This worldwide study of field instruction provides comparative data about curriculum, field instructors, school-field partnerships and student assignments. While field education is nearly universal for entry-level education, there are notable structural and curricular differences amongst countries. Nearly all respondents identify the major educational challenge as helping students to integrate theory and practice.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ankrah, E. M. (1997) ‘Curriculum Development: Some Experiences of Pilot Schools in the IASSW Project’, International Social Work20: 28-38.
2.
Bogo, M. and R. Power (1992) ‘New Field Instructors’ Perception of Institutional Supports for their Roles’, Journal of Social Work Education28(2): 178-189.
3.
Braun, H. J. and D. Kramer (eds) (1986) Social Work Education in Europe. Frankfurt: Association for Public and Private Welfare.
4.
Council on Social Work Education (1992) Curriculum Policy Statement. Washington, DC: CSWE.
5.
Council on Social Work Education (1993) Standards for Accreditation. Washington, DC: CSWE.
6.
Forte, J. A. (1994) ‘Around the World with Social Group Work: Knowledge Research Contributions’, Social Work with Groups17(1/2): 143-162.
7.
Hoffmann, W. (1993) ‘Selected Aspects of Field Instruction in South African Undergraduate Social Work Programmes’, Maatskapleke Werke29(2): 56-66.
8.
Kendall, K. A. (1996) ‘The Challenges of Internationalism in Social Work: Past, Present and Future’, in L. Healy (ed.) The Global-local Link: International Challenges to Social Work Practice, pp. 3-11. School of Social Work, University of Connecticut.
9.
Kersting, H. J. and L. Krapohl (1994) ‘History and Development of Social Group Work in Germany and the Problems of Unification’, paper presented at the XVI Annual Symposium of the Association for the Advancement of Social Work with Groups, Hartford, CT, October.
10.
Mere, A. A. (1981) ‘Field Instruction in Nigerian Schools of Social Work’, International Social Work24: 41-45.
11.
Midgley, J. (1993) ‘Promoting a Development Focus in the Community Organization Curriculum: Relevance of the African Experience’, Journal of Social Work Education19(3): 269-278.
12.
Ojanuga, D. N. (1985) ‘The Mujedawa Dispensary Project. An Experiment at Ano Liosia: A Field for International Social Work Practicum’, Journal of Social Work Education21: 125-130.
13.
Pelekan, C. M. (1974) ‘The Experiment at Ano Liosia: A Field for International Social Work Practicum’, International Social Work17: 1-5.
14.
Raskin, M. (1994) ‘The Delphi Study in Field Instruction Revisited: Expert Consensus on Issues and Research Priorities’, Journal of Social Work Education30(1): 75-89.
15.
Raskin, M., L. Skolnik and J. Wayne (1991) ‘An International Perspective of Field Instruction’, Journal of Social Work Education27(3): 258-270.
16.
Rogers, G. (1996) ‘Training Field Instructors British Style’, Journal of Social Work Education32(2): 265-276.
17.
Shardlow, S. and M. Doel (1992) ‘Social Work Education in Czechoslovakia’, Social Work Education11(2): 60-68.
18.
Shawsky, A. (1972) ‘Social Work Education in Africa’, International Social Work15: 3-26.
19.
Skolnik, L. (1988) ‘Field Instruction in the 1980s - Realities, Issues, and Problem-solving Strategies’, in M. S. Raskin (ed.) Empirical Studies in Field Instruction, pp. 77-87. New York: Haworth.
20.
Slocombe, G. (1993) ‘If Field Education is so Vital Why Isn’t Everyone Doing It?’, Australian Social Work46(2): 43-49.
21.
Wagner, A. (1996) ‘Challenges to Social Work: Europe’, in L. Healy (ed.) The Global-local Link: International Challenges to Social Work Practice, pp. 29-31. School of Social Work, University of Connecticut.
22.
Wayne, J., L. Skolnik and M. S. Raskin (1988) ‘Field Instruction in the United States and Canada: A Comparison Study’, in M. S. Raskin (ed.) Empirical Studies in Field Instruction, pp. 77-87. New York: Haworth.
