Abroad Perspective: Exploring the Effect of International Status on Social Work Field Placements

Transcription

1 Abroad Perspective: Exploring the Effect of International Status on Social Work Field Placements By Kathryn C. Mulvaney A paper submitted to the faculty of The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Public Administration Spring 2011 This paper represents work done by a UNC-Chapel Hill Master of Public Administration student. It is not a formal report of the Institute of Government, nor is it the work of School of Government faculty. Executive Summary Field placements are considered the Signature Pedagogy of social work education and the equivalent of classroom learning within social work curricula. This study focused on the factors social work Field Directors (or their equivalents) use when placing students and asked if and how these factors differ in cases of international placement. While results demonstrate high consistency amongst frequently used factors, the international status of a placement does influence the factors Field Directors use to assess a placement, specifically in relation to a placement s location.

2 Introduction and Background The Council on Social Work Education (CSWE), the body that accredits Masters of Social Work (MSW) programs, requires that each program specify its policies, criteria, and procedure for selecting the setting for field placements. i Field placements, or field practicums, are considered the Signature Pedagogy of social work education and are the equivalent of classroom learning within social work curricula. ii Masters students in accredited programs are required to complete a minimum of 900 hours of work in an organization that will advance their understanding of how social work s theory, mission, and values are incorporated into practice. iii While the CSWE provides this basic requirement, it offers little guidance on how social work programs should select field placements. As a result, each social work program defines its own placement selection criteria. An increasing number of MSW students are interested in being placed internationally, but like domestic placements, the CSWE offers little guidance on how these placements should be evaluated. iv Few authors discuss what criteria are or should be used by MSW programs for student placement; scholarship within the social work literature focused on international student placement is even more limited. Previous research on international placements has focused primarily on specific topics, including which programs place students abroad and where, how to prepare students for international field work, and proposed models of international placement that Social Work programs may implement. v When criteria for international field placements are discussed, authors concentrate on how to make a placement successful once a partner institution is selected. vi Other literature is inward looking and speaks to how schools can change their curriculums to develop placements, rather than what they look for in partner programs or placement organizations. vii Much of the literature assumes Social Work programs already have a process for selecting international placements or are looking for models to emulate; it does not offer information on current practices and the criteria used when schools decide to place students internationally. viii Social Work as a field is striving to ensure that decisions relating to education and practice are rooted in empirical research, but this is not consistently being achieved in relation to its signature pedagogy, field placement. Statement of the Problem Little is known about what factors Field Directors are using to develop the structure and process they employ when making domestic or international placement decisions, or if these differ. ix This paper adds to the existing literature on field placements and informs field administrators by answering the following question: Methodology How does the international status of a placement affect the factors Field Directors (or their equivalents) use to assess a placement? x An on-line survey of Field Directors of the 201 fully accredited MSW programs in the United States was conducted to collect information on the decision-making factors used when placing students domestically and internationally. xi The survey was open for one month with reminder s sent from the Principal Investigator to non-respondents on a weekly basis. Recurring themes within social work field placement literature were used as the basis for survey topic and question construction. xii The survey was broken into three sections: 1) descriptive data on programs, including whether or not programs placed students internationally within the last 3 years, 2) information about Field Directors, and 3) information on the factors Field Directors consider when assessing 1

3 placements domestically and internationally. The questions on decision-making factors were divided into three categories that, together, form a student placement: the Agency, the Field Instructor, and the placement Location. Field Directors were asked to indicate the frequency of use for a range of factors within each of these groups. xiii For the purpose of this research a definition of an International Field Placement was adapted from Panos, Pettys, Cox, & Jones-Hart (2004): An International Field Placement is any placement, within a country other than the United States that meets the school/program s practicum requirements for a Masters of Social Work. It DOES NOT include field trips, study abroad, conferences, and brief exchanges. xiv Data and Methods A total of 75 complete and useable responses were received from the 201 fully accredited MSW programs for a response rate of 37.3%. Twenty-four of these (32% of respondents) reported placing students internationally (for more information on where MSW programs place students internationally, see Appendix 1). The focus of this study is Field Director responses to the factors they use to assess international placement. One respondent failed to complete this section of the survey resulting in an N of 23 for the analyzed data. The degree to which the survey data is generalizable for all programs that place internationally is unknown. The CSWE does not collect information on schools that place internationally and the last survey requesting data on international placement was conducted in xv Chi-square tests were used to explore MSW program factors that distinguish the 24 MSW programs that place students internationally from the 51 that reported only domestic placements, these factors included: the length of time a program is accredited, the ongoing relationships a program has internationally, and whether a program hosts students from MSW programs outside of the United States. xvi Masters of Social Work programs that are accredited for longer periods of time are more likely to place students internationally. Being accredited for 20 years or more affects whether or not students are placed internationally (x 2 = 9.522, df=1, p<.002). International relationships also affect whether or not programs have international placement. Programs that have ongoing relationships with social work schools outside of the United States are more likely to place students internationally (x 2 = , df=1, p<.001). xvii Similarly, if a MSW program hosted international students from other schools of social work within the last 3 years, it is more likely to place students internationally (x 2 = 6.761, df=1, p<.010). xviii For the 23 schools that place internationally and completed all sections of the survey, the factors Field Directors use to assess international placements are compared to the factors they use to assess domestic placements. xix The difference between the mean responses for domestic and international placement for Field Directors was calculated to identify a divergence in the frequency with which decision-making factors are used when placing domestically versus internationally. xx Findings Overall, analysis indicated that Field Directors use the same decision-making factors when placing students domestically and internationally. xxi While the majority of factors are used more often when students are placed internationally, the most frequently used factors remain the same. The greatest differences in respondent reported decision-making for international placements are found in factors concerning Location. Conversely, within the categories of Agency and Field Instructor, several factors were reported as being considered more frequently when placing domestically. 2

4 Decision-Making Factors Relative Frequency The factors Field Directors use the most when placing students domestically are very similar to those used when placing students internationally. Lists of the ten most frequently used factors were created. (See Appendix 2) Nine of the ten most frequently used factors appear on both the domestic and international placement lists. Even those factors which are not on both top ten lists have similar mean use scores. Decision-Making Factors What Changes? The factors Field Directors use most often are the same for domestic and international placement, but directors take some other factors into account more often when assessing potential international rather than domestic placements. Out of the 36 surveyed factors, 21 are used more frequently for international placements. When the factors are viewed by category, 11 of those that increase in use relate to a placement s location. (See Appendix 5.) Decision-Making Factors What Is Most Different Internationally? The factors that are the most different between domestic and international placement and that Field Directors consider with greater frequency when placing internationally relate to a placement s location. (See Table 1) Four factors are used considerably more often for international placement: the political stability of a placement location, student access to local services for personal use, student access to telecommunication services for personal use, and the standard of living where an agency is located. Each of these factors changes at least one category of use for international placement and is used more frequently. xxii The political stability of an agency s location has the greatest change. Field Directors indicate they Rarely consider this factor for domestic placement, but Often consider it when placing internationally. Table 1: Factors that are the Most Different Between Domestic and International Placement* Factors Difference of Means (n=23) Agency location political stability 1.56 Students' access to local services for personal use (i.e. whether the student has access to a post office, a place to buy food, etc.) 1.25 Students' access to telecommunication services for personal use 1.14 Agency location s standard of living 1.09 Placement community's understanding of the role of social workers 0.95 Students' personal accommodations while in field placement (i.e. where students live) 0.95 Agency location s social stability 0.92 Agency location s economic stability 0.87 Agency location s customs 0.74 Placement community's spoken language 0.65 *Responses report for schools that do both Of the factors that were the most different, only the placement community s understanding of the role of social workers relates directly to social work practice rather than student safety and comfort concerns. This suggests that social work values and the core goals of a field placement do not change when a student is placed internationally. 3

5 It is possible field Directors are more concerned with location factors because they are less able to visit international placements. One interpretation is that Field Director decisions rely more heavily on what is heard about a location, such as its political stability and standard of living, and what can be confirmed, such as access to telecommunication services, than what Field Directors can physically see, as they do when they visit domestic placements. This paper does not address why field directors consider various factors. Further research is needed to explain the greater emphasis they place on location when considering international placements. Decision-Making Factors What Matters More Domestically? The data indicate that Field Directors use factors relating to the Agency and Field Instructor more often when placing domestically (see Appendices 3 and 4). One such factor is an agency s history with students in the program. The potential Field Instructor s experience as a Social Worker and in the role of Field Instructor are considered more frequently when students are placed domestically. Likewise, whether a Field Instructor has a Masters Degree in Social Work is considered more frequently for domestic placement. The difference of means for each of these factors is slight, but many of the factors relate to Field Instructor and Agency experience and ability in social work practice. In some cases, such as whether a Field Instructor has a Masters Degree in Social Work, Field Directors appear to be slightly more lenient with an accreditation requirement for international placements. It is possible that the flexibility on the part of Field Instructors is a result of a willingness to provide additional support to students placed abroad to bolster a placement where experience is lacking, as CSWE would require. xxiii Alternatively, it is possible Field Instructors are more willing to bend the rules for international placements. Flexibility in Agency and Field Instructor experience and ability has the potential to affect student learning negatively. Additional research on these specific factors is required to understand these differences better. Table 2: Factors that are the Most Similar For Domestic and International Placement* Factors Difference of Means (n=23) Agency's ability to promote the application of social work theory to practice Field Instructor's willingness to support a student to meet the student's personal learning goals Agency's likelihood of benefiting from the student being placed there Field Instructor's willingness to participate in regular supervision with 0.00 the student Agency's ability to promote social work values and ethics 0.00 Field Instructor's ability to influence the provision of social work at 0.00 the agency Agency's ability to provide assignments that are suitable to the 0.03 student's level of experience Agency's ability to provide a learning experience that meets the MSW 0.04 program's required competencies Field Instructor's ability to communicate the application of social 0.04 work theory to practice Agency's field of practice 0.07 *Responses report for schools that do both 4

6 Decision-Making Factors What is the Least Different? A number of factors are used with equal frequency when Field Directors consider sites for domestic and international placement (see Table 2). A Field Instructor s willingness to participate in regular supervision with a student is equally important domestically and internationally and is Always used when Field Directors evaluate placements. Three other factors that are Always used by nearly all respondents relate to student learning and program requirements for accreditation. xxiv None of the factors that are used with similar frequency relate to a placement s location. Conclusion The most frequently used factors when students are placed internationally are very similar to those most frequently used when students are placed domestically. Despite this similarity, the international status of a placement does have an effect upon the factors Field Directors use to assess a placement. Factors relating to the location of placement are used much more frequently when considering international placements, specifically in relation to political, social, and economic stability and student accommodations. However, the increased attention to placement location is not at the expense of student learning and program requirements. These two aspects of student education are addressed by factors that are used to an equal degree domestically and internationally. Some factors are used more frequently for domestic rather than international placement. These factors all relate to Agency and Field Instructor experience and ability in social work practice. Additional research is needed to explore the reasons Field Directors consider the experience and ability of those involved in international placement less often when assessing a student placement. This is important to understand because the difference may negatively affect student learning. This research provides insight into the considerations of Field Directors when placing students domestically and internationally. It does not address why Field Directors consider various factors, but describes what they are currently doing. Future research is needed to examine the various location factors to better understand why they increase in consideration for international placements. This study offers future researchers a basis for further exploration of these factors. 5

7 i Council on Social Work Education (2010). Educational policy and accreditation standards. Retrieved from ii Council on Social Work Education (2010). Educational policy and accreditation standards. Retrieved from iii Council on Social Work Education (2010). Educational policy and accreditation standards. Retrieved from iv Panos, P. T., Pettys, G. L., Cox, S. E. & Jones-Hart. E. (2004). Survey of international field education placements of accredited social work education programs. International of Social Work Education, 40(3), ; Council on Social Work Education (2010). Educational policy and accreditation standards. Retrieved from v Healy, L. M. (1986). The international dimension in social work education: current efforts, future challenges. International Social Work, 29, doi: / ; Johnson, A. K. (2004). Increasing internationalization in social work programs: Healy s continuum as a strategic planning guide. International Social Work, 47, doi: / ; Mathiesen, S. G. & Lager, P. (2007). A model for developing international student exchanges. Social Work Education, 26, doi: / ; Panos, P. T., Pettys, G. L., Cox, S. E. & Jones-Hart. E. (2004). Survey of international field education placements of accredited social work education programs. International of Social Work Education, 40(3), ; Pettys, G. L., Panos, P. T., Cox, S. E. & Oosthuysen, K. (2005). Four models of international field placement. International Social Work, 48, doi: / ; Rai, G.S. (2004). International fieldwork experience: A survey of US schools. International Social Work, 47, doi: / ; Raskin, M. S., Bogo, M., Wayne, J. (2008) Revisiting Field Education Standards. Journal of Social Work Education, 44(2), ; Lager, P., Mathiesen, S., Rodgers, M., & Cox, S. (2010). Guidebook for international field placements and student exchanges: Planning, implementation, and sustainability. Alexandria, VA: Council on Social Work Education Press.; Mangus, P. (2009). Preparation for social work students to do cross-cultural clinical practice. International Social Work, 52, ; Lough, B. J. (2009). Principles of effective practice in international social work field placements. Journal of Social Work Education, 45(3), vi Mathiesen, S. G. & Lager, P. (2007). A model for developing international student exchanges. Social Work Education, 26, doi: / ; Lough, B. J. (2009). Principles of effective practice in international social work field placements. Journal of Social Work Education, 45(3), vii Mathiesen, S. G. & Lager, P. (2007). A model for developing international student exchanges. Social Work Education, 26, doi: / ; Johnson, A. K. (2004). Increasing internationalization in social work programs: Healy s continuum as a strategic planning guide. International Social Work, 47, doi: / ; Rai, G.S. (2004). International fieldwork experience: A survey of US schools. International Social Work, 47, doi: / ; Lager, P., Mathiesen, S., Rodgers, M., & Cox, S. (2010). Guidebook for international field placements and student exchanges: Planning, implementation, and sustainability. Alexandria, VA: Council on Social Work Education Press. viii Panos, P. T., Pettys, G. L., Cox, S. E. & Jones-Hart. E. (2004) found that of 104 BSW and MSW programs willing to place students internationally, 44.2% would place students on a case-by-case basis and 21.2% would do so on both a case-by-case basis and into ongoing placements. Many social work programs are deciding placements based upon their individual characteristics, but social work literature does not explore these characteristics. ix The exception is in Raskin, M. S. (1985) Field Placement Decisions: Art, Science, or Guesswork? The Clinical Supervisor 3, doi: /j001v06n03_09 in which the decision-making factors of Field Directors in BSW and MSW schools of social work placing nationally were surveyed. To date, the Raskin study is over twenty-five years old. 6

8 x Throughout this paper, the term Field Director is used to mean the persons responsible for placing students in field practicums, including field staff and field liaisons, and is to be understood as Field Directors (or their equivalents). xi The names of accredited MSW programs were obtained from the Council on Social Work Education website on September 6, Council on Social Work Education (2010). Directory of accredited programs [Data file]. Retrieved from The Director of Field Education at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill then sent an of introduction and the instrument to the address of Field Directors from the identified programs, which were collected from MSW program websites. xii Council on Social Work Education (2010). Educational policy and accreditation standards. Retrieved from Healy, L. M. (1986). The international dimension in social work education: current efforts, future challenges. International Social Work, 29, doi: / ; Lough, B. J. (2009). Principles of effective practice in international social work field placements. Journal of Social Work Education, 45(3), ; Johnson, A. K. (2004). Increasing internationalization in social work programs: Healy s continuum as a strategic planning guide. International Social Work, 47, doi: / ; Mangus, P. (2009). Preparation for social work students to do cross-cultural clinical practice. International Social Work, 52, ; Mathiesen, S. G. & Lager, P. (2007). A model for developing international student exchanges. Social Work Education, 26, doi: / ; Panos, P. T., Pettys, G. L., Cox, S. E. & Jones-Hart. E. (2004). Survey of international field education placements of accredited social work education programs. International of Social Work Education, 40(3), ; Pettys, G. L., Panos, P. T., Cox, S. E. & Oosthuysen, K. (2005). Four models of international field placement. International Social Work, 48, doi: / ; Rai, G.S. (2004). International fieldwork experience: A survey of US schools. International Social Work, 47, doi: / ; Raskin, M. S. (1985) Field Placement Decisions: Art, Science, or Guesswork? The Clinical Supervisor 3, doi: /j001v06n03_09.; The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, School of Social Work. (2010). Field Education Program Manual, Retrieved from xiii Field Directors were requested to rate each factor Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Often, or Always on a scale of 1-5 where 1 is Never and 5 is Always. Field Directors were instructed to answer all questions as they relate to MSW students in their final/advanced year. xiv Panos, P. T., Pettys, G. L., Cox, S. E. & Jones-Hart. E. (2004). Survey of international field education placements of accredited social work education programs. International of Social Work Education, 40(3), xv CSWE confirmed it does not collect this data. E. Bascug, Research Assistant, Office of Social Work Education and Research, Council on Social Work Education personal communication, February 9, The last survey collecting information on schools that place students internationally can be found in Panos, Pettys, Cox, & Jones- Hart (2004). The authors found 35 MSW programs placed students internationally from The number of existing MSW programs during the time of their survey. Using 35 MSW programs as a benchmark, I received responses from approximately 68.6% of schools that place students internationally; I found 24 programs that placed internationally from the Fall 2008 academic year through the Fall 2010 academic year. xvi All data were used to calculate the chi-square (n=75). xvii An ongoing relationship is defined as the exchange of professional staff with another program, joint research and collaboration on publications, or any other relationship with a social work program outside of the United States of more than two years in length. xviii Some factors one may believe would increase the likelihood of international placement did not influence whether or not a MSW program places students internationally. No factor related to the specific characteristics of a Field Director, such as whether a Field Director lived abroad or spoke a foreign language, influenced whether a program placed internationally. Consistent with the findings of Panos, Pettys, Cox, and Jones-Hart (2004), results indicate that a school being located in a state that borders another country did not influence whether it school places 7

9 internationally. Panos, Pettys, Cox, & Jones-Hart (2004) found that proximity to another country does not appear to be a factor for the vast majority of programs making international field placements. xix If Field Directors indicated they did not place students internationally, their survey concluded after questions on the factors they consider when placing students domestically. Those who responded they place students internationally were requested to repeat all of the questions on their decision-making factors but with a view towards international placement. xx Only the data for schools that place both domestically and internationally were analyzed for a difference in means. This body of data more accurately addresses the question posed for the study. xxi Only 23 of the 24 respondents reporting international placement completed the section on factors considered for international placement. Therefore, the N for this analysis is 23. xxii Category of use refers to the survey s scale of Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Often, or Always. Moving one category of increased use means there is an increase in reported use of that factor equal to movement of one place along the scale. For example, if a factor was reported as being used Rarely for domestic use, one category of increased use would be Sometimes for international placement. xxiii This may be supported with the response of Field Directors that they almost always consider a Field Instructor s willingness to communicate with their field liaison about student performance (mean of 4.91 internationally compared with 4.74 nationally). xxiv These factors are an agency s ability to provide a learning experience that meets the MSW program s required competencies, the Field Instructors willingness to support a student to meet the student s personal learning goals, and an agency s ability to promote social work values and ethics. Accreditation standards can be found in Council on Social Work Education (2010). Educational policy and accreditation standards. Retrieved from 8

10 Bibliography Central Intelligence Agency (2011). The world factbook. Retrieved from publications/the-world-factbook//library/publications/the-world-factbook Council on Social Work Education (2010). Directory of accredited programs [Data file]. Retrieved from Council on Social Work Education (2010). Educational policy and accreditation standards. Retrieved from Healy, L. M. (1986). The international dimension in social work education: current efforts, future challenges. International Social Work, 29, doi: / Johnson, A. K. (2004). Increasing internationalization in social work programs: Healy s continuum as a strategic planning guide. International Social Work, 47, doi: / Lager, P., Mathiesen, S., Rodgers, M., & Cox, S. (2010). Guidebook for international field placements and student exchanges: Planning, implementation, and sustainability. Alexandria, VA: Council on Social Work Education Press. Lough, B. J. (2009). Principles of effective practice in international social work field placements. Journal of Social Work Education, 45(3), Mangus, P. (2009). Preparation for social work students to do cross-cultural clinical practice. International Social Work, 52, Mathiesen, S. G. & Lager, P. (2007). A model for developing international student exchanges. Social Work Education, 26, doi: / Panos, P. T., Pettys, G. L., Cox, S. E. & Jones-Hart. E. (2004). Survey of international field education placements of accredited social work education programs. International of Social Work Education, 40(3), Pettys, G. L., Panos, P. T., Cox, S. E. & Oosthuysen, K. (2005). Four models of international field placement. International Social Work, 48, doi: / Rai, G.S. (2004). International fieldwork experience: A survey of US schools. International Social Work, 47, doi: / Raskin, M. S. (1985) Field Placement Decisions: Art, Science, or Guesswork? The Clinical Supervisor 3, doi: /j001v06n03_09 Raskin, M. S., Bogo, M., Wayne, J. (2008) Revisiting Field Education Standards. Journal of Social Work Education, 44(2), The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, School of Social Work. (2010). Field Education Program Manual, Retrieved from 9

11 Wehbi, S. (2009). Deconstructing motivations: Challenging international social work placements. International Social Work, 52, doi: /

12 Appendix 1: International Placement Locations and Languages Spoken Countries Where Students Were Placed (Fall 2008-Fall 2010) By Region Number of Region/Country Schools Reporting Languages Spoken Within the Country Placement Africa Botswana 1 Setswana, Kalanga, Sekgalagadi, & English* Egypt 1 Arabic* (English and French widely understood by the educated) Ethiopia 1 Amharic*, Oromigna*, Tigrigna*, Somaligna, Guaragigna, Sidamigna, Hadiyigna, English*, Arabic* Ghana 3 English, Asante, Ewe, Fante, Brong, Dagomba, Dangme, Dagaba, Akyem, Ga, Akuapem, English*, & Other Kenya 1 English*, Kiswahili*, & Indigenous languages Rwanda 1 Kinyarwanda* (universal Bantu vernacular), French*, English*, & Kiswahili Sierra Leone 1 English* (regular use limited to literate minority), Mende, Temne, & Krio South Africa 4 IsiZulu*, IsiXhosa*, Afrikaans*, Sepedi*, English*, Setswana*, Sesotho*, Xitsonga*, isindebele*, Tshivenda*, siswati* Tanzania 2 Kiswahili*, Kiunguja, English*, Arabic, & many local languages Australia/Oceania Australia 1 English*, Chinese, Italian, Greek, Arabic, & Vietnamese New Zealand 1 English*, Maori*, Samoan, French, Hindi, Yue, Northern Chinese, New Zealand Sign Language*, & Other Central America Belize 1 Spanish, Creole, Mayan dialects, English*, Garifuna, & German Costa Rica 1 Spanish* & English Dominican 1 Spanish* Republic Guatemala 2 Spanish* & 23 officially recognized Amerindian languages Haiti 1 French* & Creole* Honduras 1 Spanish* & Amerindian dialects Jamaica 2 English & English patois East & South East Asia China 3 Mandarin,* Cantonese, Shanghainese, Fuzhou, Hokkien-Taiwanese, Xiang, Gan, Hakka dialects, Mongolian, Uighur, & Tibetan Hong Kong** 1 Cantonese*, English*, Mandarin, & other Chinese dialects Indonesia 1 Bahasa Indonesia*, English, Dutch, & local dialects (the most widely spoken of which is Javanese) Thailand 1 Thai, English (secondary language of the elite), & other dialects South Korea 2 Korean (English widely taught in junior high and high school) 11

13 Countries Where Students Were Placed (Fall 2008-Fall 2010) By Region (Continued) Number of Region/Country Schools Reporting Languages Spoken Within the Country Placement Europe Austria 1 German*, Turkish, Serbian, & Croatian Bosnia and 1 Bosnian*, Croatian*, & Serbian Herzegovina France 1 French* Germany 1 German* Greece 1 Greek*, (some English and French) Ireland 2 English* & Irish* Romania 2 Romanian*, Hungarian, & Romany Switzerland 1 German,* French,* Italian,* Serbo-Croatian, Albanian, Portuguese, Spanish, English, Romansch* Ukraine 1 Ukrainian*, Russian*, and Other United Kingdom 2 English* Middle East Armenia 1 Armenian*, Yezidi, & Russian Israel 2 Hebrew*, Arabic (used officially for Arab minority), & English (most commonly used foreign language) North America Canada 2 English* & French* Mexico 4 Spanish & Indigenous languages South America Bolivia 1 Spanish*, Quechua*, & Aymara* Brazil 1 Portuguese*, Spanish (border areas and schools), German, Italian, Japanese, English, & Amerindian languages Chile 1 Spanish*, Mapudungun, German, & English Peru 2 Spanish*, Quechua*, Aymara, Ashaninka, & other native languages South Asia India 7 Hindi, Bengali, Telugu, Marathi, Tamil, Urdu, Gujarati, Kannada, Malayalam, Oriya, Punjabi, Assamese, Maithili, & Other (English enjoys the status of subsidiary official language) * Indicates the official language of a country ** Hong Kong is not an autonomous country. However, since it was reported as a placement country, it is listed as separate from China. It is unknown whether placements listed as China in the chart took place in mainland China or elsewhere. Languages obtained from: Central Intelligence Agency. The World Factbook. Retrieved from 12

14 Appendix 2: International vs. Domestic Comparison of Most Frequently Used Decision-Making Factors Most Frequently Used ( Top Ten ) Decision-Making Factors International Placement Factors and Their Mean Use (n=23) 1. Field Instructor's willingness to participate in regular supervision with the 5.00 student 2. Agency's ability to provide a learning experience that meets the MSW program's 4.95 required competencies 3. (tie) Field Instructor's willingness to support a student to meet the student's 4.91 personal learning goals 3. (tie) Field Instructor's willingness to communicate with your program's field 4.91 liaison about student performance 5. (tie) Agency's ability to provide assignments that are suitable to the 4.86 student's level of experience 5. (tie) Field Instructor's willingness to meet the requirements of your program (tie) Agency's ability to promote social work values and ethics (tie) Field Instructor's ability to build a 4.83 relationship with a student 9. (tie) Agency's willingness to provide a student with a field instructor who will 4.78 meet with them on a regular basis 9. (tie) The safety of students within placement community 4.78 Domestic Placement Factors and Their Mean Use (n=23) 1. Field Instructor's willingness to participate in regular supervision with the student 2. (tie) Field Instructor's willingness to meet the requirements of your program 2. (tie) Field Instructor's willingness to support a student to meet the student's personal learning goals 4. (tie) Field Instructor has a Master s Degree in Social Work 4. (tie) Agency's ability to provide a learning experience that meets the MSW program's required competencies 6. Agency's willingness to provide a student with a field instructor who will meet with them on a regular basis 7. (tie) Agency's ability to provide assignments that are suitable to the student's level of experience 7. (tie) Agency's ability to promote social work values and ethics 9. The safety of the student within the agency 10. (tie) Field Instructor's willingness to communicate with your program's field liaison about student performance 10. (tie) Field Instructor's ability to model advanced social work practice 10. (tie) Field Instructor s ability to build a relationship with the student The factors within the boxes highlighted above are common to both Domestic and International Placement lists of most frequently used decision-making factors

15 Appendix 3: Domestic and International Decision-Making Factors Relating to Agencies Agency Data Listed By Difference of Means Domestic Placement Mean n=23 International Placement Mean n=23 Difference of Means Agency's history with students from your MSW program The safety of the student within the agency Agency's willingness to provide a student with a field instructor who will meet with them on a regular basis Agency's ability to promote the application of social work theory to practice Agency's likelihood of benefiting from the student being placed there Agency's ability to promote social work values and ethics Agency's ability to provide assignments that are suitable to the student's level of experience Agency's ability to provide a learning experience that meets the MSW program's required competencies Agency's field of practice Agency's willingness to accept a student without financial compensation Agency's willingness to provide training opportunities to students as they would to their employees Agency's service population (who the agency serves) The assistance from an agency to ensure a student is connected with his or her MSW field liaison for additional supervision

16 Appendix 4: Domestic and International Decision-Making Factors Relating to Field Instructors Field Instructor Data Listed By Difference of Means Domestic Placement Mean N=23 International Placement Mean N=23 Difference of Means Field Instructor has served as a field instructor in the past The number of years the Field Instructor has been practicing social work Field Instructor s ability to model advanced social work practice Field Instructor has a Master s Degree in Social Work Field Instructor s willingness to meet the requirements of your program Field Instructor's willingness to support a student to meet the student's personal learning goals Field Instructor's willingness to participate in regular supervision with the student Field Instructor's ability to influence the provision of social work at the agency Field Instructor's ability to communicate the application of social work theory to practice Field Instructor's ability to build a relationship with a student Field Instructor s willingness to communicate with your program's field liaison about student performance

17 Appendix 5: Domestic and International Decision-Making Factors Relating to Location Location Data Listed By Difference of Means Domestic Placement Mean (n=23) International Placement Mean (n=23) Difference of Means Agency's proximity to the primary administrative offices of your MSW program The safety of students within placement community Placement community's spoken language Agency location customs Agency location economic stability Agency location social stability Placement community's understanding of the role of social workers Students' personal accommodations while in field placement (i.e. where students live) Agency location standard of living Students' access to telecommunication services for personal use Students' access to local services for personal use (i.e. whether the student has access to a post office, a place to buy food, etc.) Agency location political stability The factors within the boxes highlighted above increase in use when students are placed internationally. 16