A study of msw and bsw students’ perceptions of their field instructors

Journal of Social Work Education

Volumn 32, Issue 3, 1996, Pages 399-414

  Knight, Carolyn ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE COUNTY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 18744423975     PISSN: 10437797     EISSN: 21635811     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10437797.1996.10778470     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Amacher, K. (1976). Explorations into the dynamics of learning in fieldwork. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 46,163-217.
2. Bogo, M., & Power, R. (1992). New field instructors’ perceptions of institutional supports for their roles.Joumal of Social Work Education, 28,178-189.
3. Bogo, M., & Vayda, E. (1988). The practice of field instruction in social work. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
4. Chambers, D., & Spano, R. (1982). Integration of learning in field instruction. In B. Sheafor & L. Jenkins (Eds.), Qualityfield instruction in social work (pp. 226-234). New York: Longman.
5. Faria, G., Brownstein, C., & Smith, H. (1988). A survey of field instructors’ perceptions of the liaison role. Journal of Social Work Education, 24, 135-144.
6. Fortune, A., Feathers, C., Rook, S., Scrimenti, R., Smollen, P., Stemerman, B., &Tucker, E. (1985). Studentsatisfaction with field placement. of Social Work Education, 21(3), 92-104.
7. George, A. (1982). A history of social work field instruction: Apprenticeship to instruction. In B. Sheafor & L. Jenkins (Eds.), Quality field instruction in social work (pp. 37-60). New York: Longman.
8. Gitterman, A. (1989). Field instruction in social work education: Issues, tasks, and skills. The Clinical Supervisor, 7,77-91.
9. Gordon, W., & Gordon, M. (1982). The roles of frames of reference in field instruction. In B. Sheafor 8c L. Jenkins (Eds.), Quality field instruction insocialwork (pp. 21-36). New York: Longman.
10. Grossman, B., Levinejordano, N., & Shearer, P. (1991). Working with students’ emotional reactions in the field: An educational framework. In D. Schneck, B. Grossman, & U. Glassman (Eds.), Field education in social work: Contemporary issues and trends (pp. 205-216). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/ Hunt.
11. Guttman, E., Eisikovits, Z., & Maluccio, A. (1988). Enriching social work supervision from the competence perspective.yoiimaZ of Social WorkEduca-tion, 24,278-287.
12. Jenkins, L., & Sheafor, B. (1982). An overview of social work field instruction. In B. Sheafor & L. Jenkins (Eds.), Qualityfield instruction in social work (pp. 3-20). New York: Longman.
13. Kadushin, A. (1991). Field education in social work: Contemporary issues and trends. In D. Schneck, B. Grossman, & U. Glassman (Eds.), Field education in social work: Contemporary issues and trends (pp. 11-12). Dubuque, LA Kendall/Hunt.
14. Knowles, M. (1972). Innovations in teaching styles of approaches based on adult lezxnmg.Joumal of Education for Social Work, 8,32.
15. Kohn, R. (1971). Differential use of the observed interview in student training. Social Work Education Reporter, 19,45-46.
16. Lemberger, J., & Marshack, E. (1991). Educational assessment in the field: An opportunity for teacher-learner mutuality. In D. Schneck, B. Grossman, & U. Glassman (Eds.), Field education in social work: Contemporary issues and trends (pp. 187-197). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
17. Lennon, T. (1994). Statistics on socialwork education in the United States: 1993. Alexandria, VA: Council on Social Work Education.
18. Nunnally.J. (1978) .Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill.
19. Pagano, R. (1986). Understanding statistics in the social sciences (2nd ed.). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.
20. Raskin, M. (1988). Factors associated with student satisfaction in undergraduate social work field placements. In M. Raskin (Ed.), Empirical studies in field instruction (pp. 321-335). New York: Haworth.
21. Rosenblatt, A., & Mayer, J. (1975). Objectionable supervisory styles: Students’ views. Social Work, 20,67-73.
22. Rosenblum, A., & Raphael, F. (1983). The role and function of the faculty field liaison .Journal of Education for Social Work, 19, 62-73.
23. Rosenfeld, D. (1989). Field instructor turnover. In M. Raskin (Ed.), Empirical studies in field instruction (pp. 187-217). New York: Haworth.
24. Royse, D. (1991). Research methods in social work. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
25. Schlenoff, M., & Busa, D. (1981). Student and field instructor as co-therapists. Journal of Education for Social Work, 17, 29.
26. Shur, E. (1979). The use of the co-worker approach as a teaching model in graduate student field education. Journal of Education for Social Work, 15, 72-79.
27. Shulman, L. (1981) .A study of the content, context, and skills of supervision. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.
28. Shulman, L. (1982). Skills of supervision and staff management. Itasca, IL: Peacock.
29. Shulman, L. (1992). The skills ofhelping. New York: Peacock.
30. Sinicrope, R., & Cournoyer, D. (1990). Validity of student ratings of field instruction. Journal of Social Work Education, 26, 266-272.
31. Skolnik, L. (1989). Field instruction in the 1980’s— Realities, issues, and problem solving strategies. In M. Raskin (Ed.) ¡Empirical studies in field instruction (pp. 45-47). New York: Haworth.
32. Smith, H., Faria, G., & Brownstein, C. (1986). Social work faculty in the role of liaison: Afield study.Journal of Education for Social Work, 22(3), 68-78.
33. Urbanowski, M., & Dwyer, M. (1988). Learning through field instruction: A guide for teachers and students. Milwaukee, WI: Family Service America.
34. Zakutansky, T., & Sirles, E. (1993). Ethical and legal issues in field education: Shared responsibility and risk.Journal of Social Work Education, 29,338-347.