel'anitely b; possib;y c) not ever

Would you bo intevIstel ivs a fumther expleoa.cion of this conceptat a future woxIkeaop?

ad yes bo,! ig2ss:i%ly c) .41ti

59 How well do yot thlrit the mAule c.o.,:ept: would serve :',14 mee;ingthe followlea basiz plvoILLezo in field instruction;

A. Integration of class contenv &c id field experience

a) vuy wall II) mvc4epate1y well ...;) not vat' well

B. livovidiag ecoal opporzuoltv for basic field learning in avariety of diverse $stzr:Jtv

a) 4ery well 1) widerately well ') noY very well

C. Promoting an inarvased vIdepetience of the student fro' hissupervisor

al very well mcdevavely will c) Jet very well

Do you feel t is avothee visek shop of Wifts type would be use.: u17

leimemmeaveseeeroe weer..

SUGGESTICWS:

sO0. wow

Would you be willing tc wt a cocoa-tree?

af yes, name)

IiHtlbY'slName

Cl ter

I certify that 1 have read this practicum report and haveOsLussed its contents with the writer.

Z.' 3 11!) i y

/(JignaLure 9f peer t*ader)

I Lt.utify that I have read ttlii practicum report and Wyedicculsud Jntents with tLe writor.

gnature of peer reader)

1 LLrtify that I have read this practicum report and havediscussed its contents with the writer.

,/ L41i_7(date)

---t-

gnature of peer reader)

I certify that I have read thi, practicum report and that in myopinion it conforms to acceptable standards for practicums in theOoctor of Education Program.

datel s gn a tu re otTr'--r15icmUimm71)

! U '

52