DE LAS FALTAS DE LOS PRESTADORES

The first implication concerns the transferability (Bryman, 2004) of the findings, that is; the degree that participant experiences resonate with other social work students’ supervision experiences; what other social work students view as positive fieldwork supervision, and; the understandings other social work students develop about their supervision experiences.

Implications for students

The second implication is that social work students must be adequately prepared for fieldwork supervision. Through adequate preparation, students are more likely to maximise their learning in supervision, engaging in many of the learning and practice opportunities fieldwork supervision potentially provides. This study has identified some core areas which need to be included in the preparation of social work students. These areas are: the purpose and process of fieldwork supervision, particularly supervision’s role in assisting learning; the importance of being actively engaged (Davys, 2007); emotional competence (O'Donoghue, 2012); conflict resolution (Barretti, 2009); contracting for supervision (Doel & Shardlow, 2005); knowing what positive supervision involves; how to utilise different forms of supervision; different forms of power in supervision and how power can be effectively managed; voicing supervision needs and expectations assertively (Barretta-Herman, 2001) and; appropriate expectations of supervisees at different levels of professional development (Tsui, 2005).

This study has shown the importance of grounding preparation of students for fieldwork supervision in experiential learning (Bogo, 2010). Preparation of students needs to continue to be developed and delivered by training providers, preferably in conjunction with fieldwork supervisors. Inherent in this implication is the need for student learning about fieldwork supervision to be on-going throughout the fieldwork practicum period. On-going support offered by fellow students through various mechanisms of peer support (Barretti, 2009) would enhance student learning as would existing support available from the training provider. Increasing peer support would in many instances necessitate more formal instances of peer support be made available to students, and

127

may require an increased diversity in provision of such support (Birkenmaier, et al., 2005).

Implications for fieldwork educators

Implications specific to fieldwork educators raised by this study centre on the importance of adequately preparing them for fieldwork supervision (Dettlaff, 2003; Hay, et al., 2006) rather than assuming this occurs through a process of professional maturation. Findings from this study also implied that determining fieldwork educators’ experience and skill (beyond solely meeting SWRB fieldwork supervisor requirements) prior to appointing them to this role would be beneficial. The importance of impressing on fieldwork educators their responsibility to assist student learning cannot be overstated. Understanding the significance of the learning element to fieldwork supervision and ensuring fieldwork educators can facilitate student learning is an essential component of their preparation for fieldwork supervision (Giddings, et al., 2004).

Fieldwork educators need to understand: the purpose and process of supervision, including the essentials of positive supervision; the importance of relationship and of experiencing positive supervision and of students forming a positive mental pattern of supervision (Hanna, 2007); how to appropriately manage power (Davys, 2005); giving and receiving feedback (Hawkins & Shohet, 2006) and; having expectations of supervisees appropriate to their level of professional development (Stoltenberg, 2005). Skills in developing and maintaining relationship in supervision have also been shown to be vital and highly valued by participants in this study so may need to be revisited in preparation developed for fieldwork educators. The importance of supervisors gaining a supervision history from new supervisees and explicitly contracting around issues mentioned above such managing power, and addressing conflict has also been shown by this study to be valuable, and would need to be emphasised in fieldwork educator training.

Developing a preparation package for fieldwork educators would most naturally fit with training providers, and could build on the work of the Kia Tene/Off the Cuff resource package (Douglas, 2011). Preparation for fieldwork educators could be developed in conjunction with experienced fieldwork educators and/or fieldwork supervisors. This could have the added benefit of providing useful liaison between agency based

128

supervisors and external supervisors, thereby encouraging discussion about their different relationship and accountabilities.

Implications for external supervisors

Implications for external supervisors from this study centre on how the role of external supervisors is explained to and utilised by social work students. Training providers in particular need to be mindful of how they communicate to students the position held by external supervisors in relation to fieldwork educators. Additionally, it may be useful for external supervisors to overtly discuss the relationship between internally provided supervisors and themselves, and how these roles complement each other for the benefit of the students’ learning. Specific preparation/training given to external supervisors to help them identify and address any unhelpful alliances or dynamics apparent in the supervision relationship may be beneficial.

As noted for fieldwork educators, external supervisors’ supervision and practice experience and skill level must also be determined prior to them being appointed them to this role, and they must have a good understanding of the purpose and process of the supervision they are contracted to provide. External supervisors need to be able to identify and effectively manage power in supervision, and base expectations of the student as supervisee in developmental stages.

Confirming that external supervisors fulfil requirements of fieldwork supervisor needs to continue to sit with training providers. Similarly, any on-going professional development/training should continue to be developed by training providers, again in consultation with experienced external supervisors. Implications from this study also suggest that SWRB requirements regarding fieldwork supervisors need to be revised to include experience requirements in addition to competence determined by Registration. Such an addition may or may not include the demonstration of competence as a fieldwork supervisor.