Social Work Education Vol. 28, No. 1, February 2009, pp.

4253

Assessing Social Work Field Education: Towards Standardising Fieldwork Assessment in New Zealand
Kathryn Hay & Kieran ODonoghue

Assessment is a core feature of social work field education and enables both ongoing formative processes of monitoring and feedback and summative assessment of a students competence at the conclusion of a fieldwork placement. In New Zealand, tertiary providers of social work programmes currently have considerable discretion in monitoring and assessing students competence in their fieldwork placements. The variation in social work field education curriculum, particularly in assessment, can create confusion for employers and does not enable a streamlined process towards provisional registration as a social worker. This article proposes the development of national standards in field education learning outcomes to strengthen current field education programmes, to create a pathway for provisional registration with the Social Workers Registration Board and to increase clarity for employers both in domestic and overseas markets. Keywords: Field Education; Assessment; New Zealand; Learning Outcomes; Competency; Fieldwork Placements; National Standards

Introduction In New Zealand the number of social work programmes delivered by tertiary institutions has increased considerably since the mid-1990s and students can now study at many universities, institutes or polytechnics to gain one of a number of under-graduate or post-graduate social work qualifications. Competition among the institutions is considerable given the high number of programmes and the limited amount of eligible students. Curriculum for the courses has developed independently within each institution and in field education, for instance, learning outcomes, assessment requirements and placement standards vary significantly.
Kathryn Hay & Kieran ODonoghue, Massey University, New Zealand. Correspondence to: Kathryn Hay, School of Sociology, Social Policy and Social Work, Massey University, Private Bag 11-222, Palmerston North, New Zealand. Email: K.S.Hay@massey.ac.nz

ISSN 0261-5479 print/1470-1227 online # 2009 The Board of Social Work Education DOI: 10.1080/02615470802020881

Social Work Education

43

Assessment is a core feature of social work field education (Ellis, 1998; Cooper & Briggs, 2000; Maidment, 2001). The purposes of assessment are manifold and include enhancing and promoting student learning, ensuring competence, monitoring student work and development, instigating changes in policy, curriculum and practice, awarding qualifications and identifying further educational and practice needs. In social work field education, assessment includes both ongoing formative processes of monitoring and providing feedback on student work and the formal process or summative assessment of a students competence at the conclusion of a fieldwork placement. Assessment processes in social work programmes usually draw upon a set of criteria or learning outcomes against which the work of a student is measured. There has been considerable worldwide debate regarding competency based assessment including which competencies need to be achieved to receive a pass grade for placement, how such competencies can be measured and who should be involved in the process of assessment (Doel et al., 1996; Cooper & Briggs, 2000; Crisp et al., 2006; Cleak & Wilson, 2007). In 2004 the New Zealand Social Workers Registration Board (SWRB)1 indicated a preference for the inclusion of a set of competency measures within recognised New Zealand social work qualifications in order to streamline the competency assessment process for new graduates when applying for provisional registration (Social Workers Registration Board, 2004). To date, there has been no direct discussion with tertiary providers concerning the development of these measures. However, it could be argued that such dialogue is timely across the social work sector in New Zealand with the view of developing not only a set of competency measures or learning outcomes but also towards standardising the assessment of field education. It is for this reason that we are proposing, in this article, the development of a set of standard learning outcomes for field education across tertiary institutions in New Zealand. Most New Zealand social work education providers engage in a process of triangulation when assessing fieldwork placements that involves contributions from the student, the field educator and the institutions fieldwork coordinator. There remains however a considerable variation in both the assessment processes and the criteria used to measure student competency across these institutions. This article therefore has two objectives: to describe and discuss the assessment process and content in several New Zealand social work field education programmes; and to initiate a conversation concerning the prospect of national standards for field education across New Zealand. Consequently, the article consists of two parts; the first presents the findings from our research on assessment processes and content in social work field education programmes; the second discusses the prospect of a standardised national framework for field education assessment in social work programmes in New Zealand tertiary institutions. The Research During 2006, 10 tertiary institutions offering social work degree programmes in New Zealand were approached to participate in research on the assessment of field

44

K. Hay & K. ODonoghue

education. All of these institutions deliver social work qualifications recognised by the SWRB. The institutions were invited to submit their assessment processes and documents for cross-examination and analysis. Material was received from six institutions. The processes and methods of assessment were examined and compared and the learning outcomes documentation was thematically analysed. This involved using three assigned categories of values, knowledge and skills, and placing each of the learning outcomes into one of the three categories. This enabled further examination of the full range of learning outcomes in order to discover commonalities and differences between the institutions. The three primary categories were selected for a framework as social work programmes consistently assess student competency in fieldwork in the areas of values, knowledge and skills (Cleak & Wilson, 2007). The Programmes in the Project The field education programmes involved in the study were all at an undergraduate level, offering either three or four year degree programmes. The institutions included four universities and two institutes. Four of the institutions were in metropolitan areas and typically serve a predominantly female, Pakeha2 student population. A smaller Maori,3 Pacific Island and Asian student community also enrol in these social work programmes. The two remaining institutions were in provincial towns, with one of the institutions focusing more specifically on Maori social work practice with a significant Maori student population. The institutions that did not respond were all based in provincial areas and were institutes or polytechnics. All of the institutions that responded required students to complete two fieldwork placements, usually each of 60 days duration or totalling 1,000 hours of supervised work. Specific learning outcomes or criteria for each placement were provided to the students and their field educators prior to the commencement of the placement. In the main these outcomes were connected to the learning contract established at the beginning of each placement. Every institution required the assessment of the placement to be linked back to these learning outcomes. Current Assessment Processes All of the institutions required written documentation for summative assessment purposes at the completion of the fieldwork placement. These documents (generally referred to as the assessment document) addressed the achievement of the specified learning outcomes, the areas of strength and future development of the student. Other methods of assessment included reflective journals, essays or written assignments, compulsory tutorials, workbooks, presentations, field observations, a supervision log, a closure interview and participation in a social service expo. Either four or five methods of assessment were required from the fieldwork student. While some institutions encouraged students and their field educators to do a midassessment review, this was not a formal requirement except for two of the

Social Work Education

45

institutions. The evaluative assessment process occurred at the end of the placement with written documentation, workbooks and any additional written requirements required at that time. Only one institution required a field educator to grade a student on a field observation. This particular institution had the only fieldwork programme that did not grade with pass or fail qualifiers but used percentage marks for their fieldwork papers. In all other instances field educators recommended a pass/fail/incomplete grade to the institution fieldwork coordinator or equivalent who would then decide on the final grade for the student. The roles of the institution, fieldwork coordinator, the field educator and the student were clearly defined. The fieldwork coordinator marked the received assessment portfolios, provided feedback and recommendations for further development to the student and approved the final grade. The field educator observed and commented on the students work and competencies as defined by the institution. The field educator had a significant influence on the assessment of the student through the written assessment document required at the conclusion of the placement. The student was always required to provide a self-assessment of their work and competencies, and indicate the level and extent of their learning through a range of assessment methods, as outlined above. This process of triangulation appears to ensure the voices of the key participants involved in fieldwork are heard and enhances the credibility of the assessment (Hay et al., 2006; Cleak & Wilson, 2007). Gaining multiple perspectives on the students learning may contribute to the validity of the assessment, however, this will always be somewhat constrained given the, arguably, subjective processes and methods involved in assessing student placements. The reliability of the assessment process can also be questioned, as there is often a significant range of social work experience, knowledge and expertise held by the people involved in the fieldwork assessment process (Crisp et al., 2006). The institutions in this study drew on the process of triangulation but did not specify guidelines if there were discrepancies between the contributors to the assessment process. While there was no explicit indication of weighting given to the different sources of assessment information, every institution did stipulate that the fieldwork coordinator or equivalent was the final arbiter of the assessment grade. It is possible that each institution had internal guidelines and processes for addressing contributor discrepancies but these were not written in the fieldwork handbooks. The Content of Assessment As mentioned above, the learning outcomes of field education criteria from the institutions involved in the research were primarily categorised into the three areas of values, knowledge and skills. The results for each category will be outlined in turn. Values The institutions only unanimously agreed on one learning outcome for this category, namely, appropriate behaviour of the student or as two institutions labelled it, the

46

K. Hay & K. ODonoghue

appropriate use of self . This outcome included the students behaving and working in a professional manner, identification and application of professional boundaries, an awareness of their own values and attitudes and how these impact on interactions with clients and colleagues, and an indication of a commitment to professional development. Five institutions included a learning outcome linked to ethical practice. The content of the outcome, however, significantly varied. Three of these institutions specifically mentioned the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers (ANZASW) Code of Ethics or Bi-cultural Code of Practice4 (or both) while two other institutions indicated the ability to understand and practise in an ethical manner. The third theme emerging from this category was connected with Te Tiriti o Waitangi (the Treaty of Waitangi)5 with three institutions requiring students to practise in accordance with the principles of the Treaty. Knowledge Three key themes emerged from this category. Firstly, five institutions had a learning outcome related to the integration of theory and practice although there was some degree of difference within this area. Only one institution specified which particular methods or theories students were to use in their practice and another institution required knowledge of social work methods but did not articulate whether students needed to link this knowledge into their practice. The remaining three institutions were precise in their expectation of students needing to analyse or link their practice to the theories and models of social work practice being drawn upon. The second theme concerned a requirement from four institutions that students develop their knowledge of the agency within which they were having their fieldwork placement. Two of these institutions expected students to have a general understanding of the agency and the role of its workers while the other two tertiary providers required students to critically appraise agency policy and its ability to respond to needs in the community. The third theme related to knowledge of the impact of legal, political and other institutional processes on people/clients and was specified as a learning outcome by four institutions. For two of these institutions this learning outcome was also linked to developing an awareness of the constraints and opportunities of social work practice in relation to the social and political context. Skills All of the institutions involved in the research had a significant focus on skill development. Primarily, this focused on the interpersonal micro-skills involved in relationship building, assessment, intervention and termination of a client relationship. All six of the institutions required students to establish appropriate working relationships with clients. One institution provided detailed criteria for student competency of micro-skills while the remaining five institutions expected a more

Social Work Education

47

general competency in basic interviewing techniques. All six institutions expected students to gain an appropriate understanding and experience in the use of supervision. In some instances the use of supervision was connected with other learning outcomes, for example, the appropriate use of self or professional development. The development of professional skills, including identifying ones own learning needs, using learning opportunities, being open to challenge and transferring learning to new situations, was focused on by five institutions. The ability to reflect on and appraise ones own practice was connected with this outcome and was specifically written into the fieldwork requirements of these institutions. Another skill set required by four of the institutions was the ability of the student to work with people different to them and to exhibit cultural sensitivity in their practice. For two of these institutions the focus was on an awareness of cultural difference while two other institutions linked working with cultural difference to working directly with clients in interview settings. Advocacy as a specific skill to be incorporated into a students practice was a learning outcome for two of the six institutions. Discussion From the examination of the assessment content and processes in this project many similarities in the learning outcomes are evident. As identified above, the categories of values, knowledge and skills provided an initial framework. These categories were selected as they cover the critical areas of development expected from social work students (see Cleak & Wilson, 2007). Within each of these categories, learning outcomes from the institutions could be placed and categorised (described above as themes). This enabled further analysis of the types of learning outcomes required. One difference, however, was the extent of detail within each learning outcome. One institution had very specific and detailed learning outcomes while the other five institutions had more general learning outcomes. The learning outcomes relating to skill development, the appropriate use of self and supervision were the only outcomes agreed upon by all of the institutions. The outcomes with the next highest level of agreement (five out of six institutions) included development of professional skills; reflective practice; theory and practice integration; and ethical practice. Four of the six institutions agreed on the outcomes of working with difference/culturally sensitive practice; knowledge of the agency and knowledge of the impact of legal and political processes, and only three institutions included a learning outcome on upholding the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. This was a somewhat surprising result given the cultural diversity of users of social services in New Zealand as well as the gender, cultural and age diversity within the social work student population. Working competently with Maori and other ethnic and cultural groups is also an expectation from professional social work bodies, both in New Zealand and internationally, and it is interesting to note that not all social work programmes currently incorporate this area in their learning outcomes.

48

K. Hay & K. ODonoghue

From the initial analysis of the field education learning outcomes of six social work tertiary providers there appears to be a reasonable level of agreement as to the key learning outcomes or competencies required from students undertaking their fieldwork placements. Areas of dissimilarity would clearly need further discussion if an agreement was to be reached on these. The Social Workers Registration Board (SWRB) provides a list of core competencies that they require of all social workers applying for registration. These competencies are informed by the standards of practice of the International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) and the ANZASW and require that social workers:

N N N N N N N N N N

be competent to practise social work with Maori; be competent to practise social work with different ethnic and cultural groups in New Zealand; promote social change; promote problem solving in human relationships; promote empowerment and liberation of people; utilise theories of human behaviour and social systems; utilise social work practice approaches; promote the principles of human rights and social justice; ensure systems of accountability are in place for their work; adhere to professional social work ethics. (Social Workers Registration Board, 2004)

The SWRB competencies correlate with many of the learning outcomes from the institutions involved in this project, though there does seem to be less explicit requirement for social work students in the current tertiary fieldwork curriculum to be promoting liberation and the principles of human rights. Arguably, this requirement is implied through the learning outcomes concerned with practising in an ethical manner and the ANZASW Code of Ethics. Given the overlap between the existing tertiary learning outcomes and the SWRB competencies, it is feasible that work could progress towards the development of a national set of learning outcomes similar to those established in relation to level B (Certificate of Qualification in Social Work) qualifications by the New Zealand Council for Education and Training in the Social Services (NZCETSS).6 A similar set of outcomes that covers both university and other tertiary providers may be more beneficial due to the requirements of the SWRB and the importance for employers to understand the competencies of the graduates they are employing. Developing the standards and criteria for the process of assessing the agreed learning outcomes is likely to encounter some difficulties. It was evident from the range of measures used in assessing the specified learning outcomes and the assortment of methods employed by the institutions in this project that there is significant variation between the field education programme requirements. Although all of the institutions required a written assessment document from the field educator and five providers required the student to write a reflective journal, there were a variety of methods used to fulfil the individual programme requirements. The

Social Work Education

49

number of assessment methods required by the institutions ranged from four to six as detailed above. There was agreement on the final authority of the fieldwork grade, that being from the fieldwork coordinator or equivalent, although the level and extent of input provided by the student, the field educator and other university or agency staff into the assessment process was variable. While not necessarily requiring a consensus on the methods used for assessing a students practice, national standards in field education could provide an agreed set of criteria for measuring the learning outcomes and a moderation process to ensure quality and consistency across the tertiary providers. Another problematic issue is that social work programmes in New Zealand are offered at both universities and institutes/polytechnics which work under different systems of accreditation. While universities use credits to measure academic achievement, other institutions working under the New Zealand Qualifications Authority measure student achievement using unit standards. The two systems do not easily align; however, it may be possible to develop a parallel system of learning outcomes/assessment processes that are equivalent and thereby acceptable for the tertiary providers as well as meet SWRB requirements. Where To From Here? An opportunity currently exists within the New Zealand social work environment for the development of a national set of social work fieldwork learning outcomes and assessment criteria within tertiary institutions. In 2004, the SWRB anticipated that a set of beginning competency measures would be developed and assessed at the conclusion of a recognised social work qualification. This beginning competency would enable a new graduate to be provisionally registered and allow them to work towards the required 2,000 hours of supervised practice before completing a further competency assessment for full registration (Social Workers Registration Board, 2004). With the current review of the SWRB and its associated legislation, it is timely for this issue to be raised and considered once more. By utilising the fieldwork learning outcomes and methods of tertiary institutions as part of the provisional registration process, the SWRB could ensure a more streamlined and less expensive process for beginning social workers who would not have to pay for or complete a competency assessment with one of the SWRBs contracted providers immediately after graduating. The quality of these graduates would also be more measurable and consistent across institutions. To date, little progress has been made toward such a competency framework between the SWRB and the providers of social work education and training. It is reasonable to expect that such a competency measure could strongly connect with the fieldwork curriculum of tertiary institutions although the overall competency of students may also be measured through academic papers or additional requirements. A national set of fieldwork learning outcomes and assessment procedures could serve several purposes aside from that of the SWRB. National standards in fieldwork

50

K. Hay & K. ODonoghue

would enable social work employers to understand the areas and levels of competency of a new graduate, no matter which tertiary institution they studied in. Overseas agencies seeking to accredit New Zealand graduates to work in other countries, particularly the United Kingdom, would also more easily understand the fieldwork curriculum, student skill sets and other abilities. Tertiary institutions could also become more closely linked with professional bodies such as the ANZASW in terms of their competency assessment processes. Developing national fieldwork learning outcomes and assessment criteria for social work degree programmes obviously presents some challenges. Currently tertiary providers have their programmes monitored and reviewed through different processes under the Education Act 1989. For example, university programmes undergo differing course approval processes to polytechnics, institutes, wananga and private training organisations. All tertiary social work programmes can choose to align with the ANZASW Course Approval Standards, and of the six institutions involved in this project, two had been approved by ANZASW. Tertiary social work programmes in New Zealand operate within a competitive and difficult environment and face the critical issues of limited funding, a significant number of similar programmes, and a finite number of students suitable for entry into the courses (Maidment, 2002). Field education is also highly competitive with a shortage of suitable placements for social work students and inadequate numbers of qualified and experienced field educators able to take students. Another potential difficulty in establishing national standards in field education is, therefore, the willingness of tertiary institutions to collaborate. Individual tertiary programmes would need to be convinced of the merits of such a proposal before commitment is given. There is some indication of collaboration within the field education component of tertiary social work programmes at present, with the recent establishment of a national e-mail list for fieldwork coordinators, and considerable willingness to participate in this project. Towards National Standards: A Proposal Drawing from the results from this research, the IFSW definition of social work and global standards, the SWRB list of competencies and the ANZASW practice standards, we propose the following set of learning outcomes for assessing fieldwork in Aotearoa New Zealand. As previously outlined the outcomes fall within the three overarching sections of values, knowledge and skills. 1. Values
a. The student social worker adheres to professional social work ethics. b. The student social worker promotes the principles of human rights and social justice. c. The student social worker develops a professional identity through the appropriate use of self.

Social Work Education

51

d. The student social worker promotes social change by constantly working to make social work organisations and systems responsive to the needs of those who use them.

2. Knowledge
a. The student social worker has a developing knowledge of self, including their worldview and value base and how these impact on their social work practice. b. The student social worker has a developing knowledge of social work theories and practice approaches.7 c. The student social worker has a developing knowledge of social policies, social services, resources and opportunities and acts to ensure access for clients.

3. Skills
a. The student social worker demonstrates a commitment to and understanding of the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and is competent to practise social work with Maori. b. The student social worker demonstrates competency in practising social work with different ethnic and cultural groups in New Zealand. c. The student social worker engages in reflective practice. d. The student social worker has a developing competence in using social work theory and practice approaches. e. The student social worker establishes an appropriate, collaborative and empowering working relationship with clients. This relationship takes into account individual and social differences and ensures appropriate access to services for clients. f. The student social worker effectively uses systems of accountability including supervision.

These proposed learning outcomes provide a starting point for discussion within tertiary institutions and the SWRB regarding developing national competencies for students. The development of guidelines for assessing student competency and ensuring validity and reliability in assessment is also critical and we anticipate considerable debate is also required to ensure social work field education continues to be of a high standard within the tertiary sector. Conclusion The purpose of this article has been to stimulate a conversation within the social work education sector as to the utility of a set of national learning outcomes for social work field education in New Zealand. Given the recent request from the SWRB to explore pathways for the registration process, it is timely to have a more focused discussion around this area of social work education. While we advocate the development of a set of national learning outcomes for social work field education, we acknowledge that this is not a straightforward or even, non-contentious, development and that further debate, research and analysis is required.

52

K. Hay & K. ODonoghue

The findings from this research have indicated that tertiary institutions in New Zealand currently have a range of learning outcomes and assessment methods for the social work field education component of their programmes. The consistent focus on values, knowledge and skills does, however, provide impetus for working towards a national set of learning outcomes. Measures for assessing the learning outcomes would need greater consideration due to the disparate methods currently used. A process of moderation to ensure equity and consistency would also need to be developed. Despite these factors, and given the current regulatory environment, it is timely to begin these discussions across tertiary institutions in New Zealand to ensure that students are receiving the best opportunities not only for value, knowledge and skill development but also to ensure there is a clear pathway to competency and registration when they embark upon their social work careers. Notes
[1] The Social Workers Registration Board (SWRB) was constituted in November 2003 after the passing of the Social Workers Registration Act 2003. The Board is responsible for establishing the policies and procedures for registration and promoting high standards of practice and professional conduct among registered social workers and employers of social workers (see http://www.swrb.org.nz). [2] Pakeha is the Maori (indigenous) word commonly used to describe New Zealanders of European descent. [3] Maori are the indigenous peoples of New Zealand. [4] For further information on the ANZASW and their ethical documentation go to: http// :www.anzasw.org.nz. [5] Te Tiriti o Waitangi (the Treaty of Waitangi) is the founding document of New Zealand and was signed in 1840 between the Maori people of New Zealand (tangata whenua) and the British Crown. The three principles of Te Tiriti are usually described as protection, partnership and participation. [6] NZCETSS was replaced in 1995 with Te Kaiawhina Ahumahi, an industry training organisation for the social services in New Zealand. For further information see Nash & Munford (2001). [7] See the IFSW definition of social work for a list of theories and models appropriate for social work practice.

References
Cleak, H. & Wilson, J. (2007) Making the Most of Field Placement, Thomson, Australia. Cooper, L. & Briggs, L. (2000) Overview of teaching, learning and assessment in the field, in Fieldwork in the Human Services, eds L. Cooper & L. Briggs, Allen & Unwin, St. Leonards, NSW, pp. 39. Crisp, B., Green Lister, P. & Dutton, K. (2006) Not just social work academics: involving others in the assessment of social work students, Social Work Education, vol. 25, no. 7, pp. 723734. Doel, M., Shardlow, S., Sawdon, C. & Sawdon, D. (1996) Teaching Social Work Practice, Arena, Aldershot. Ellis, G. (1998) Through the Looking GlassFieldwork Supervisors Perceptions of their Role and Needs for Support, Education and Training, unpublished MSW Thesis, Social Policy and Social Work, Massey University, Palmerston North. Hay, K., ODonoghue, K. & Blagdon, J. (2006) Exploring the aims of social work field education in the registration environment, Social Work Review, vol. XVIII, no. 4, pp. 2028.

Social Work Education

53

Maidment, J. (2001) Teaching and learning social work in the field: student and field educator experiences, Social Work Review, vol. XIII, no. 2, pp. 27. Maidment, J. (2002) Understanding the theory of practice teaching, Social Work Review, vol. XIV, no. 1, pp. 3642. Nash, M. & Munford, R. (2001) Unresolved struggles: educating social workers in Aotearoa New Zealand, Social Work Education, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 2134. Social Workers Registration Board (2004) Entitlement to Registration Competence, Social Workers Registration Board, Wellington, pp. 17.