Abstract
Research training is a key area of social work education and integral to the success of future practitioners. Innovative pedagogical models for teaching research have been proposed, including those based on experiential approaches. This exploratory study evaluated a research practicum (RP) model for social work students. The intended outcome of the study was to develop, implement, and evaluate a comprehensive model for RP that encompasses experiential, cognitive, relational, and affective dimensions of learning. In total, 16 students and 14 instructors completed an online survey and open-ended questions about their experiences. Mentorship was identified as a key component facilitating student learning during the RP across cognitive, affective, behavioral, and relational dimensions. Mentoring provided students in this study with modeling, guidance, and scaffolding; offering a secure foundation for developing their research skills; and envisioning themselves as researchers. The findings suggest that a RP can provide students the setting in which to develop a broad range of skills and competencies in social work research.
Keywords
Field practicum is an integral part of the social work curriculum. It is a form of community service that occurs under the direct supervision of a social worker, typically in a social service agency. The purpose of field education “. . . is to connect the theoretical/conceptual contributions of the academic setting with the practice setting, enabling the student to acquire practice skills that reflect the learning objectives for students identified in the Standards” for accreditation by the Canadian Association for Social Work Education (2014, p. 14). However, the ability to deliver field education is in jeopardy as social work scholars and educators have highlighted a field education crisis stemming from saturation, whereby “. . . the lack of sufficient numbers of practica to accommodate the increasing demand for placements from expanding social work education programs” (Ayala et al., 2017, p. 285). Also, social work educators are increasingly tasked with finding effective ways of engaging students in research education in a manner that adheres to guidelines outlined by accreditation bodies and attends to the “. . . increase focus on the role of research in the social service sector, pressure for practitioners to engage in research and the demand for integration of research and practice” (Hewson, Walsh, & Bradshaw, 2010, p. 7). The research practicum (RP) has been advanced as a means of fulfilling field education and research development among social work students. Although RP models vary, they are generally designed to provide students with applied experience in community-based research, supervised by a social work faculty member. Typical activities of RPs include ethics application, data collection, data analysis, interpretation of results, and dissemination of findings.
Despite the potential of RP, articulation of RP models in the literature is limited. To address this gap, this exploratory study aims to evaluate an RP model for undergraduate and graduate social work students in a western Canadian social work faculty to propose a comprehensive RP model that would accomplish several goals: provide opportunities to integrate research theory/methods with practice; recognize the interrelatedness among the experiential, cognitive, and affective dimensions of research learning; provide students with opportunities to develop a broad range of research knowledge and skills; reduce negative stereotypes about research; instill passion and excitement for research; and connect students with agencies to engage in community-based research. In this article, we describe and evaluate the RP model and discuss how RPs can be a means of reinforcing the relevance of research to social work practice.
Aims of the Study
This study aims to address the gap in current field education practices in social work education by evaluating a model for RP based on the tenets of experiential learning. The purpose of the study then is to identify the various factors related to experiential, relational, affective, and cognitive domains of learning that influence students’ experiences and to describe the complex interaction of factors that influenced their experiences. Given the scarcity of existent research on RPs, we wanted to elicit insights and recommendations from both students and instructors toward the development of an effective RP model. Accordingly, we present findings from a survey of RP instructors and participants as they relate to the cognitive, affective, behavioral, and relational dimensions of learning.
Literature Review
Research Practicum: An Experiential Model of Social Work Research Education
Establishing the relevance of RP programs to students’ future roles as social work professionals provides a starting point for discussing suitable research curricula or pedagogical approaches. Social work scholars agree that research training is a key area of social work education and integral to the success of future practitioners (Rzepnicki & Briggs, 2004). The institutionalization of professional standards and legislative accountability in many jurisdictions has increased the demand for professional accountability (Faulkner & Faulkner, 2009) and resulted in a heightened emphasis on evidence-based practice (McNeece & Thyer, 2004; Thyer, 2004). Furthermore, social work practitioners are challenged by the escalating complexity of social service delivery and thus require effective research training to inform their evolving practice demands (Jacobson & Rugeley, 2007).
Types of Research Curricula
Examples of innovative research curricula can be found in undergraduate and graduate courses with either a research (Hewson et al., 2010; Whipple, Hughes, & Bowden, 2015) or practice focus (Holley, Risley-Curtiss, Stott, Jackson, & Nelson, 2007). In a review of innovations in teaching social work research, Hardcastle and Bisman (2003) organized pedagogical practices into three categories: (a) combining technology and research, (b) group learning, and (c) integrating research into multiple curriculum areas. These researchers outlined how advancing technology continues to create innovative possibilities for teaching research, how group learning provides opportunities for peer support to enhance mentoring and teaching provided by instructors, and how the integration of research across the social work curriculum can fulfill the potential of social work programs to prepare social work students to be both consumers and producers of social work knowledge. Teaching models incorporating service learning or experiential learning have also been promoted (Hyde & Meyer, 2004; Knee, 2002). Although there exists a diversity of models to assist social work students to integrate research and practice knowledge, few approaches and teaching strategies have been thoroughly developed or rigorously evaluated.
Experiential Research Learning
The conceptualization of RP featured in this article emphasizes experiential research learning, whereby students apply their knowledge to research activities and are provided with opportunities to practice their skills. Scholars have provided ample support for the value of experiential learning programs, such as RPs, through immersing students in research and producing research-based learning outcomes (Ryser, Markey, & Halseth, 2013; Slattery et al., 2016). RPs have considerable potential to bolster social work students’ self-efficacy by providing direct experience and opportunities to develop their research skills by engaging in authentic research activities (Freymond et al., 2014). One assessment concluded that RP is an “. . . innovative way of engaging students in applied research which can augment research capacity, mitigate negative stereotypes about research, and better prepare future social work practitioners” (Hewson et al., 2010, p. 7).
Although definitions of experiential education are somewhat contested (Joplin, 1981), the Association for Experiential Education (n.d.) defines experiential learning as “. . . a philosophy that informs many methodologies in which educators purposefully engage with learners in direct experience and focused reflection to increase knowledge, develop skills, clarify values, and develop people’s capacity to contribute to their communities” (para. 2). RP offers a promising model to engage students in applied research in ways that promote research learning. Examples of experiential research education include those based on action research (Walsh, Rutherford, & Sears, 2010), participatory action research (Walsh, Casselman, Hickey, Lee, & Pliszka, 2015), and mentorship (Walsh & Hewson, 2012) approaches.
Founded on the principles of experiential learning, RP approaches and teaching strategies have been employed in academic settings (Hewson et al., 2010; Walsh & Hewson, 2012). Scholars from social work, social sciences, and health disciplines support RP as a promising practice integrating field education and research training. Designed to promote student engagement through experiential education in research theory, knowledge, and skills, the RP has received some, albeit limited, attention in the literature. For example, Knee (2002) offered an integrated model of RP which included a research methods course and a service learning component, advancing that field education and research could be integrated in ways that provide opportunities for students to enhance their research capacity while working on actual research projects for the sole focus and for the duration of their field placement.
Although some social work scholars have focused exclusively on the value of pedagogical approaches that provide experiential opportunities for students to apply research skills, others have elaborated more clearly on other specific dimensions of learning that influence the success of experiential approaches (Blakemore & Howard, 2015; Maschi et al., 2007; Maschi, Probst, & Bradley, 2009). Blakemore and Howard (2015), for instance, identified specific cognitive skills, including critical thinking, creative thinking, and strategic thinking that research focused programs can foster. Others have highlighted the potential for research curricula to not only influence the cognitive aspects of learning but also impact the affective aspects, such as attitudes and emotions (Holley et al., 2007). Adopting pedagogical approaches that consider attitudes and emotions have the potential to address social work students’ tendency toward being more averse to research than other disciplines (Adam, Zosky, & Unrau, 2004; Fair, 2007; Maschi et al., 2009). Indeed, one review indicated that the challenges of teaching research to social work students included students’ lack of enthusiasm, high anxiety, perceived lack of importance, negative attitudes, and a disconnect between research and practice (Cameron & Este, 2008).
Aversion to research has been noted to be more prevalent in human services/social work in comparison with other disciplines (Adam et al., 2004; Fair, 2007; Green, Bretzin, Leininger, & Stauffer, 2003). Maschi et al. (2009), for example, asserted that research focused courses or experiential research learning programs influence students’ attitudes toward and interest in research and the anxiety they feel toward the research process. Several scholars who examined social work students’ attitudes about research have highlighted tendencies toward aversion and apprehension, still others have identified and described factors that contribute to social work students’ interest in learning about research (Bolin, Lee, GlenMaye, & Yoon, 2012; Kranke, Brown, Atia, & Knotts, 2015). For example, in their quantitative study, Bolin et al. (2012) reported that social work students’ beliefs about the usefulness of research was related to their level of interest in research; students who perceived research as important and useful also reported interest in learning about research.
A number of benefits of RP are noted in the literature, such as the success of experiential research approaches in facilitating student empowerment (Venema, Ravenhorst Meerman, & Hossink, 2015). Furthermore, several researchers have pointed to the effectiveness of active learning strategies in social work research education (Barraket, 2005; Johnson, 2010; Lundahl, 2008; Tetloff, Hitchock, Battista, & Lowry, 2014). RPs can also be used as a means of addressing social inequity, a foundational principle of the social work profession (Canadian Association for Schools of Social Work, 2016).
Although there are challenges to the effective engagement of social work students in experiential research approaches, such as the scarcity of faculty time and resources to devote to mentoring activities (Inoue et al., 2017), RPs are a promising pedagogical tool. However, few applied models are available (Hammond, Hicks, Kalman, & Miller, 2005), and limited scholarship concerns how the “. . . delivery of such material should be structured” (Walsh et al., 2010, p. 191). Although existing studies present a preliminary evidence for the utility of the RP, models have not been adequately developed, formalized to facilitate sustainability, or evaluated to determine its effectiveness. In addition, little guidance is available for field or research educators seeking to develop an RP program for social work students beyond the context of a specific research course. Furthermore, formal pedagogical culture for research methods in the social sciences is lacking (Wagner, Garner, & Kawulich, 2011).
This constitutes a considerable gap in field education practice and/or dissemination practices about such programs. Thus, further research is needed to develop innovative RPs and to provide knowledge regarding the supports and barriers to effective RP pedagogy, so that others may draw from these insights to offer similar research opportunities as an important form of social work research education.
This approach resonates with research by Whipple et al. (2015), who underscored how BSW students increased their competency in research skills by engaging in authentic research activities. Other social work scholars suggest that experiential approaches to teaching research, which emphasize the behavioral or skills dimensions of learning, are equally important to those that focus on cognitive and affective dimensions (Maschi et al., 2007; Maschi et al., 2009). To this end, Maschi et al. (2007) urged social work educators to recognize the affective, cognitive, and experiential dimensions of learning that are relevant to learning research skills and the interrelatedness of these dimensions. In doing so, they encouraged educators to consider a holistic approach to teaching research that engages learners in the “. . . thinking, feeling and doing of research” (p. 1). Scholars who have articulated academic research training for undergraduate and graduate students according to these distinct dimensions of learning have provided a starting point for the development of an integrative model that illustrates the depth and extent of learning that is possible when research training curricula include opportunities for experiential learning (Blakemore & Howard, 2015; Maschi et al., 2007; Maschi et al., 2009; Ryser et al., 2013; Whipple et al., 2015).
Method
At the onset of the study, we conducted a narrative literature review of existing scholarship and practices pertaining to RP within social work and other related disciplines. We used the synthesis of these findings to develop key questions for an online survey to determine: What are the critical components for an effective, sustainable model for social work RP?
Data Collection and Analysis
As a first step in the development of a comprehensive RP model, we sought to identify the factors that influence students’ and educators’ experiences using an online quantitative survey that included both closed and open-ended questions. Following institutional approval, an invitation to participate in an online survey was sent via SurveyMonkey to all students (
The student survey was comprised of 14 items: four concerning demographic information, five questions in which respondents selected from a list of responses that applied to their RP experience, and five open-ended items that asked respondents to elaborate on aspects of their RP experience including: (a) What did you like about your RP? (b) What, if any, challenges did you face during your RP? and (c) How would you like to change or improve the RP?
The instructor survey was comprised of nine items: five items to which respondents selected from a list of responses that applied to their experience with the RP and four open-ended question items that asked respondents to elaborate on their experiences supervising RP, such as: (a) What are the challenges of a RP? (b) What are the benefits of a RP? and (c) What could be done institutionally to improve the RP? Both sets of respondents were asked for their recommendations to enhance RP delivery. The survey program calculated percentages for each closed question item based on responses and clustered responses according to question for open-ended question survey item.
The research team, which included two RP instructors and two former RP students, analyzed responses to open-ended questions using thematic analysis. Crowe, Inder, and Porter (2015) described thematic analysis as a flexible qualitative method that involves organizing, describing and interpreting data by proceeding through a series of steps, including identifying themes by clustering data into ideas, defining and naming themes, identifying quotes that represent significant aspects of themes, and describing how themes relate to each other.
Results
In their responses to survey items, students and instructors identified and described
Summary of Findings.
The following section provides more details regarding these categories, with percentage endorsements and illustrative quotes, derived from the open-ended questions when available.
Experiential Dimension of Learning
When asked to indicate if they had acquired specific skills during their RPs, most students noted that the RP had provided opportunities for skill improvement in writing (62%), questioning and interviewing (56%), and collecting, handling, and analyzing data (56%). To a lesser extent, students identified that they had obtained project management skills (38%) and were involved in delivering research presentations to community audiences (44%) or academic audiences (25%).
In comparison with student responses regarding the experiential dimension of the RP, instructors more frequently stated that they provided opportunities for skill development for students, including literature reviews (93%); working with stakeholders such as community, agencies, or other project members (93%); writing (92%); questioning and interviewing (86%); and transcription (36%).
Relational/Interpersonal Dimension of Learning
Responses from instructors and students offered insights pertaining to the relational dimension of the RP. Students reported that their supervisors provided them with encouragement and motivation (81%), networking opportunities (81%), role modeling (50%), and coaching (38%).
Instructors also reported that they provided students with encouragement and motivation (100%), coaching (93%), and role modeling (86%). Instructors also identified the following interpersonal skills that they viewed as necessary for them to effectively fulfill the relational aspects of their roles: supervisory skills (100%), teamwork skills (93%), leadership skills (86%), communication skills (86%), and stress management (71%).
Students also explained how the interpersonal/relational dimension encompasses relationships they forged with research and professional networks and community members. A student suggested that the RP presented “. . . opportunities to make connections within academia and with social work professionals, and participate in knowledge dissemination events.” Another illustrated a core relational component of social work research as “. . . the humanity and connectedness that existed within the project.”
Cognitive Dimension of Learning
Students commented that the RP experience influenced their cognitive learning. One student, for example, described the breadth of learning and knowledge acquisition that occurred during the RP and the interrelatedness of the cognitive and behavioral dimensions of learning: I gained a solid understanding of research concepts, but also, a strong base of generalist social work skills and knowledge such as cultural sensitivity, relationship building skills, advocacy skills and assessment skills as well as a strong understanding of social work theories.
Another student explained how the RP was an opportunity to engage in complex thinking. As she offered, “My RP afforded me the opportunity to take an inquiry-based approach to my own learning by formulating my own research questions.” Another student indicated that she became more self-directed because the PR “. . . forced me to find solutions on my own.”
Instructors also portrayed the breadth and depth of learning that can occur in relation to the cognitive dimension of learning during RPs. One instructor emphasized how the RP is an opportunity for students to apply learning and reflect on the relationship between theory and practice. As she explained, “. . . students learn to link research and practice and value how both inform each other.”
Affective Dimension of Learning
Student RP experiences influenced their attitudes and emotions toward research learning more generally. One student explained how the RP fostered an appreciation for research as a tool for social justice: “It helped me recognize the need for research to create long-lasting change, and it also helped me to realize my own abilities and interests.” Another student noted how the RP dramatically increased her interest in social work research to the extent that she would be inclined to recommend a RP to other students. As this student shared, “I think a lot of people don’t know how interesting research can be so it will be great to have students who participated in the past, share with current students as a way to promote this experience.”
Instructors also explained how the RP has the potential to influence students’ identities insofar as, “. . . it provides students with an opportunity to see themselves as researchers.” One instructor identified how the RP could influence students’ interest in pursuing research and academic directions involving research by “. . . encouraging students to take a thesis route in graduate study.”
Although all instructors endorsed supervision as an important aspect of their role, and a key factor promoting student success, students and instructors suggested that RPs are most suitable for students who are willing and able to proceed with their RP independently and with sometimes limited. The relationship between student independence and readiness for future social work practice was noted. As one student described, Students need to be able to work independently, be self-directed and willing to take the initiative to manage all aspects of the project if they are working with an organization because there are rarely research teams or even staff who are dedicated to conducting research within organizations.
As instructors contended, students’ comfort with balancing multiple tasks and managing their time also contributed to their success. One instructor explained that “. . . our most successful practicum students have the ability to take initiative, manage their time effectively (including both mapping out time at the placement and mapping out schedules for their own project development) and communicate well.”
Challenges
Survey respondents identified specific
Students also described interpersonal/relational factors that both positively and negatively influenced their RP experience. One student described the relationship between the supervisor and student as a cornerstone of the relational dimension of the RP: My practicum supervisor in my first RP provided me academic supports and motivation, but also provided me with human supports in the form of kindness, respect, with the nuanced ability to be both my best friend and my biggest critic depending on what I needed as a learner. Her support was invaluable to my development as a social worker and as a human being.
In contrast, the absence of a supportive relationship compromised another student’s experience, who described feeling isolated: “I felt like my supervisor was too busy sometimes to provide the guidance and feedback I needed. I felt I was left to figure things out on my own.”
Instructors raised similar concerns, as one respondent commented, “. . . the practicum is too short for students to feel like they’ve accomplished much. Most research they find interesting seems to take more than 3.5 months.” Instructors also identified issues related to the time required to fulfill their supervisory roles. As one respondent noted a limitation as a supervisor was “. . . having the time to actually supervise students, having time to review the quality of their work: for example, assessing the quality of their field notes related to the research project they worked on.”
Instructors also highlighted the scarcity of practical resources for RP students, as one participant described: “. . . it is unfortunate to have practicum students who do not have access to computers, a comfortable place to work, or a printer that they can use to do their work.” In addition, instructors perceived that RPs are regarded as less important than clinical placements and that some “. . . students do a RP after the students have been unsuccessful at obtaining other placements, meaning we end up being (and often feeling like) their last choice.”
Discussion
Findings from this study suggest that RPs can provide students with significant opportunities for learning about research through active involvement in research. Through this study, students and instructor participants articulated how student learning during the RP encompasses cognitive, affective, behavioral, and relational dimensions. Also reinforced was the value of the RP as an experiential learning opportunity for social work students and the important relationship between the experiential dimension of learning and the cognitive and affective dimensions. Findings from the study suggest that RPs may also augment practicum options available to social work students by offering opportunities for experiential learning, thereby offering desirable alternatives to practice-focused practicum placements that allow students to fulfill the practicum requirements of their programs.
Additional Observations
Relational dimension of research learning
In particular, this study supported that the relational dimension of research learning contributed significantly to both student and instructor RP experiences. This finding aligns with other investigations of experiential research learning programs in social work, social sciences, and health (Kaasila & Lutovac, 2015; Ryser et al., 2013). Study results also suggest that the experiential nature of a RP exposes students to the relational dimension of social work research more readily than classroom-based learning.
However, survey responses suggested that students and instructors differ in the perceived role of coaching, encouragement, and motivation in their RP experiences. Although the majority of instructors in this study reported engaging in coaching and providing encouragement and motivation, fewer students identified that they benefited from these activities. Students also highlighted concerns regarding a lack of supervision in some cases and instructors identified that finding the time to provide adequate supervision was challenging. This challenge identified by both student and instructors regarding supervision warrants further exploration to better understand how supervision, coaching, and encouragement are defined, perceived, and experienced by students and how instructors understand the interpersonal dynamics involved in providing coaching and encouragement to students. Beyond identifying the necessary qualities of effective supervision, a recognition of the structural supports required to provide this type of supervision is necessary to facilitate effective RPs.
Students in this study noted the value of RP in their identity formation as emerging researchers and social work practitioners. Similarly, Kaasila and Lutovac (2015) highlighted that the interpersonal dimension of research is an important consideration in teaching research because emerging researchers “. . . construct their identity through social interaction” (p. 178). Geography scholars Ryser et al. (2013) also reinforced the importance of the relational aspects of research and its significance in engagement with citizens in the communities where researchers intend to conduct research. They maintained that the relationships researchers cultivate in communities are instrumental to identifying meaningful research questions and influence the credibility, validity, and applicability of findings. Ryser et al. (2013) further described how experiential research opportunities teach students about the complexities of navigating relationships with community participants, whereby “. . . meaningful collaboration between researchers and community partners can help to ease insider-outsider tensions and can enhance the relevance of knowledge mobilization initiatives following the completion of the research” (p. 17).
Mentoring as a relational component of learning
The results from this study underscore that the mentoring relationship between instructor/supervisor and student is a key component of a successful RP. According to Aponte and colleagues (2015) mentoring occurs, “when an academic mentor provides feedback, guidance, and encouragement to the mentee as a way to increase research skills” (p. 332). Highlighted in our study, the presence of mentorship was a crucial activity which promoted learning and intersected with all learning dimensions assessed in this research: experiential, relational, cognitive, and affective. Mentoring provided students in this study with modeling, guidance and scaffolding, which then provided a secure foundation for developing their research skills and envisioning themselves as researchers.
Scholars from social work, social science, and health disciplines have emphasized mentoring as a significant and core relational element in experiential research learning and critical in helping students to develop their identities as academic researchers (Aponte et al., 2015; Freymond et al., 2014; Kaasila & Lutovac, 2015; Slattery et al., 2016). For instance, Freymond et al. (2014) suggested that both undergraduate and graduate social work students need encouragement from mentors to foster their identities as researchers. According to Kaasila and Lutovac (2015) mentoring relationships contribute to the development of academic identity and as they explained, “Academic identity can be defined through the ways researchers see themselves and their work in relation to their profession and to others” (p. 179).
Students in this study noted enhanced skill development as a consequence of their RP experience. In a similar vein, Whipple et al. (2015) commented that mentoring relationships between faculty members and students are pivotal to achieving optimal outcomes and increasing students’ competency in performing research skills. Kaasila and Lutovac (2015) closely examined a mentoring relationship that developed between an experienced and novice researcher. They found and shared values, shared goals, open communications, reciprocity, building on strengths and identifying areas for the novice researcher to improve their skills as significant characteristics of good mentorship relationships.
Ryser et al. (2013) advanced mentoring as the core relational element in experiential research programs, a role which, they argued, can be fulfilled by faculty, other academics and community members. They also reinforced the instrumental nature of mentoring supports and described how mentoring is fundamental to learning the relational aspects of the research enterprise: Mentoring supports can provide them with tacit knowledge, etiquettes and understandings of working both in a research team and in specific communities that are not easily acquired in a classroom setting. These mentoring supports can include not just other faculty or students but also recommended contacts with government agencies as well as people, organizations and groups actively engaged in community development and community economic development work. (p. 17)
Other researchers who have examined faculty and students’ experiences with experiential research learning programs have highlighted the relevance of mentoring as a relational aspect of research learning. Nursing scholars, Slattery et al. (2016), for example, explained how mentoring provided a model and a basis for cultivating other professional relationships, whereby faculty mentors guided students in a research intensive experiential clinical program in nursing.
Although scholars have contended that relationships between supervisors and students are a significant factor in creating meaningful student learning in experiential research programs in social work, social sciences, and health programs, they have also acknowledged that conflict may arise because the scarcity of faculty time and resources interferes with supervisory relationships. The scarcity of faculty time for supervision was validated by both instructors and students in the present study. Several strategies have been proposed to address this challenge by scholars who have evaluated teaching of research skills in undergraduate and graduate social work programs. For example, Horowitz and Christopher (2013) recommended enlisting doctoral students as mentors for undergraduate students, suggesting that doctoral students benefit as mentors by preparing for supervisory and teaching aspects of future roles and undergraduate students benefit from the opportunity to work with emerging scholars who are willing to share their knowledge and enthusiasm (Fulton, Walsh, Gulbrandsen, Tong, & Azulai, 2018). Similarly, Aponte et al. (2015) highlighted the potential for peer mentoring to foster learning in research learning programs and suggested that “social interaction and collaboration among peers contributes to better outcomes than learning independently” (p. 323).
The limitation of time for students and instructors to cultivate mentoring relationship was noted as a challenge in the present study. Indeed, a critical question scholars have raised is how to provide learners with the optimal level of supervision when faculty are faced with considerable barriers to devoting time and resources to mentoring emerging researchers. Practical constraints that potentially compromise the potential of such relationships were also noted by respondents. The duration of the RP meant restricted time for students and instructors to interact. Also, some students expressed concern regarding less than optimal guidance and supervision from their supervisor, reinforcing the significance of the relational dimension of experiential learning, particularly with respect to the instructor–student relationship. Indeed, the instructor–student relationship may be a cornerstone of the relational dimension that serves as the foundation for other interpersonal aspects of students’ experiential research learning.
Implications for Practice
The instructors and students in the study identified distinct factors that influenced their experiences with RPs. The importance they ascribed to the relational aspects of the RP suggests that the relationship between instructors and students warrants closer attention. Further research is also needed to identify specific factors that contribute to the integrity of mentoring relationships and to understand how relational factors contribute to desired outcomes of RP programs. The findings also suggest that formal institutional supports may be necessary within RP programs to foster the depth and quality of mentoring relationships that will be conducive to students’ success in RP programs.
Survey questions used in this study focused primarily on the affective, behavioral, and interpersonal/relational dimensions of learning and less on cognitive aspects of learning. Social work education scholars, however, have advanced the significance of cognitive competencies and objectives across the social work curriculum. For example, social work education scholars have envisioned critical thinking, critical reflection, and reflexivity as essential cognitive skills for social work students to cultivate and apply to all aspects of social work practice (D’Cruz, Gillingham, & Melendez, 2007). Further development of RP should account for how the cognitive dimension of learning can be expressed in specific competencies and objectives.
Following the direction of scholars who have studied approaches to teaching research to undergraduate and graduate students, including experiential learning approaches, we argue that a viable RP model will necessarily include a cohesive framework of competencies and objectives that will convey clear expectations for what students will learn and what skills they will acquire during an RP. As scholars have clearly articulated, competencies and objectives can be used to structure and guide the development and implementation of experiential social work research programs (Forrest, Martin, Holve, & Millman, 2009; Slattery et al., 2016). Drawing from an example of a doctoral research program, Forrest et al. (2009) recommended that research curricula identify core competencies that correspond to a set of learning objectives that outline how learners will achieve these standards; competencies should align with accreditation standards for the professional body that students will be accountable to when they complete their programs. With respect to health services research, Forrest et al. (2009) defined core competencies simply as knowledge and skills that trainees are expected to achieve by the end of a program. Similarly, Maschi et al. (2009) proposed that adopting a structured, sequential approach to teaching the research process and providing feedback throughout the duration of instruction is conducive to learners’ achievement of self-efficacy and satisfaction.
Scholars have also recognized that articulating specific competencies and formulating corresponding objectives provide a basis for student and program evaluation. In their description of an experiential research program for graduate students in nursing, Slattery et al. (2016) outlined a framework of specific objectives that defined the program and that aligned with summative and formative evaluations that occurred throughout the program. Although the nature of social work research activities varies widely accordingly to community and organizational settings, standardizing and prioritizing key competencies and objectives may increase clarification of expectations for learning for RP students.
The findings of this study affirm the value of closely examining students’ and educators’ experiences with RPs by incorporating a substantial evaluative component into RP programs. The few studies that have described the evaluation component of RP, training, and mentoring programs in detail have emphasized the benefits of incorporating rigorous evaluation processes that involve eliciting feedback from students and educators (Slattery et al., 2016). Slattery et al. (2016) explained how, in a research mentorship program for emerging nursing scholars, “. . . formative and summative evaluations provided a means of keeping the program nimble and responsive to the needs of the students and mentors and taking advantage of opportunities as they arose” (p. 417).
Our Recommendations
Building on dimensions of learning that social work education scholars (Maschi et al., 2009) have identified, we propose a model of RP responsive to the complex and varied nature of students’ learning about social work research. RPs need to provide students with an opportunity to develop a broad range of skills and competencies during their RP experiences. To accomplish this, a comprehensive framework based on key competencies must be developed. The dimensions of learning we have identified and described provide a framework for organizing the competencies and objectives into structure that can be mapped to larger BSW and MSW curriculum. Future consultation with multiple stakeholders to identify competencies and objectives to include in the RP model and to align them with program level curricular outcomes and accreditation requirements is also needed.
In addition to establishing a rationale for the development of core competencies and objectives, respondents also highlighted the significance of prerequisite skills that contribute to students’ success with RP. Indeed, scholars have recognized that it is desirable for students entering experiential research programs to meet specific eligibility criteria to increase the likelihood of a successful research learning experience (Slattery et al., 2016).
Finally, in the context of Canadian social work education, RPs may provide viable alternatives to community-focused or clinical practice–focused placements. RPs differ from typical practicum placements that have been associated with social work field education, wherein students engage in supervised social work practice within an agency or organization. Social work scholars have emphasized that RPs also offer opportunities for experiential learning (Freymond et al., 2014; Ryser et al., 2013). Therefore, RPs may have the potential to address what social work scholars and educators have described as a field education crisis stemming from saturation, whereby “. . . the lack of sufficient numbers of practica to accommodate the increasing demand for placements from expanding social work education programs” (Ayala et al., 2017, p. 285). Based on the convictions of social work scholars regarding the potential of RPs as a social work pedagogy and the value students and instructors in the study have ascribed to their experiences with RPs, we propose that RPs may be a viable experiential learning option for social work students, providing that schools of social work and faculty mentors are equipped with the resources needed to support RPs.
Study Limitations
The limitations of this study include a relatively small sample size, specifically with the relatively low response rate for students, and assessment over a relatively brief time period, 2 years. Although the RP associated with our exploratory study invited educators and students to participate in an evaluation component, formative evaluation was not incorporated within the RP. Scholars who have prioritized evaluation by requiring educators and students to participate in evaluation activities throughout RP programs have demonstrated how engaging in comprehensive evaluation throughout a RP yields substantial data (Slattery et al., 2016). Gathering robust evaluation data throughout participants’ experiences with RPs would allow researchers to more fully describe the scope of learning that occurs in a social work RP, which could ultimately contribute to a more substantive RP model and the development of an integrative framework of competencies and objectives. Aligning evaluation and RP program design would clarify what learners are expected to accomplish during a RP and inform subsequent formative and summative evaluations of evolving social work RPs.
Despite these limitations, the data collected from students and instructors who responded to the survey identified some significant aspects of their experiences and contributed valuable feedback that can be used to inform the future development of the RP program in our social work faculty and other social work faculties. Although this study reinforced the relevance of dimensions of learning proposed by the scholars cited in the literature, there remains considerable potential to further elaborate on the role each of the dimensions of learning in the social work RP and to better understand the relationships among the dimensions.
Thus, the findings from this study will be used to enhance the RP model in our faculty by conceptualizing experiential learning in relation to its affective and cognitive counterparts. Our analysis of student and instructor survey data and responses to open-ended questions informed our conceptualization of the multidimensional learning that occurs in the RP by identifying and describing factors that influence teaching and learning within the RP. This feedback will be integrated to refine and enhance the RP model and to develop institutional protocols designed to formalize relationships between the faculty and community mentors with the ultimate objective of enhanced sustainability of the RP model.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
We would like to express our appreciation to Sabeena Tariq who assisted in synthesizing the literature and compiling the survey results while completing a research practicum.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the University of Calgary Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning.
