There is arguably no more exciting time in social work education than the field practicum or internship. The integrative

Transcription

1 Student Perceptions of Integrtive Field Seminr: A Comprison of Three Models Helen Hrris, MSW, ED.D, LCSW, ACSW, DCSW Dennis Myers, Ph.D, MSSW, LCSW Bylor School of Socil Work Student perceptions of 63 concentrtion yer MSW students, grdes, nd fculty perceptions were exmined to evlute differences in eductionl outcomes nd in lerning experiences mong trditionl clssroom model, mixed or hybrid model, nd webinr online model for delivery of integrtive field seminrs. No significnt differences were found in the grdes mong the three models. Findings showed strong support for the trditionl model for students in locl field internships nd the webinr model for students in distnt site plcements. Reciprocity mong students nd fculty ws mjor fctor in seminr integrtion nd effectiveness, regrdless of the mode of delivery. Keywords: MSW field internships, distnce site field plcements, webinr model, reciprocity, online courses INTEGRATIVE FIELD SEMINARS There is rgubly no more exciting time in socil work eduction thn the field prcticum or internship. The integrtive seminr is centrl to the interply between clssroom curriculum nd field prcticum. As students seek field internships in distnt site loctions, delivering the integrtive field seminr is incresingly chllenging. Phone-in prticiption in trditionl seminrs nd on-line field seminrs re pproches to providing the seminr to students plced wy from the cmpus. The question, however, is whether or not they re eductionlly equivlent. Do students who re not in the clssroom for integrtive seminrs receive the sme benefits from the seminr experience? This study exmines one progrm s ttempt to ddress these questions. Why Hve Field Seminrs Anywy? According to Wyne, Bogo, nd Rskin (2010) nd Birkenmier nd Berg-Weger (2007), the seminr is specific method for meeting CSWE mndtes tht progrms ensure the integrtion of theory nd prctice. The field seminr provides forum to shre field lerning, explore vlues nd ethics, discuss nd compre policies nd procedures in gencies, exmine evidence informed prctices, evlute personl responses, nd fcilitte networking. Seminrs provide sfe environments for discussion of field experiences, processing of feelings, nd exmintion of best prctices. Most progrms provide weekly or bi-weekly integrtive seminr meetings to process field experiences nd shre cse (identities disguised) issues nd resolution (Fvier, Eisengrt, & Colonn, 2000). Accredittion In the ltest itertion of the Eductionl Policy nd Accredittion Stndrds (EPAS) provided by the Council on Socil Work Eduction (CSWE), field eduction is identified s the signture pedgogy of socil work eduction. For mny progrms, the field experience is the finl eductionl experience in the curriculum nd includes the summtive evlution of the students demonstrtion of competencies. Current ccredittion stndrds ddress the integrtion of field eduction with the progrm curriculum in this wy: Field eduction is n integrl component of socil work eduction nchored in the mission, gols, nd eductionl level of the progrm. It occurs in settings tht reinforce students identifiction with the purposes, vlues, nd ethics of the profession; fosters the integrtion of empiricl nd prctice-bsed knowledge; nd promotes the development of professionl competence. (CSWE, 2008)

2 Further, the newly pproved EPAS stte tht the intent of field eduction is to connect the theoreticl nd conceptul contribution of the clssroom with the prcticl world of the prctice setting (2008). Accredittion stndrds focus on stndrdizing number of elements in the field eduction experience. All students must hve minimum number of hours in field setting tht meets progrm criteri. Supervision is provided by socil workers with degrees from ccredited progrms or t minimum the progrm provides to ech student socil work perspective for the field experience. Connection of Theory to Prctice As progrms connect the theoreticl to the prctice setting, students in integrtive field seminrs meet regulrly to interct round their prctice experiences. Some field seminr models re process only; others include content nd ssignments, while others re mix of the two. The field seminr provides forum for students to compre prctice experiences, gency policies nd procedures, differences nd similrities in ethicl issues, nd to experience diversity in both context nd client popultions. Competencies tht re stndrdized nd evluted cross gency experiences provide bsis for ssessment of professionl development nd for gtekeeping. This evlution is chieved when students present prctice scenrios, dilemms, nd interventions while peers nd fculty members mke n ssessment of the student s ppliction of knowledge nd prctice skills. Despite the cler vlue of the integrtive field seminr, some progrms re eliminting it, prticulrly for the MSW concentrtion yer. One explntion is the difficulty of delivering the seminr s students incresingly request field prcticum experiences in loctions round the country nd globe. As this trend developed, it ws not surprising tht block plcements becme the preferred delivery model for students doing their field internships in sites fr removed from the cmpus nd stndrd clssroom. There is some indiction tht the vlue of the integrtive seminr is recognized s supporting field s the signture pedgogy in socil work eduction (Wyne, Rskin, & Bogo (2010). One Progrm s Field Seminr Model nd Chllenge At Bylor University s School of Socil Work (BSSW), the integrtive field seminr is centrl mechnism for linking clssroom curriculum nd the field prcticum experience. While gency socil work prctitioners re the instructors of socil work in the field, students lso discover broder ppliction of their lerning through the seminr clssroom fculty nd through the shred experiences of their collegues. The seminr fculty lso serves s field liison with regulr contct with field instructors. Similr to the model described by Royse, Dhooper nd Rompf (2007), the seminr is interctive nd prticiptory. Seminr ssignments flow out of the field experience, providing rich seminr opportunity for exchnge of experience between students. The combintion of feedbck from seminr fculty, students, nd on site field instructors informs the criticl interfces between clssroom nd prcticum. Ech student intern prepres lerning contrct with the field instructor tht ddresses the progrm lerning objectives by opertionlizing them with tsks in the gency. This stndrdized rubric is prticulrized to the gency tsks nd evluted by both field instructors nd field seminr fculty. Field instructors nd field seminr fculty complete field orienttion nd trining to provide consistent, relible nd vlid grding of students. Concurrent nd Block Plcements The Bylor University School of Socil Work is mid-size school with both BSW nd MSW degree progrms. The BSW progrm hs been ccredited for lmost 40 yers. The progrm dded n MSW progrm in 1999, grduting the first clss in 2001 from fully ccredited progrm. The BSW field progrm uses concurrent model, with students completing one field plcement of minimum totl 480 hours over two semesters. MSW students in the foundtion yer complete 480 hours over the fll nd spring semesters. The concurrent nture of the BSW nd foundtion plcements mkes it necessry for students to be plced in the locl geogrphic re. These generlist plcement sites re within 50 miles of the university nd typiclly within miles. However, concentrtion yer students re in modified block plcement rrngement tht mkes distnt site plcements possible. Field plcement ssignments re mde in the spring nd summer prior to the concentrtion yer. Students complete n orienttion to the field nd develop their bsic lerning contrcts during the fll semester while engged in the mjority of their concentrtion coursework. Field instructors nd field seminr fculty complete n orienttion to the field tht speks both to the construction of the lerning contrct nd grding rubric nd to the ssessment process nd criteri. The spring semester is

3 block plcement tht begins the first week of Jnury nd concludes the middle of April. Students complete reserch project nd pper during the internship nd return to cmpus for the finl two weeks to complete full time Cpstone Seminr. During the block plcement, students re engged in n integrtive field internship seminr once week for two hours designed to provide both processing of the internship experience nd presenttion of cse nd tretment pproches. Thirty percent of the field internship grde comes from seminr ssignments, including weekly log/journls nd cse presenttion to their collegues. The block nture of the field internship llows the flexibility of plcements in distnt sites, including out of stte nd interntionl plcements. The Chllenge of Distnce The delivery of integrtive seminrs with block plcements in distnt loctions is prticulrly chllenging when students re geogrphiclly seprted from the school nd ech other. Students plced within 120 miles of the school hve historiclly driven to cmpus once week for the seminr, which cretes n unnecessry time burden. The school hs tried number of venues for providing the seminr experience for students in distnt site plcements. For severl yers, students in field internships more thn 120 miles from the cmpus were registered for stndrd integrtive field seminrs nd used web cmers to connect to collegues in the clssroom. Chllenges included hrdwre nd softwre issues s the progrm determined the minimum necessry equipment for students to connect through web cmer technology. Another chllenge ws dequte brodbnd ccess. Securing dequte technology on both ends of the connection did not solve the problem of busy internet trffic nd res with miniml brodbnd width. As students in distnt sites experienced technologicl problems, students on site in the clssroom experienced interruption of their seminr. The decision ws mde to explore the use of severl different models to deliver the integrtive field seminrs for concentrtion students. The three models included trditionl model, mixed model, nd webinr model. The trditionl model is n integrtive field seminr with students in vriety of locl field plcement ssignments who meet ech week t the school for two hours. The mixed model includes 8-10 students plced loclly nd 2-3 students in plcements more thn 120 miles wy who telephone in to the seminr nd interct on the phone for the two hour weekly seminr. The webinr model includes up to 10 students, ll of whom re in plcements more thn 120 miles from the school nd who prticipte in the weekly webinr. The webinr model is provided through Elluminte Live, n interctive softwre progrm provided by the university through the Blckbord softwre system. Prior to implementtion, the field seminr fculty reviewed the literture for other integrtive field seminr models nd for evidence of the use nd effectiveness of vrious field seminr models. DISTANCE EDUCATION AND FIELD SEMINARS There is very limited reserch on integrtive field seminrs nd n incresing literture on distnt site eduction prticulrly in the pst 3-5 yers. There is no previous literture on distnt site webinr integrtive field seminrs. It is, however, topic of some discussion on field nd socil work eduction list serves. List serve converstion includes seminrs tht meet s few s three times semester to number of progrms using hybrid models combining trditionl sessions in the clssroom nd online sessions. Some progrms re using online field instructor trining, though there is no current literture exmining the equivlency of those progrms. Innovtions in field eduction in the erly 1990s included the trends towrd multi-method generlist prctice; prt time, older students working nd ttending school; field plcements ccommodting student requests for non-trditionl nd interntionl settings (Lough, McBride, & Sherrdn, 2012); nd the move wy from MSW prctitioner-eductor to PhD reserch-eductor (Sneck, Grossmn, & Glssmn, 1991). Field eduction is historiclly venue for innovtion in socil work eduction (Shefor & Jenkins, 1982). The purpose of this reserch is to exmine both outcomes nd student perceptions of field innovtion in socil work prctice; specificlly, the use of distnce site eduction to provide eductionl support for ntionl nd interntionl field prcticum. The popultion of students being served vi distnce lerning nd the vilbility of online lerning hs been expnding, resulting from outrech efforts to students previously limited by geogrphy, cost, fmily or work concerns (Allen & Semn, 2013; Ayl, 2009; Vernon, Vklhi, Pierce, Pittmn-Munke, & Adkins, 2009). While the use of distnce lerning in socil work eduction is widespred, the use of internet technology for integrtive seminrs hs

4 VOLUME 3, ISSUE 2 only recently begun to emerge (Birkenmier, Wernet, Berg-Werner, Wilson, Bnks, & Olliges, 2005). Reserch on student stisfction with the use of internet technology is mixed. Some results show students significntly fvor live instruction over televised distnce lerning, nd other reserch suggests tht internet technology tht supplements course (such s clss e-mil project) enhnces the eductionl experience (Birkenmier, et l., 2005). Comprison In-clss nd Online Field Seminrs Wolfson, Mgnuson nd Mrsom (2005) compred both in-clss nd online field seminr sections round meeting lerning objectives nd student stisfction with the lerning environment over 3-yer period ( ). Online (70%; n = 10) students rted the experience s eqully or more fvorble thn in clss or trditionl seminr. The bility to prticipte on their own terms nd t convenient times ws reported s definite sset. Some students who hd been quiet nd reluctnt to shre in the clssroom setting prticipted more in the online course. These students reported feeling more comfort in shring their experiences nd thoughts. Even so, more thn hlf of the respondents suggested tht future online seminrs include some type of in-clss sessions during the semester. Nerly hlf the students reported they disliked the bsence of fce-to-fce interction nd missed the physicl presence of their peers. They lso noted tht computer-medited communiction could be more esily misunderstood. Generlly, the online seminr ws successful in ssisting students to meet their individul lerning objectives nd the school s prcticum objectives. The convenience of the online seminr outweighed its limittions. McFll nd Freddolino (2000) compred MSW field instruction t one locl nd two distnce cmpus loctions. Locl resources, sensitivity, nd on-cmpus field office resources were evluted. The reserch question exmined whether students in the two distnce sites hd significntly different perceptions of their field instruction environments thn did on-cmpus students. The results indicte tht while the geogrphic loction nd the strength of the difference vried, in none of the cses cn we ssume comprbility cross ll three sites. Students in both distnce sites reported more positive experience with locl field recourses thn students on cmpus. A similr pttern ppered s distnce cohorts reported more positive perceptions regrding gency climte gency support for protecting the student role. However, students on cmpus perceived the opertion of the field office more positively thn did the students in distnce sites. These findings suggest tht with plnning nd the willingness to commit sufficient resources, it is possible to implement qulity field instruction component in distnce eduction setting t lest comprble to wht is provided on cmpus, nd which, in some cses, provides benefits over the trditionl offering. Specificlly, the innovtive nture of mny distnce eduction progrms seems to provide level of cretivity nd energy tht surpsses ongoing cmpus-bsed progrms (McFll & Freddolino, 2000). Reserchers generlly gree tht there is no difference between cmpus students nd distnt students cquisition of course content (Cummings, Foels, & Chffin, 2012; Webber, Currin, Groves, Hy, & Fernndo, 2010). Abels (2005) concludes tht results from distnce eduction evlutions suggest tht stisfction levels with instructionl qulity re t lest equivlent to those obtined for trditionl courses. Equivlence nd Outcomes Evidence supports the ide tht distnce eduction cn mke grdute study vilble to lrger number of students nd tht it is t lest s effective s clssroom instruction in terms of student lerning (Allen & Semn, 2013; Blkely, 1992). Online students lso frequently commented tht they cme to know their online clssmtes well nd relied on their help with course mteril (Wilke & Vinton, 2006). Interctions mong students nd between students nd instructors were strengthened through the use of technologies such s interctive television, teleconferences, computer discussion groups, videoconferences, nd e-mil (Berger, Stein, & Mullin, 2009; Huff, 2000). According to instructors, the computer hs enhnced prcticum experience discussions nd the integrtion of theory with prctice (Birkenmier, et l., 2005). Criticl Apprisl No differences were found between distnt socil work students nd on-site socil work students with regrd to their level of criticl pprisl nd reserch method skills (Webber, Currin, Groves, Hy, & Fernndo, 2010). Abels (2005) findings support the proposition tht the eductionl chievements of distnce eduction students re t lest comprble to those of trditionl students (p. 102). Compred to n on-cmpus cohort, distnce eduction students b

5 pper to ern equivlent grdes. Abels found the rewrds of distnt site eduction included providing lerners with more professionlly trined socil workers, incresing understnding of community-specific needs nd resources, nd ccessing diversity of rurl communities. Some studies included concerns bout distnce eduction in socil work. Blkely (2005) found tht in one distnce eduction system, fculty were not routinely personlly vilble to students, requiring extr effort to ssure positive sociliztion outcomes. A criticism of online lerning hs lso been tht the criticl element of humn contct is missing (Wilke & Vinton, 2006). Some MSW students described loss of utonomy becuse brriers prevented them from ttending school in the preferred trditionl clssroom environment (Prdsni, Goldkind, Heymn, & Cross-Denny, 2012). Abels (2005) identified these chllenges in distnce eduction difficulty djusting nd creting clssroom environment, the need to djust the instructor s teching style, nd obstcles to effective communiction restricting opportunity to ssess the effectiveness of teching s the semester evolves. Some studies hve found tht students prefer fce-to-fce clsses, citing difficulties with technology, the lerning environment, ccess to librries nd other student services, nd clssroom interction. Others hve suggested tht there re significnt pedgogicl losses becuse of technology (Huff, 2000). THE STUDY The literture suggests tht online field seminrs cn provide students with successful experience. The students in the school expressed requests for distnt site plcements nd interest in hving the integrtive field seminr experience while in block plcements cross the country nd, in some cses, in interntionl settings. The fculty s interest is in meeting student needs nd ensuring cdemic excellence. Reserch Questions This study sks severl questions. Is there difference in student perceptions of lerning experiences in field prcticum cross three models of integrtive field seminr (trditionl, mixed, nd webinr)? Does the model of integrtive field seminr mke difference in student outcomes (grdes) both in seminr ssignments nd in field prcticum evlution? Wht is the most effective model of integrtive field seminr for students in locl plcements nd in distnt site plcements? Methodology Smple. Sixty-three students prticipted in the MSW concentrtion yer experience t the BSSW in cdemic yer Forty-eight field instructors supervised nd grded the concentrtion students work; of those, thirteen (lmost one-third) re fculty in the School of Socil Work nd intimtely cquinted with the curriculum, progrm objectives, nd field eduction progrm. Six fculty members tught the integrtive field seminrs. The students nd field office completed prcticum ssignments in August, Students were ssigned to sections of the integrtive field seminr bsed on concentrtion, prctice focus, nd distnce of the plcement site from Bylor University. Trditionl= 41 interns; mixed=17 interns, nd webinr=5 interns. Students in plcements further thn 120 miles from Bylor were plced in webinr with the exception of students in congregtionl plcements. They were plced in mixed seminr sections with no more thn three students phoning in to ny mixed section. A totl of 23 interns prticipted in distnce nd/or mixed seminrs. All concentrtion field students prticipted in fll course entitled Introduction to the Internship. Students were required in the fll to complete orienttion to the gency nd develop lerning contrct for the spring block plcement. Additionlly, students in the webinr section were required to secure hrdwre nd softwre nd complete orienttion nd trining to the Elluminte Live system. Tht orienttion included successful webinr sessions on cmpus, off cmpus, nd in their distnt site plcement loction prior to the lunching of the spring block internship. Field instructors nd seminr fculty prticipted in the orienttion nd trining s well. Instrumenttion. Severl dt points were considered in this study. Student outcomes were defined s performnce in the mjor grding ctegories: cse presenttion, clss prticiption, nd field evlution. Cse presenttion is 15% of the seminr grde. Ech student prepres written informtion for collegues, including bckground of the cse, description of the problem, the work, the policies impcting the work, nd the current sttus of the cse.

6 VOLUME 3, ISSUE 2 Seminr prticipnts red this mteril prior to the presenttion. The presenting student mkes 45 minute cse presenttion tht includes power point of mjor points, smple of work tht is udio, video, or process recording, nd fcilittion of the cse discussion. Clss prticiption is difficult vrible to quntify. Students receive grde for clss prticiption prtly bsed on ttendnce nd lrgely bsed on contributions mde to the lerning of others. The finl evlution of the field internship includes the student nd field instructor s ssessment of 21 course objectives tht hve been opertionlized in the gency with specific gency tsks for which the student is responsible. The dt includes student grdes on ech of the 21 objectives nd finl field evlution grde constituting 70% of the field internship seminr grde for ech student. The lrge percentge of the grde derived from the field evlution is significnt in ssessing differences in student grde outcomes mong the three models of seminr. To exmine student perceptions of the equivlency of the experience, ll students were sked to complete pre-test in Jnury on the first dy of the integrtive seminr. Tht pre-test included four Likert scle questions sking students to ssess, fter the fll semester together: Reltionship with Seminr Professor Reltionship with Student Ability to benefit from seminr experience Ability to contribute to collegues seminr experience The sme questions were sked in post-test on the lst dy of the spring seminr experience. It is expected tht student response to these four 5-point Likert scle questions will help in mesuring the effectiveness of ech of the three models under considertion. Responses for ech question were ssigned numeric vlues (1=Poor, 2=Miniml, 3=Fir, 4=Good, 5=Excellent). Dt Anlysis Of the 63 MSW students in concentrtion internship plcements, 95% (n = 60) completed the pre-test. Eighty-seven percent (n = 55) completed the post-test, nd 95% percent (n = 58) of the students completed the survey instrument. The focus of the study is to compre students lerning experiences nd performnce cross the three models of field seminr. Sixty-seven percent (n = 41) were in the trditionl seminr model. Twenty five percent (n = 17) were in the mixed seminr model. Eight percent (n = 5) prticipted in the webinr model. In this first yer of offering the seminr options, since only five students prticipted in the webinr model, n nlysis of the dt is provided with the recognition tht the smll smple size mkes ccurte comprisons more difficult. A Wilcoxon signed rnk test ws performed for ech student s pre-test nd post-test scores on ech of the four items tht relte to their perception of the qulity of the experience. This test ws used to compre the differences in the pre- nd post-test scores for ech of the four questions s combined smple including ll three seminr models, followed by compring the trditionl model to the mixed nd webinr models. Finlly the three models were nlyzed individully for ny differences tht might be present within the smple between the different models. This is nonprmetric test tht ssumes the pired differences (Post-Pre) re independent nd ech pired difference comes from symmetric distribution with identicl medins. The test uses the rnks of the pired differences to compute its test sttistic. Pired differences of zero re ignored in the nlysis. For ech question, we wnted to investigte the chnge in response vlues fter ttending the spring seminrs. For exmple, if student rted their reltionship with their collegues s 1=Poor on the pre-test, we would expect n increse (idelly to 5=Excellent ) on the post-test. Therefore, we wnt to test the following hypotheses: H 0 : The medin of the pired differences (Post-Pre) is less thn or equl to 0, H A : The medin of the pired differences (Post-Pre) is greter thn 0. Therefore, we will reject H 0 when the sttistic T- is less thn or equl to the criticl vlue T α(1),n, where T- is the sum of the negtive rnks ssigned to the pired differences, α is the type I error (significnce level), nd n is number of vlid pired differences minus pired differences of zero. b

7 FINDINGS There were no significnt differences mong the students verge finl grdes (Tble 1) nd mong the finl evlution grdes (Tble 2) for the three seminr models for ll of the ssignments. Tble 1. Finl Grdes by Seminr Model Model Totl Trditionl 7.89% 44.73% 47.36% 38 Mixed 0% 53.33% 46.66% 15 Webinr 0% 100% 0% 5 Tble 2. Finl Evlution Grdes by Seminr Model Model Totl Trditionl 7.69% 35.89% 56.41% 39 Mixed 0% 20% 80% 15 Webinr 0% 100% 0% 5 Finl evlution grdes re computed by the field instructor, i.e. the prctitioner on site in the field experience who evlutes the student s prctice. This finl field evlution is 70% of the finl overll grde in the course. While the seminr fculty member hs finl grde uthority, the field instructor s grde ssessment is lmost universlly retined. The other 30% of the finl overll grde comes from student presenttions nd prticiption nd is ssessed by the seminr fculty member. There is very little difference in the ssessment of student performnce by field instructors nd by seminr fculty totls in the three models. There is n indiction tht seminr fculty re somewht more distinguishing between high nd low As in the trditionl nd mixed models. All students in the webinr model received n A in both the finl field evlution nd the finl overll grde, but the low N (5) mkes tht finding inconsequentil. The Wilcoxon signed rnk test ws performed for ech student s pre-test nd post-test scores on ech item of the four questions s combined smple. Tble 3 summrizes the results of the test for the entire smple, combining ll three models, using type I error of α = For ech question, the number under the column T- is the number to be compred to the criticl vlue which determines the conclusion nd p-vlue of the test for tht question. For Question 2, the null hypothesis is rejected since T- = with p < 0.025, s shown in Tble 3. Overll there ws significnt increse in response vlues on the post-test for students feeling stronger connection with their fellow collegues fter ttending the seminrs. Tht is, there ws significnt move in the direction of responses towrd excellent on the post-test for Question 2. Next, the complete smple ws divided into two seprte groups: (1) trditionl nd (2) mixed nd webinr. The ssumptions nd hypotheses will be the sme s those mentioned previously. However, due to the smll smple sizes for the two groups being considered, type I error of α = 0.10 will be used insted. Tble 4 summrizes the results of the test for the trditionl seminr group nd Tble 5 displys the results for the mixed nd webinr group combined. Agin, for ech question, the number representing T- is the number to be compred to the criticl vlue which determines the conclusion nd p-vlue of the test for tht question.

8 VOLUME 3, ISSUE 2 Tble 3. Wilcoxon Signed Rnk Results for Totl Smple, including ll 3 Models Question n T α(1),n T- Conclusion p-vlue 1) Reltionship with Professor 2) Reltionship with 3) Benefit from presenttion 4) Benefit from Fil to Reject p > Reject 0.01 < p < Fil to Reject 0.10 < p < Fil to Reject p > 0.25 For Question 2 (Reltionship with Student ), the null hypothesis is rejected for both groups in Tbles 4 nd 5 since T- = with p < 0.10 nd T- = with p < 0.10, respectively. Hence, students in both groups experienced significnt increse in responses regrding their reltionship with other student collegues fter ttending the seminrs. Tht is, there ws significnt move in the direction of responses towrd excellent on the post-test for both groups regrding Question 2. Breking down the group contining both mixed seminrs nd webinr into their respective groups further ddresses the results found in Tble 5. In Tbles 6 nd 7, the results for the mixed seminr nd webinr re shown with α = For the webinr smple, the smll smple size prevented the use of the Wilcoxon signed rnk test on three of the questions. However, notice there were no negtive differences (Pre-Post) in responses for the webinr smple. For ll four questions, there ws not single student who responded numericlly less on the post-test thn they did on the pre-test, suggesting the webinr model successfully improve students in ll four of these res to some degree. Tble 4. Wilcoxon Signed Rnk Results for the Trditionl Seminr Smple Question n T α(1),n T- Conclusion p-vlue 1) Reltionship with Professor 2) Reltionship with 3) Benefit from Presenttion 4) Benefit from Fil to Reject p > Reject 0.05 < p < Fil to Reject 0.10 < p < Fil to Reject 0.10 < p < 0.25 b

9 Tble 5. Wilcoxon Signed Rnk Results for the Modified nd Webinr Smple Question n T α(1),n T- Conclusion p-vlue 1) Reltionship with Professor 2) Reltionship with 3) Benefit from Presenttion 4) Benefit from Fil to Reject p > Reject 0.05 < p < Fil to Reject p > Fil to Reject p > 0.25 The results for the mixed seminr group in Tble 6 show no significnt differences in student responses for ny single question between the pre- nd post-tests. However, the webinr group in Tble 7 rejects the null hypothesis for Question 2 since T- = 0 0 (the criticl vlue is 0) with p < Therefore, the results of Tble 5 cn lrgely be ttributed to the webinr smple of students. Both the trditionl nd webinr groups experienced significntly incresed response vlues on the post-test compred to the pre-test for Question 2 relting to student collegues reltionships. However, the mixed seminr group experienced no such chnge, suggesting tht the mixed seminr group my be the lest effective in improving reltionships nd providing convenient methods for benefitting from nd contributing to the seminr experience. Exmining the men response for Question 2 on the pre-test for the different seminr models yields x-br = for trditionl, x-br = for mixed, nd x-br = for webinr. Post-test men responses for Question 2 give x-br = for trditionl, x-br =4.600 for mixed, nd x-br = for webinr. Hence, the webinr smple experienced the gretest increse in men response for Question 2 nd then the trditionl seminr group. However, the mixed seminr group experienced the smllest increse, which resulted in no significnt chnges between the pre- nd post-tests. Tble 6. Wilcoxon Signed Rnk results for the Modified Seminr Smple Question n T α(1),n T- Conclusion p-vlue 1) Reltionship with Professor 2) Reltionship with 3) Benefit from Presenttion Fil to Reject p > Fil to Reject p > Fil to Reject p > ) Benefit from Fil to Reject p > 0.25

10 VOLUME 3, ISSUE 2 Tble 7. Wilcoxon Signed Rnk Results for the Webinr Smple Question n T α(1),n T- Conclusion p-vlue 1) Reltionship with Professor 2) Reltionship with 3) Benefit from Presenttion 4) Benefit from Student Comments Reject 0.05 < p < While this study ws primrily quntittive nlysis, students were provided opportunity in the survey instrument to comment on the strengths nd chllenges of their prticulr seminr model nd to mke recommendtions for the future. Student comments were grouped by model nd by positive or negtive response. Overwhelmingly (73%; n = 22 of 30), students commented tht positive feture of the trditionl model is the opportunity to be present with collegues nd interct round the field experience. More thn hlf (55%; n = 11 of 20) in the trditionl model commented tht students who drive in some distnce for the seminr experience significnt chllenge in the trditionl model. They recommend tht those students be llowed to prticipte in webinr option to prevent trdies nd bsences. Students in the mixed model recognized tht there ws n dvntge to students t distnce not hving to drive in (22%; n = 2 of 9) nd recognized the benefit of converstion bout field in the seminr (33%; n = 3 of 9). However, those sme students commented repetedly (80%; n = 12 of 15 comments) bout the difficulties in intercting in the mixed model. Those students recommended tht students be offered either the webinr model (distnt site) or the trditionl model, but tht the school should not provide mixed model. Students in the webinr model commented on the benefit of being ble to be in distnt site plcements nd still interct with their collegues. The primry chllenge noted ws round technology (occsionl difficulty connecting or being bumped off the network. ). Students in the webinr model recommended continued use of the webinr, with incresed work round preprtion in the fll semester through hrdwre nd softwre in-service trining. Students in the webinr model mentioned severl times the benefit of recorded webinr sessions to mke up sessions tht were missed becuse of technology chllenges. Fculty Comments While seminr fculty did not prticipte in the survey experience for this study, they were interviewed by phone or in person for their impressions nd perception of the seminr experience. Of the six sections of integrtive field seminr, three were trditionl model, tught by three different fculty members. All three commented tht the trditionl model works well with the exception of students driving some distnce for the seminr. All three noted problems with bsences nd lte rrivls for those students who were driving in from out of town. Two fculty members tught mixed model seminrs, nd both commented bout the chllenge of securing equl prticiption of those students who were phoning in to the seminr. Audio qulity ws prticulr chllenge. However, neither felt tht the students field experiences or cse presenttion experiences were compromised by the mixed model. Only one fculty mem- b

11 ber tught webinr. Tht fculty member commented on her surprise t the reltive ese of the experience, the benefit of being ble to record the sessions, nd the remrkble response of students to the webinr option. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Students in mid-size grdute socil work progrm prticipted in n integrtive field seminr s prt of their modified block field internship. The progrm provided the seminr through trditionl, mixed, nd webinr models nd compred student grdes nd pre-post test perceptions of their bility to prticipte fully in the experience including both their reltionship with professors nd collegues. Perhps predictbly, there ws no significnt difference in student grdes in the internship evlution, seminr cse presenttion, or clss presenttion. This is finl block field internship nd, thus, it is nticipted tht students will do well cdemiclly in this experience. These students hve ll completed extensive, rigorous coursework prior to the internship, including successful completion of foundtion/generlist prctice internship. It cn be rgued tht gtekeeping processes eliminte students without cpbility or drive to mke good grdes in the finl internship. Additionlly, clss prticiption nd cse presenttion ssignments re designed to help students trnsition from the student role to the role of collegue with their peers. One would nticipte competence for this trnsition in the semester prior to beginning professionl prctice. The nlysis of student pre- nd post-test responses with regrd to the seminr experience did not demonstrte significnt differences between models with regrd to student reltionship with professors or with regrd to their perceptions of their bility to contribute to or benefit from the seminr. However, there ws significnt difference in the webinr students perception of reltionship with collegues before nd fter the seminr experience. Notbly, these five students reported tht their reltionships with collegues were much improved despite not hving been in the historiclly preferred trditionl model of internship seminr. We might speculte tht the shred experience of trying something new, the need for collbortion nd collegility in trying out new model, nd the need for group in those students in distnt site loctions for plcement contributed to this result. In ny cse, the webinr held its own nd in fct excelled in the pre-post test comprisons. Limittions This study ws limited in scope in severl respects. It covers one progrm in one cdemic yer. It includes only 5 students in the webinr model. The smll number mkes it impossible to generlize much from the results. The progrm plns to repet the study this coming yer with t lest two differences: No mixed model seminrs. Students beyond 50 mile rdius to the school will be llowed to prticipte in the webinr model. Two sections of webinr seminrs with minimum of 12 webinr students with formlized preprtion for the webinr experience in the fll semester. Recommendtions Both student comments nd fculty comments were consistent with the quntittive findings nd with the following recommendtions: The trditionl seminr is the preferred model for integrtive internship seminr when possible. The mixed model is lest effective nd preferred for the integrtive field seminr. The webinr model provides n effective lterntive for the integrtive field seminr for students in distnt site plcements. Continued trining of both fculty nd students is essentil to success of the webinr model. Refinement of hrdwre nd softwre re importnt to success of the webinr model. Smll clss size is importnt to the webinr model.

12 VOLUME 3, ISSUE 2 Conclusions Field internship is for most students the highlight of their socil work eduction. It my only be rivled by tht first dy in the first socil work clss when students wonder wht this profession clled socil work relly is nd whether or not it is for them. Field internship mrks for students the lunching of their own socil work prctice. The fce of the client is centrl to the experience while clssroom redings nd theories re integrted into the field experience. Field instructors in gencies re the sesoned professionls nd mentors who structure the lerning for students. The integrtive field seminr is the bridge insuring lerning exchnges between field nd clssroom, between concept nd prctice. The online seminr is n effective venue for delivering the integrtive field seminr to students whose plcements tke them too fr from the school to prticipte in trditionl seminrs. Students in the webinr option experience equivlent eductionl outcomes nd report improved collegil reltionships with seminr prticipnts. Implictions of this study re limited by the smll number of prticipnts nd one yer of dt collection. Even so, they re importnt. The student grdes nd responses suggest tht the delivery of synchronous on-line field seminrs produces equivlent eductionl outcomes. This is strong sttement bout the possibilities of distnt site plcements in field eduction tht include the substnce of the integrtive seminr nd the role of fculty in guiding the prcticum experience. This is one interfce between the models of prcticum eduction of the pst nd the possibilities of prcticum eduction in the future s technology mkes more of the world ccessible to students nd to fculty. In globl economy nd higher eduction tht is dully invested in competencies nd outcomes nd in the effective use of technology, this study provides one exmple of mximizing number of those vlues simultneously. REFERENCES Abels, P. (2005). Distnce eduction in socil work. New York: Springer Publishing Compny, Inc. Allen, I. E., & Semn, J. (2013). Chnging course: Ten yers of trcking online eduction in the United Sttes. Retrieved from Ayl, J. S. (2009). Blended lerning s new pproch to socil work eduction. Journl of Socil Work Eduction, 45(2), Berger, R., Stein, L. & Mullin, J. B. (2009). Videoconferencing: A vible teching strtegy for socil work eduction? Socil Work Eduction, 28(5), Blkely, T. (1992). A model for distnce eduction delivery. Journl of Socil Work Eduction, 28(2), Birkenmier, J., & Berg-Weger, M. (2007) The prcticum compnion for socil work: Integrting clss nd field work [Second edition]. New York, New York: Person Eduction, Inc. Birkenmier, J., Wernet, S., Berg-Weger, M., Wilson, R., Bnks, R., & Olliges, R. (2005). Weving web: The use of internet technology in field eduction. Journl of Teching in Socil Work, 25(1/2), Council on Socil Work Eduction. (2008) Eductionl Policy nd Accredittion Stndrds (EPAS) Hndbook. Retrieved from Council on Socil Work Eduction website: spx. Cummings, S. M., Foels, L. & Chffin, K. M. (2012). Comprtive nlysis of distnce eduction nd clssroom-bsed formts for clinicl socil work prctice course. Socil Work Eduction, ifirst Article, Fiver, C., Eisengrt, S., & Colonn, R. (2000). The counselor intern s hndbook. Belmont, CA: Wdsworth/Thomson Lerning. Huff, M. (2000). A comprison study of live instruction versus interctive television for teching MSW students criticl thinking skills. Reserch on Socil Work Prctice, 10(4), Lough, B. J., McBride, A. M., & Sherrdn, M. S. (2012). Mesuring interntionl service outcomes: Implictions for interntionl socil work field plcements. Journl of Socil Work Eduction, 48(3), McFll, J., & Freddolino, P. (2000). Qulity nd comprbility in distnce field eduction: Lessons lerned from com- b

13 pring three progrm sites. Journl of Socil Work Eduction, 36(2), Prdsni, M., Goldkind, L., Heymn, J.C., Cross-Denny, B. (2012). How much does the distnce in distnce eduction mtter? Our students spek. Socil Work Eduction: The Interntionl Journl, 31(4), Royse, D., Dhooper, S. S., & Rompf, E. L. (2007). Field instruction: A guide for socil work students. Boston, MA: Person Eduction, Inc. Shefor, B., & Jenkins, L. (1982). Qulity field instruction in socil work. New York, NY: Longmn, Inc. Sneck, D., Grossmn, B., & Glssmn, U. (1991). Field eduction in socil work: Contemporry Issues nd trends. Dubuque, IA: Kendll/Hunt Publishing Compny. Vernon, R., Vklhi, H., Pierce, D. Pittmn-Munke, P. & Adkins, L. F. (2009). Distnce eduction progrms in socil work: Current nd emerging trends. Journl of Socil Work Eduction, 45(2) Wyne, J., Bogo, M., & Rskin, M. (2010). Field eduction s the signture pedgogy of socil work eduction. Journl of Socil Work Eduction, 48(3), Webber, M., Currin, L., Groves, N., Hy, D., & Fernndo, N. (2010). Socil workers cn e-lern: Evlution of pilot post-qulifying e-lerning course in reserch methods nd criticl pprisl skills for socil workers. Socil Work Eduction, 29(1), Wilke, D., & Vinton, L. (2006). Evlution of the first web-bsed dvnced stnding MSW progrm. Journl of Socil Work Eduction, 42(3), Wolfson, G., Mgnuson, C., & Mrsom, G. (2005). Chnging the nture of the discourse: Teching field seminrs online. Journl of Socil Work Eduction, 41(2), About the Authors: Helen Hrris (Helen_Hrris@bylo.edu) is Senior Lecturer t the Bylor School of Socil Work where she hs served on the fculty since She hs been recognized s the Outstnding Techer in the School of Socil Work on two occsions. For ten yers, she designed nd dministered n exemplry Field Eduction progrm. During the period between 2002 to the present, she hs uthored or co-uthored 18 journl rticles nd book chpters in the res of gerontology, loss nd mourning, fith nd socil work prctice, socil work history, nd fith-bsed community services. Dennis Myers (Dennis_Myers@ bylor.ed )is Professor of Socil Work nd Dorothy Brfield Kronzer Professor of Fmily Studies where he hs served on the fculty since He ws recognized s Distinguished Techer by the Assocition for Gerontology in Higher Eduction nd s n expert Gero-Ed Center Expert Triner by the Council on Socil Work Eduction. He hs been the principl or co-principle investigtor for grnts of over $1,000,000. He is the principle investigtor for the Dnny nd Lenn Prince Inititive for Qulity Long-term Cre with Older Adults tht provides reserch, evidence-bsed prctice models, eductionl progrms, nd prcticl resources to strengthen the cre environment of residentil fcilities nd to enrich the personl nd fmily life of older persons who reside in them. He is lso the co-principl investigtor for the Bilingul Mentl Helth Scholrship Progrm for Accredited Socil Work Progrms, n $88,000 grnt funded by the Hogg Foundtion ( ). During the period between 2002 to the present, he hs uthored or co-uthored 25 journl rticles in the res of socil work prctice, eductionl gerontology, dult cregiving, productive ging, nd fith-bsed community services. Dr. Myers is currently working on book entitled Awkening Power nd Grce in Your Prent nd Adult Child Reltionships.