Student Social Workers' Experiences of Supervision

Abstract

Given the managerial and austerity crisis in field practice education in South Africa and internationally, the study explored the perceptions of student social workers regarding their experiences of field practice supervision. A questionnaire-based survey was administered to third-year undergraduate social work students attending a South African university. While most students enjoyed positive supervision experiences a small proportion felt that their supervision was inadequate. Challenges included having supervisors not placed at field instruction agencies; differences between agency supervisors' expectations and those of the university; and poor quality supervision. Findings highlight the responsibility of universities for the screening, training and support of supervisors , and for university personnel to deal timeously with supervisor-supervisee issues.

Full text

Tata Institute
of
Social Sciences
THE INDIAN JOURNAL
OF
SOCIAL WORK
Volume 79, Issue 1
January 2018
IJSW, 79 (1), 31–54, January 2018
Student Social Workers’ Experiences of
Supervision
ELEANOR ROSS AND MPUMELELO NCUBE
Given the managerial and austerity crisis in eld practice education in South Africa and
internationally, the study explored the perceptions of student social workers regarding
their experiences of eld practice supervision. A questionnaire-based survey was ad-
ministered to third-year undergraduate social work students attending a South African
university. While most students enjoyed positive supervision experiences a small pro-
portion felt that their supervision was inadequate. Challenges included having supervi-
sors not placed at eld instruction agencies; differences between agency supervisors’
expectations and those of the university; and poor quality supervision. Findings high-
light the responsibility of universities for the screening, training and support of supervi-
sors, and for university personnel to deal timeously with supervisor-supervisee issues.
Eleanor Ross is Visiting Professor, Centre for Social Development in Africa; and
Mpumelelo Ncube is Lecturer, Department of Social Work, University of Johannesburg,
Johannesburg, South Africa.
INTRODUCTION
Social welfare services and social work education in South Africa
were started in 1932 in response to recommendations of the Carnegie
Commission of Inquiry into the Poor White Problem. As the apartheid
government was in power at the time, more services and resources were
made available to the white sector of the population than to any other
population groups. Social work education was also based largely on
British and American models. When South Africa became a multi-racial
constitutional democracy in 1994, a plethora of laws and policies were
passed which attempted to equalise services and opportunities and ensure
human rights for all sectors of the population. However, despite having
one of the most progressive constitutions in the world, and a safety net

32 Eleanor Ross and Mpumelelo Ncube
IJSW, 79 (1), 31–54, January 2018
in the form of grants for the poorest of the poor, the legacy of apartheid
continues to be felt in the form of widespread poverty, inequality and
unemployment. In addition to these problems, social work students and
graduates are expected to deal with persons and communities affected by
high levels of crime, violence, child and women abuse, HIV/AIDS, drug
addiction, housing shortages and dysfunctional health and educational
systems, among others (Smith, 2014).
The 17 South African universities that offer a 4-year undergraduate
educational programme have a theory component and a eld practice
component and are expected to align their curricula with 27 Exit Level
Outcomes (ELOs) and associated categories for the 4-year Bachelor of
Social Work (BSW) degree. These ELOs were developed and legislated
in response to global pressures for minimum international and comparable
standards (Hochfeld, 2009) and cover both the theoretical and practical or
eld education components. Efforts are currently being made to decolonise
the social work curriculum and incorporate indigenous African approaches
in both the theoretical and eld practice components.
According to the Council on Social Work Education (2008: 8), eld or
practice education is “the central form of instruction and learning in which
a profession socialises its students to perform the role of practitioner”
and is intended to “…connect the theoretical and conceptual contribution
of the classroom with the world of the practice setting”. The Supervision
Framework for the Social Work Profession in South Africa, developed under
the auspices of the Department of Social Development in collaboration with
the South African Council for Social Service Professions (SACSSP) (2012)
describes supervision as a form of indirect social work practice that entails
an interactive process of reviewing and reecting on the supervisees’ work
with the purpose of enhancing direct service delivery through the three
functions of supervision, namely, administration, education and support. At
the post-graduate level, supervision tends to take the form of mentoring and
consultation, depending on the level of experience of the student.
Given the current crisis in eld practice education that has been
identied both in South Africa (Engelbrecht, 2013; Hochfeld, Mupedziswa
and Selipsky, 2010; Simpson and Sathiparsad, 2011; Strydom, 2011);
and internationally (Beddoe and others, 2016; Bogo, 2015; Liu, Sun and
Anderson, 2013; Saltiel, 2016), the study sought to explore the supervision
experiences of third year social work students registered for the BSW
degree, during their eld practice placements.

Student Social Workers’ Experiences of Supervision 33
IJSW, 79 (1), 31–54, January 2018
While South African universities responsible for the education and
training of student social workers recognise the critical importance of eld
practice education, they are faced with numerous supervisory challenges
including rising student numbers, and difculties in nding suitable eld
practice placements for students as well as competent and knowledgeable
supervisors (Hochfeld, Mupedziswa and Selipsky, 2010). Other challenges
within the South African context, centre on lack of suitable ofce space
necessitating sharing of ofces which compromises condentiality.
There is also lack of equipment in agencies, such as computers to type
reports, and transport for students to conduct home visits. The fact that
workloads of social workers have increased, means that there is little time
left for quality supervision of students (Engelbrecht, 2013). Furthermore,
with the emphasis placed on research and publications, university staff
members are also less likely to be committed to eld teaching (Simpson
and Sathiparsad, 2011). Faced with these challenges, universities are
dependent on the willingness of welfare organisations to accommodate
students and the willingness of social workers to act as eld practice
supervisors (Strydom, 2011).
Similarly, Bogo (2015: 317) maintains that eld educators both in the
United States and internationally, provide anecdotal evidence of a crisis
in their ability to implement best practices in student supervision. Bogo
(2015) mentions problems identied in the international literature which
resonate with those in the South African context including changes in
the availability of high quality practicum sites arising from managed
care arrangements that do not make allowances for student supervision;
budget cutbacks to agencies from government that have resulted in higher
caseloads; and greater complexity of client problems. These conditions have
reduced the availability of social workers to assume the responsibility of
student supervision (Bogo, 2015: 321). She also reports increased student
enrollments which have had the effect of fostering greater competition
between universities for quality placements; and increased pressure on
faculty staff to publish which has led to minimal engagement with eld
practice programmes. Beddoe and others (2016) conducted an international
study on social work supervision and noted the threats and challenges to
supervision associated with austerity and managerialism. Saltiel (2016), a
British researcher, mentions that there are debates on the possibilities of
delivering ‘good’ supervision in the current pressured, poorly resourced
working environments. Further aeld, Liu, Sun and Anderson (2013) in
a survey of 15 Chinese universities with an MSW programme, found that

34 Eleanor Ross and Mpumelelo Ncube
IJSW, 79 (1), 31–54, January 2018
the dearth of faculty supervisors, and inadequate eld agency placements,
were among the most frequently reported challenges.
“Field instructors are essential for the success of practice education
placements, especially because the relationship between the student and
the eld instructor inuences the student’s perception of the learning
experience, which in turn determines the student’s satisfaction with
practice education” (Strydom, 2011: 416).
For these reasons, the present study focused on the practical or eld
instruction component by exploring the experiences of student social
workers during their practicums in respect of the three functions of
educational, support/enabling and administrative supervision. It was hoped
that the outcomes thereof would highlight strengths and weaknesses of the
eld practice programme, and enable the university and placement agencies
to enhance the quality of the programme and provide further support to
both students and supervisors. Beytell (2014) highlights the importance of
listening to students about their experiences and how they negotiate their
classroom education with the demands of eld practice placements.
The overarching paradigm that frames the education of social workers
and the delivery of social services in South Africa is the developmental
approach to social welfare and social work. The study was therefore
framed within the theoretical lens of Kadushin and Harkness’s (2014)
developmental model with its emphasis on the supervisee’s growth and
development through the three functions of educational, supportive and
administrative supervision.
METHODOLOGY
The research question framing the study was: What are the experiences
and challenges of third-year social work students in respect to the three
functions of eld practice supervision? The objectives were to explore
(1) students’ understanding of eld education supervision; (2) their views
on the administrative function of supervision; (3) their experiences of
educational supervision; (4) their perceptions of supportive supervision;
(5) their overall experiences of supervision including challenges they had
encountered; and (6) their recommendations for improving eld education
supervision.
Research Design
The study took the form of a cross-sectional survey which employed both
open-ended qualitative questions and closed-ended quantitative items.

Student Social Workers’ Experiences of Supervision 35
IJSW, 79 (1), 31–54, January 2018
The research was conducted at a large metropolitan university which
offers undergraduate and postgraduate degrees in social work. The survey
targeted the entire population of third-year undergraduate students of
social work at the University of Johannesburg in South Africa. Third-year
students were selected because of their mid-level developmental status as
students registered for a four-year degree, and who had previous exposure
to eld practice supervision. A total of 93 out of a class of 101 third-year
social work students participated in the study. The demographic details
for the participants is set out in Table 1. The disproportionate number of
females is consistent with the feminisation of the profession, while the
high number of Black Africans is in line with the broader population
distribution in South Africa.
Table 1: Demographic Profile of Participants
Category Sub-category No. Percentage
Gender Females 81 87.1
Males 12 12.9
Race/Ethnic group Black African 88 94.6
White 4 4.3
Indian 1 1.1
Level of study 3rd year 93 100
The 21-item questionnaire is set out in Appendix A and was constructed
by the researchers based on a literature review. Questions were linked to
the objectives of the study and were grouped in terms of administrative,
educational and supportive supervision. The tool was pilot-tested on a
fourth-year student who indicated that the questions were unambiguous and
did not require any amendments. Survey questionnaires were distributed
to all third-year students via group administration and took approximately
30 minutes to complete.
Data Analysis
Closed-ended items were analysed using descriptive statistics, and open-
ended questions were subjected to thematic analysis. The process of
thematic content analysis was utilised to analyse data from the interviews.
The process of data analysis followed the steps recommended by Terre
Blanche, Durrheim and Kelly (2006), namely (1) familiarisation and
immersion; (2) inducing themes; (3) coding; (4) elaboration; and (5)
interpretation and checking. In order to further enhance the trustworthiness

36 Eleanor Ross and Mpumelelo Ncube
IJSW, 79 (1), 31–54, January 2018
of the data, the four constructs of credibility, dependability, conrmability
and transferability were taken into consideration (Trochim, 2006).
Ethical Considerations
Ethical clearance for the survey was sought from the ethics committee
of the University where the research was undertaken. It was explained
to students that their participation in the survey was voluntary and
anonymous as they did not need to include any personal identifying details
on the answer sheets. In addition, it was explained to students that their
participation or lack thereof would not affect their practice education
evaluations or be used either in their favour or against them in any way.
Limitations
Use of a group-administered questionnaire precluded the probing of
responses for further clarication. Focusing only on the students and
neglecting the supervisors’ perspective was another limitation of the study.
A further weakness related to the timing of the survey which should ideally
have been conducted after the nal eld practice assessment but could not
be done at that time for practical reasons.
RESULTS
Results are presented in accordance with the objectives of the study.
Themes that emerged from the qualitative analysis are illustrated with
verbatim responses which allow the voices of the students to be heard.
Students’ Understanding of Supervision
When students were asked about their understanding of supervision, they
gave the impression of understanding this concept and highlighted various
aspects. The most frequent theme mentioned was guidance of students as
reected in the response: “The role of supervision is guiding, giving the
feedback that builds us as student social workers. Guiding students and
helping them to become better social workers in future”. Another theme
included imparting knowledge, theory and understanding. For example,
one student commented, “To inform about relevant theories to use with
clients”. A further theme was assistance with the application of skills as
captured in the response: “To help me with skills and how best to apply
them as the supervisor has more experience than I do”. Support was
also highlighted by many of the students. “Supervision plays a role of
supporting and guiding the student at all times. It is meant to be a place

Student Social Workers’ Experiences of Supervision 37
IJSW, 79 (1), 31–54, January 2018
where the student feels safe to share their problems”. Another important
aspect was upholding values and behaving professionally. “I think the
role of supervision is to provide professional guidance to students to be
able to perform professionally in their respective agencies as to uphold
or perform according to social work values and ethics”. Enhancing
professional growth was a further common theme. “The supervisor is a
Super advisor who steers us into professional social work practice. The
supervisor should be available and supportive to the learning development
of students”. A nal theme that emerged was helping students to deal with
challenges as encapsulated in the response: “To help students who have
difculties such as working with certain clients who are reluctant or with
disabilities, also with countertransference”.
Administrative Supervision
According to Kadushin and Harkness (2014), the administrative functions
of the supervisor include orientation of supervisees; as well as planning,
delegation, evaluation and coordination of work to enable the organisation
to achieve its aims in relation to delivery of social work services and eld
practice responsibilities. When students were asked to provide an overall
rating of the administrative function of supervision, 20.2 percent (18)
rated it as excellent, 30.3 percent (35) as good, 29.2 percent (26) as
adequate and 11.3 percent (10) as poor. Data on this aspect were missing
from four of the questionnaires. These ndings suggested that students
were generally satised with the administrative supervision they received.
Orientation
On the question whether or not students had been inducted into the agencies
where they were placed, 79.1 percent (72) of the respondents reected
that they had been oriented, 20.9 percent (19) of the respondents indicated
that they had not received any orientation and two questionnaires were
submitted with information missing on this item.
Frequency and Type of Supervision
Students were also asked about the frequency of supervision received.
While 90.1 percent (82) respondents reported that they received weekly
supervision, 5.5 percent (5) were supervised twice a week and 4.4 percent
(4) received supervision fortnightly throughout the year. There were two
data forms that had this question unanswered. The majority of students, that
is, 77.2 percent (71) indicated that they were satised with the frequency of

38 Eleanor Ross and Mpumelelo Ncube
IJSW, 79 (1), 31–54, January 2018
supervision; 18.5 percent (17) respondents wanted more supervision; while
4.3 percent (4) students indicated that they would prefer less supervision,
and one questionnaire had missing data. Students highlighted two forms
of supervision, individual and group. While 81.8 percent (76) respondents
were exposed to both individual and group forms of supervision, 15 percent
(14) respondents reported receiving only individual supervision, and 3.2
percent (3) students received only group supervision.
Setting the Supervisory Agenda
On the question of whose responsibility it was to set the supervision
agenda, 13.9 percent (13) students indicated that it was their supervisors,
2.2 percent (2) students indicated that it was their responsibility and 83.9
percent (78) indicated that it was a joint exercise.
Evaluation of Feedback from Supervision
Although feedback from supervisor sessions and overall assessments
are closely linked to the educational function of supervision, Kadushin
and Harkness (2014) locate these two processes under administrative
supervision. When students were asked to reect on the quality of feedback
from supervision sessions, 63.5 percent (59) students indicated that the
feedback was very helpful in their learning, 33.3 percent (31) students
indicated that it was fairly helpful and 3.2 percent (3) were of the view that
the feedback was of no assistance at all.
Students were generally satised with the feedback they received
because it was perceived as constructive and encouraged them to learn
new skills and acquire new knowledge. Responses reecting this theme
included the following: “She is always encouraging and challenges me to
better use skills and theory”. “The supervisor criticized my work and that
made me work harder. He provided constructive criticism and also showed
me where I can improve and how I can improve”. Students felt that the
feedback helped them not to repeat mistakes and to do things differently. For
example, “Mistakes that I made were identied and I was helped as to how
I can improve on those”. In contrast, a fair number of students perceived the
written and/or verbal feedback as unhelpful. Reasons for these perceptions
included the supervisor being too busy; only receiving overall feedback and
not on specic aspects; the supervisor only checks spelling; the supervisor
sets standards that are too high for a student; supervision not helpful because
the supervisor is not paid for her role and is thus not motivated; the supervisor
lacks theoretical knowledge and skills and is therefore unable to assist

Student Social Workers’ Experiences of Supervision 39
IJSW, 79 (1), 31–54, January 2018
with integration of theory and practice; feedback regarded as degrading;
and conict between what the student has learned in class and what the
supervisor expects. For instance, “sometimes I feel that the supervisor
contradicts what I have learnt in class with what he knows. Sometimes there
is a lot of misunderstanding with little clarication”. Further responses from
other students included: “She is always saying I am in the right track. I feel
I am not learning anything new” and “She does not understand theory and
expects me to do things her way”.
Evaluation of Overall Assessments
When students were asked to reect on the quality of the overall
assessments or eld evaluation ratings of their performance conducted
at the end of each semester, 67.4 percent (62) indicated that it was fair
and objective, 16.3 percent (15) felt that the quality exceeded their
expectations and the remaining 16.3 percent (15) indicated that the
quality did not meet their expectations. One data form had missing
information on this question.
Educational Supervision
According to Kadushin and Harkness (2014), the educational function of
supervision is designed to help supervisees to acquire knowledge, skills
and values needed to render effective services. When students were asked
to provide an overall rating of the educational function of supervision,
36.6 percent (34) were very pleased with the quality, rating it as excellent,
41.9 percent (39) rated the quality as good, 14 percent (13) were of the
view that it was adequate, while 7.5 percent (7) students reected that the
quality was very poor.
Values Learnt and Dilemmas Experienced
Through their experience of supervision, 73.1 percent (68) students
reected that they gained awareness of values and ethics of the profession
to a great extent; 23.7 percent (22) students had gained some awareness of
values and ethics, and 3.2 percent (3) indicated that their awareness levels
were not raised at all.
The value mentioned most frequently was respect for the worth and
dignity of all people and their cultural diversity. For example, “Respect
for the client’s feelings and values even when contradictory to my own”.
Acceptance, unconditional positive regard and the non-judgemental attitude
was another value highlighted by students. “I was working with a client

40 Eleanor Ross and Mpumelelo Ncube
IJSW, 79 (1), 31–54, January 2018
accused of rape. My supervisor made me aware of being non-judgemental
towards this case and be neutral (not to take sides)”. Another value was
condentiality as reected in the response: “Maintaining condentiality as
part of a multi-disciplinary team”. Client self-determination was a further
key value mentioned by participants. “It is always important to allow
clients self-determination and not read clients’ messages incorrectly”. Other
values included: individualisation; acting professionally and maintaining
boundaries; accountability; honesty and integrity; punctuality and the need
to report issues which are against the law, for example, incest. Among the
ethical dilemmas experienced were whether to attend a school agency when
schools are closed for client safety during protest action; whether to disclose
condential information to the person who referred the client; the challenge
to uphold values learnt at university which are not practised in the agency;
and whether children from poor homes should be allowed to work.
Learning of Skills
The majority of students, that is, 59.1 percent (55) reported learning
to understand the purpose of skills and how to apply Egan’s basic,
intermediate and advanced skills including immediacy, information
sharing, self-disclosure, confrontation and advanced accurate empathy.
For example, “Supervision has helped me especially with intermediate
skills which I was struggling with such as advanced empathy. Now I can
apply it with clients”. Other skills acquired through supervision included
goal setting and report writing. Students also mentioned that they had
learned how to integrate theory with practice through the provision of
examples, role play and group discussions. One student explained, “We
do role plays, case study analysis and we discuss our problematic areas”
and “The supervisor would discuss good skills in group sessions from
my colleagues’ work so we learnt from each other”. However, it was of
concern that seven of the students stated that they had not learned any
skills as reected in comments like: “The supervisor just mentioned she
wants to see more skills yet she never explained at all on how” and “It has
not helped because every time I used advanced skills my supervisor would
say I’m using fancy words”.
Integration of Theory with Practice
With regard to the extent to which students had been helped by the
internship programme to integrate theory with practice, 64.5 percent (60)
respondents indicated that the programme had greatly assisted them to

Student Social Workers’ Experiences of Supervision 41
IJSW, 79 (1), 31–54, January 2018
achieve this goal, 34.4 percent (32) indicated that they were helped to
some degree and only 1.1 percent (1) person reported that the programme
did not assist them at all.
Impact on Professional Development as a Student Social
Worker
Analysis of the responses revealed that the most frequent theme was
that the supervisory relationship was perceived to contribute to students’
growth and learning as encapsulated in the response: “The supervisory
relationship has been very helpful because I was able to take the role of
a learner and the supervisor took the role of a teacher and I was able
to learn and develop”. The supervisory relationship also improved
knowledge and understanding of social work principles, ethics and values
and application of skills, as reected in the comment: “It has helped me
to use theory and also to apply the values and ethics of social work. It
helped to develop my use of skills”. Students mentioned that they had
learned to conduct themselves professionally with colleagues and clients
and maintain boundaries. As one student put it: “I am personally growing
in understanding the counselling process and also how I conduct myself
professionally during sessions”. However, of concern was the nding that
the supervisory relationship was not helpful because of the supervisor’s
perceived lack of ability. “With skill/theory and feedback I feel like the
supervisors are not quite fair or they are not sure about their work”.
Impact on Ability to provide Services to Clients
The most frequent theme that emerged was the fact that constructive
feedback from supervisors helped to enhance skills and interventions. “It
has helped me to be more competent by learning about a range of tools
to use”. They gained understanding of how to work with clients. “It has
helped me to understand issues like client’s resistance and how I should
deal with it”. Students learned to be respectful and empathic and to treat
clients as unique individuals. “I treat clients with respect as I learn from
my supervisor about being non-judgemental. I individualise clients”.
Support and encouragement from supervisors improved students’ self-
condence. “The encouragement has made me to have condence and
strive for best service delivery”. The supervisory relationship also helped
to correct mistakes and to identify strengths and weaknesses. “It also helps
if I am doing wrong things with my client. Suggestions from supervision
help in guiding my work”. However, a small number of students (3) felt

42 Eleanor Ross and Mpumelelo Ncube
IJSW, 79 (1), 31–54, January 2018
that the supervisory relationship did not help them to provide services
to clients. “Not helpful, very negative” and “With the supervisor I have,
there is no impact towards offering clients with appropriate services. I just
go with my instincts”.
Writing Social Work Reports
Students reported that report writing was time-consuming, challenging and
exhausting but acknowledged that it was an important skill that needed to
be learned. “The experience is time-consuming but writing reports helps
to look at the client in an objective manner”. The process was difcult at
rst but gradually became easier. “It was difcult the rst time but through
guidance I think I am getting much better”. It was particularly challenging
to learn to integrate theory with practice. “It was nice writing verbatim
reports but it was challenging to me when it comes to integrating theory”.
It seemed that not all supervisors were aware of what was expected of
them with respect to report writing. “Supervisors were not aware of what
is expected from them in regards to report writing. Hence a lot of mistakes
were picked up during Oral Exams such as assessment of clients and
theory integration”.
Supportive Supervision
Through supportive supervision the supervisor endeavours to create a
safe environment conducive to learning and helps supervisees to deal
with fears and anxieties in relation to practice requirements (Kadushin
and Harkness, 2014). In terms of the supportive function, 39.1 percent
(36) rated the function as excellent, 39.1 percent (36) students rated
their experience as good, 10.9 percent (10) respondents experienced
the support function as adequate, and the remaining 10.9 percent (10)
students were of the view that the quality of supportive supervision was
very poor. One data form did not provide any response to this question.
Some students highlighted the accessible, encouraging relationship with
the supervisor which helped to facilitate discussion of difcult issues.
For example, “The supervisor is easy to talk to and honest and respectful
and this has allowed me to feel comfortable to talk to my supervisor
about issues bothering me”. However, of concern was the nding that in
some instances the supervisory relationship was not helpful because of
the supervisor’s lack of sensitivity towards the student as reected in the
response: “It has been too professional in a negative way because she
neglected my feelings”.

Student Social Workers’ Experiences of Supervision 43
IJSW, 79 (1), 31–54, January 2018
Overall Experience of Supervision and Challenges
Encountered
The vast majority of students, that is, 70 percent (65) experienced
supervision as helpful in terms of guidance, support, learning and
development. “It has been a learning curve as I had to adapt to the
student role and work hand-in-hand with my supervisor. It has been
growth empowering as I learnt to be punctual in reports submissions
and meeting attending. I have met new students in group supervision and
was able to know that I am not the only person experiencing challenges
in practice”. Among the positive experiences were linking theory with
practice; opportunities to ask questions; learning about skills, values,
report writing and time-management; sharing ideas with other students
through group supervision; and learning to identify one’s strengths and
weaknesses. However, a signicant number of students, that is, 30 percent
(28) described the experience as unhelpful. Reasons for dissatisfaction
included lack of support; inadequate feedback; difculties discussing
personal challenges during group supervision; reports not marked in time
so that there was insufcient time to prepare for sessions; supervisors not
always available; not enough supervision; and supervisors not familiar with
recent developments, theories and university requirements for internships.
Some of these concerns are reected in the following verbatim quotes:
“My experience has not been too pleasant. Supervision sometimes feels
like a waste of time. There are times when we have nothing to discuss”.
“Supervision has not offered a platform of safety because I am scared of
my supervisor because she never gives me a chance to talk and say my
feelings. The feedback is not constructive because she never sees me as an
individual since she is always comparing me with other students”.
“I don’t think there is enough support”.
“The supervisor does not mark reports on time; thus I do not have time to
prepare for sessions”. “It has been challenging because they graduated
long ago and sometimes fail to master the current curriculum we engage
in presently”.
“Some supervisors are clueless about the theories we use and the ways in
which we structure our reports”.
Students had to rate their overall experience of the internship programme
on a ten-point scale where 1 indicated very poor and 10 reected a very
good experience. Findings revealed a varied range of responses with a

44 Eleanor Ross and Mpumelelo Ncube
IJSW, 79 (1), 31–54, January 2018
mode response of 7 out of 10, and an average of 6, suggesting that students
were generally satised with the eld instruction programme.
Challenges in Relation to Field Practice Supervision
The most common difculty experienced was that the supervisor was
not based at the agency. As one student put it, “I would have liked my
supervisor to be based at my agency to better understand the challenges
that I face”. Similarly, if there was no social worker employed at the
agency the personnel were not always aware of the role of social workers.
“The agencies that we are placed in sometimes are not well aware of
the roles of social worker; as a result, we end up being undermined”.
Students also complained about differences between agency supervisors’
requirements/ expectations and those of the university. “She expects me
to do things according to her way, not according to the university. She
keeps on threatening us”. Another challenge was poor quality supervision,
insufcient time for supervision or irregular supervision. “My supervisor
has no set time for supervision. I have to go in and ask for supervision
if he is not busy, and when there are no clients I may ask questions, but
no constructive criticism is offered except on reports”. Other challenges
included: submitting reports on time; nding clients; no privacy for
interviews with clients; clients who do not return; agency expectations
that students undertake additional work outside internship requirements;
transport difculties; and agency unable to cater for all systems, that is,
micro, meso and macro curriculum requirements.
Recommendations for Change
Many of the recommendations were related to challenges highlighted
by the students. Among the key recommendations suggested by students
were that agencies needed to be selected that were relevant to the course
and understood why students were placed there; supervisors needed to
be knowledgeable in respect to theory and skills; and supervisors needed
to read the study guide in order to be able to understand internship
requirements. They recommended that supervisors needed to be more
supportive and less judgemental of students; workshops needed to be
arranged and readings provided to teach supervisors how to make the
learning experience more enjoyable. In addition, supervisors needed
to set regular times for supervision which did not clash with lectures;
where feasible, external supervisors needed to be replaced with agency
supervisors; and supervisors needed to be briefed on what was expected in

Student Social Workers’ Experiences of Supervision 45
IJSW, 79 (1), 31–54, January 2018
reports and the need to assist students with theory integration. While some
students requested more group supervision and less individual supervision,
others recommended less group supervision and more individual sessions.
Students felt that there should be more communication between
supervisors and internship facilitators, and that supervisors should
be mentored and made aware of their roles. There was a feeling that
supervisors should be paid an incentive while students who were placed at
agencies situated far from the university should receive stipends. Others
felt that placement agencies should be located in close proximity to the
university to reduce travel time.
DISCUSSION
Although students had different understandings of the role of supervision,
they all acknowledged its importance and had a positive regard for this
function. The responses indicated a need for a formal theory course on
the principles of supervision and the role of supervision in practice, which
would facilitate a unied conceptual understanding by all supervisees.
The study revealed that all students who participated were attached
to an agency for their eld instruction where they invariably received
supervision of one form or another and that they were generally satised
with the frequency thereof. It is however worth noting that there were a
considerable number of participants who did not receive an orientation
to their respective agencies. One could argue that agency orientation
provides an overview of the agency to the student in light of geographic
layout of various departments, general administration, clientele mission
and vision of the agency. The absence of an orientation programme which
forms part of the administrative function could conceivably delay the
process of learning and contribute to the student’s negative experience of
supervision. An important nding was that an overwhelming number of
students participated in joint agenda setting for their supervision sessions.
Although this is commendable, and accords with the principles of adult
education (Sithole, 2004), Brink (2006) cautions that the process should
be guided to structure the supervisee’s work to be in line with the goals of a
planned change process. Furthermore, students were exposed to individual
and group supervision. While individual and group forms of supervision
may be self-explanatory, there are distinct skills that are needed for each
of these modalities. This aspect is supported by Brink (2006) who notes
that in group supervision the supervisor must be able to inuence self-
disclosure of supervisees in front of peers and also manage to individually

46 Eleanor Ross and Mpumelelo Ncube
IJSW, 79 (1), 31–54, January 2018
assess group members in a group context which is only pertinent to this
form of supervision. It is of concern that some students reported feeling
uncomfortable raising personal issues in a group context.
The ndings also revealed that students were aware of the three functions
of supervision, namely, administration, education and support. Nonetheless,
they had varying individual experiences with regard to each of the functions
which might be indicative of the uneven emphasis of supervisors on all of
these. The administrative function had the least number of favourable ratings
compared to support and education that received the highest favourable
ratings respectively. Students indicated that they had enjoyed a very
positive experience in relation to the awareness of values and ethics which
is consistent with Gardner’s (1989) assertion that in practice education,
supervision should serve to set standards and accelerate supervisees’
clinical progression (Gardner, 1989). This factor was corroborated by a large
number of students’ responses indicating that supervision helped them to
appropriately integrate theory with practice. As a result, students were aware
of the professional values which they managed to apply in their contexts of
practice with various clients. Judging from the responses provided, most
students had not been faced with major ethical dilemmas.
While the quality of session feedback was in the main rated as very helpful,
there was a fair number of dissenting respondents who were not satised
with the feedback indicating a contradiction with what was discussed in
class. The disjuncture might be perceived as the difference between good
and poor supervision; hence it would be important for the educational
institutions to develop monitoring mechanisms that would allow them to
rectify such situations as soon as they are detected. Students further reected
that report writing was cumbersome and further exacerbated by the need for
theory integration. Report writing would appear to be a signatory feature
of the social work profession, as such there is a strong need to empower
students with report writing and time management skills that will enable
them to compile reports while managing their other curriculum demands.
Furthermore, there would appear to be a need to equip students with the
skills to enable them to more easily integrate theory in their reports and
thereby enhance the quality of their work.
A number of students reected negative experiences of having
outsourced supervisors. They noted that at times their supervisors were
out of touch with their experiences within the agency. Such arrangements
made it difcult for external supervisors to understand and intervene
appropriately with regard to students’ needs. In this regard, Zuchowski

Student Social Workers’ Experiences of Supervision 47
IJSW, 79 (1), 31–54, January 2018
(2015) draws attention to the complexity of connecting the various players
and the additional support and resources needed to support placements
with off-site supervision. Other challenges encountered by students such
as supervisors lacking knowledge of new developments and university
practicum requirements; and supervisors being unable to guide them
with respect to implementation of theory and practice, were consistent
with those documented by Sithole (2004) and Peterson (2010). These
challenges would appear to be relevant to Schools/Departments of Social
Work in other settings.
It is also important to note that the quality of overall assessments was
generally rated as fair and objective, with overall ratings of the internship
programme indicating general satisfaction. However, some students
were dissatised with their assessments. In this regard, it may be helpful
to review evaluation and grading criteria. Furthermore, Kealey (2010)
emphasises the need to help students to understand, accept and utilise
the grade and accompanying feedback. It may also be helpful to review
evaluation and grading criteria.
CONCLUSION
The research highlighted the crucial role played by agency supervisors
as partners with universities in the education and training of student
social workers. A key positive nding was that all students in the survey
acknowledged the importance of supervision and that supervision had
helped them to integrate theory and practice. Moreover, the vast majority
of students reported participating in joint agenda setting – a practice that
needs to be continued.
While the majority of students reported enjoying positive
supervision experiences, a smaller proportion felt that the supervision
they had received was inadequate. This nding would seem to provide
a degree of support for Bogo’s (2015) contention regarding eld
educators’ inability to implement best pedagogical practices in eld
practice education and Engelbrecht’s (2013) nding on poor quality
supervision due to heavy workloads. However, the conclusion reached
was that the situation does not appear to have reached the level of “a
crisis” as articulated by Bogo (2015). Nevertheless, for supervisors
to be able to provide high quality supervision in respect of the three
supervisory functions, they need to have the necessary knowledge,
skills and attitudes. In this regard, universities have the responsibility
for screening, training and supporting supervisors and there can

48 Eleanor Ross and Mpumelelo Ncube
IJSW, 79 (1), 31–54, January 2018
be a better match between expectations of supervisors and those of
university personnel. In the words of van Breda and Feller (2014:
482) “Supervision remains the crucible for professional development,
therefore investing in supervisors’ development is critical”.
It is also important for students to be able to alert eld instruction
facilitators at the university regarding any potential problems without
fearing that supervisor-supervisee power differentials will be invoked
and they will be victimised when it comes to assessments of their
progress. In this way, challenges can be dealt with timeously and
students can derive optimal growth and development from eld practice
supervision.
REFERENCES
Beddoe, L., :
Karvinen-Niinikoski, S.,
Ruch, G. and
Tsui, M.
2016
Towards an International Consensus on a Research Agenda for
Social Work Supervision: Report on the First Survey of a Delphi
Study, The British Journal of Social Work, 46 (6), 1568–1586.
Beytell, A. :
2014
Fieldwork Education in Health Contexts: Experiences of
Fourth-Year BSW Students, Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk,
50 (2), 170–192.
Bogo, M. :
2015
Field Education for Clinical Social Work Practice: Best Practices
and Contemporary Challenges, Clinical Social Work Journal,
43 (3), 317–324.
Brink, M. :
2006
The Role and Functions of an Effective Supervisor. In H. Dunbar-
Krige and E. Fritz (Eds.), The Supervision of Counsellors in
South Africa: Travelling in New Territory, Pretoria, Hateld,
South Africa: Van Schaik Publishers.
Council on :
Social Work
Education
2008
Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards.
Available online at http://www.cswe.org/File.aspx?id=13780
(Accessed on 01 August 2014).
Department of Social :
Development and the
South African Council
for Social Service
Professions
2012
Supervision Framework for the Social Service Profession
(Unpublished document).
Engelbrecht, L. :
2013
Social Work Supervision Policies and Frameworks: Playing
Notes or Making Music?, Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk, 49
(4), 456–468.

Student Social Workers’ Experiences of Supervision 49
IJSW, 79 (1), 31–54, January 2018
Gardner, D. :
1989
The Anatomy of Supervision: Developing Learning and
Professional Competence for Social Work Students, Milton
Keynes: Society for Research on Higher Education and Open
University Press.
Hochfeld, T. :
2009
Social Development and Minimum Standards in Social Work
Education in South Africa, Social Work Education, 29 (4), 356–
371. Doi: 10.1080/02615470903055463
Hochfeld, T., :
Mupedziswa, R. and
Selipsky, L.
2010
The Social Development Approach in Social Work Education
in Southern and East Africa, The Social Work Practitioner-
Researcher (Special Issue), April, 112–131.
Kadushin, A. and :
Harkness, D.
2014
Supervision in Social Work (Fifth Edition), New York: Columbia
University Press.
Kealey, E. :
2010
Assessment and Evaluation in Social Work Education:
Formative and Summative Approaches, Journal of Teaching in
Social Work, 30 (1), 64–74.
Liu, M., :
Sun, F. and
Anderson, S.G.
2013
Challenges in Social Work Field Education in China: Lessons
from the Western Experience, Social Work Education: The
International Journal, 32 (2), 179–196.
Saltiel, D. :
2016
Supervision: A Contested Space for Learning and Decision
Making, Qualitative Social Work, 16 (4), 533–549. Doi:
10.1177/1473325016633445
Simpson, B. and :
Sathiparsad, R.
2011
A University-Community Outreach Initiative: An Innovative
Approach to Social Work Practice Education, Social Work/
Maatskaplike Werk, 47 (4), 405–415.
Sithole, S.L. :
2004
The Knowledge and Application of Learning Principles by
Student Supervisors in the Northern Province, The Social Work
Practitioner-Researcher, 16 (1), 78–87.
Smith, L. :
2014
Historiography of South African Social Work: Challenging
Dominant Discourses, Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk, 50 (3),
305–331.
Strydom, M. :
2011
The Rationale for the Involvement of Field Instructors in
Practice Education, Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk, 47 (4),
416–429.
Terre Blanche, M., :
Durrheim, K. and
Kelly, K.
2006
First Steps in Qualitative Data Analysis. In M. Terre Blanche, K.
Durrheim, and D. Painter, (Eds.), Research in Practice (2nd Ed.),
Cape Town: UCT Press, 320–344.
Trochim, W. :
2006
Research Methods Knowledge Base, Web Centre for Social
Research Methods.
Available online at http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/
qual.php (Accessed on 01 August 2014).

50 Eleanor Ross and Mpumelelo Ncube
IJSW, 79 (1), 31–54, January 2018
van Breda, A. :
and Feller, T.
2014
Social Work Students’ Experience and Management of
Countertransference, Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk, 50 (4),
469–484.
Zuchowski, I. :
2015
Being the University: Liaison Persons’ Reections on
Placements with Off-Site Supervision, Social Work Education:
The International Journal, 34 (3), 301–314.

Student Social Workers’ Experiences of Supervision 51
IJSW, 79 (1), 31–54, January 2018
APPENDIX A
QUESTIONNAIRE ON VIEWS OF STUDENTS REGARDING FIELD
PRACTICE SUPERVISION
1. What is your understanding of the role of supervision in your internship programme?
2. Did you undergo any form of induction or orientation to the agency where you are
placed for your internship?
Yes No
3. How often do you receive supervision?
4. How satised are you with the frequency of supervision received? (MARK WITH AN
X)
I am satised with
the frequency of
supervision received.
I would prefer to re-
ceive supervision more
frequently.
I would prefer to
receive supervision less
frequently.
5. What type of supervision do you receive? (MARK WITH AN X)
Individual supervision Group supervision Both individual and
group
6. Who is responsible for setting the agenda or deciding what topics are discussed during
supervision? (MARK WITH AN X)
The supervisor You as student social
worker
Both supervisor and
student
7. In general, what have been your experiences of supervision in relation to your
internship thus far?
8. In your experience, how would you rate the quality of the following three main
components of supervision? (Educational, Administrative and Support) (MARK
WITH AN X)
Component of
Supervision
Very poor Adequate Good Excellent
Education (e.g. learning
about social work knowl-
edge, skills and values and
integrating theory with
practice)

52 Eleanor Ross and Mpumelelo Ncube
IJSW, 79 (1), 31–54, January 2018
Component of
Supervision
Very poor Adequate Good Excellent
Administration (e.g.
assistance with procedures
and completing forms at
the agency)
Support (e.g. emotional
support and allaying your
fears and concerns by the
supervisor)
9. To what extent has supervision helped you to become aware of values and ethical
practice issues? (MARK WITH AN X)
To a great extent Somewhat Not at all
10. Please give any example/s of values that you have learned or ethical dilemmas that
you may have experienced.
11. Please describe how supervision has helped (or not helped) you to learn new skills and
put these skills into practice.
12. To what extent has your internship helped you to integrate theory with practice?
(MARK WITH AN X)
To a great extent Somewhat Not at all
13. What has been the quality of the feedback on your work that you have received from
your supervisor thus far? (MARK WITH AN X)
Very helpful and
constructive
Somewhat helpful Not at all helpful
Comment on your reasons for evaluating the feedback in this way.
14. How would you rate the quality of the assessments of your overall work performance?
(MARK WITH AN X)
The evaluation that I
received was lower than
I expected
The evaluation that I
received was fair and
objective
The evaluation that I
received was better than
I expected

Student Social Workers’ Experiences of Supervision 53
IJSW, 79 (1), 31–54, January 2018
15. How would you describe the impact of the supervisory relationship on your
professional development as a student social worker?
16. How would you describe the impact of the supervisory relationship on your ability to
provide services to clients?
17. Please comment on your experience of learning to write social work reports.
18. Please describe any difculties or challenges that you may have experienced in
relation to your eld practice supervision.
19. On a scale of 1 to 10 how would you rate your overall internship experience this year?
Very poor very good
12345678910
20. Given a chance, what would you change about the supervision process and why?
21. Provide any general comments in relation to your internship supervision that you
think would add value to this survey.
Thank you very much for your input