Content uploaded by Andrew Eaton
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Andrew Eaton on Jun 07, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
PRACTICUM PANEL PRESENTATIONS
Panel Presentations' effect on skills and attitudes of Foundation-year MSW students: Two-
year, mixed-methods study
Andrew D. Eaton,1* Kayla Robertson,1 Ellen Katz,2 Eileen McKee,2 Faye Mishna2
1Faculty of Social Work – Saskatoon Campus, University of Regina. 111-116 Research Dr.
Saskatoon, SK, Canada, S7N 3R3
2Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto. 246 Bloor St W. Toronto, ON,
Canada, M5S 1V4
*Corresponding author. andrew.eaton@uregina.ca
Acknowledgements
This article is dedicated to the memory of Denise Russell. Thank you to Ran Hu and
Rachael Pascoe for assistance organizing the panel presentations, and to Maria Staszkiewicz and
Nelson Pang for assistance with this article.
2
PRACTICUM PANEL PRESENTATIONS
Panel presentations' effect on skills and attitudes of Foundation-year MSW students: Two-
year, mixed-methods study
Abstract
The first semester of Foundation-year MSW programs presents the challenge of
preparing students for their first field practicum in the second semester. In a mixed-methods
study of practicum attitudes, MSW education quality, and preparedness for practicum, panel
presentations were offered as a standardized practicum orientation experience in the fall
semesters of 2018 and 2019 to all Foundation-year MSW students (n=296) at a large urban social
work faculty in Canada. Paired sample t-tests on pre- and post-panel questionnaires found that
students (n=296) self-reported a strongly significant improvement on practicum attitudes, a
slightly significant reduction of perceived quality of MSW education, and insignificant reduction
to preparedness for practice. Content analysis of qualitative post-panel reflection data from
students revealed that students were excited by the diversity and breadth of presenting social
workers, but daunted by the idea of entering the field. Panelists (n=20) indicated the panels were
an excellent opportunity to highlight their practicum offerings. Across two cohorts, panels
appeared effective at readying students for their first practicum. This article presents implications
for practicum orientation in social work education – in light of the COVID-19 pandemic – and
directions for further research.
Keywords: field education, issues/MSW - foundation, educational outcomes evaluation,
social work with communities
3
PRACTICUM PANEL PRESENTATIONS
Background
Foundation-year Master of Social Work (MSW) programs experience the challenge of
orienting students to practicum on a short timeline (Mehrotra et al., 2018). Practicum orientation
should simulate practice experience, discuss applications of theory, acquaint field instructors
with students, and offer an active learning environment (Allemang et al., 2021). Panel
presentations by field instructors demonstrated promising pilot results in orienting Foundation-
year MSW students to practicum (Eaton et al., 2019). As this first practicum is often in a
community setting, community-based practitioners may be the ideal presenters (Flanagan &
Wilson, 2018). Based on the successful 2017 pilot, we replicated panels in 2018 and 2019 to
assess the impact on social work skills and attitudes towards practicum.
Field Education Trends
Field education may be the signature pedagogical approach to social work education
(Wayne et al., 2010). Social work students spend anywhere from 500 to 1,000 hours working in a
social work setting under the supervision of an experienced social worker or expert in a related
field (Bogo et al., 2017; Cai et al., 2018; Flanagan & Wilson, 2018; Fulton et al., 2019). Field
education provides students with the opportunity to translate classroom knowledge into practice,
gain hands-on experience in a social work setting, and become familiar with organization
policies and processes (Theobald et al., 2017). Bogo (2015) articulates that high-quality field
education leads to competent social workers, which will in turn enhance the overall wellbeing of
society, yet many schools of social work face challenges preparing students for practicum. Social
work students require the support of professionals working in the field to promote
comprehensive learning experiences through field education, and organizations require skilled
social work students to fulfill societal needs of future generations, highlighting the mutual
4
PRACTICUM PANEL PRESENTATIONS
benefit of social work field education (Bogo, 2015). A study in China found that Foundation-
year MSW students, who were entering field education with no prior social work experience,
reported feeling unsure of their options for professional growth in field education, and a lack of
autonomy in choosing their practicum location (Cai et al., 2018). This example underpins the call
for schools of social work to showcase the breadth of practicum opportunities available, so that
students may be better informed and consequently more satisfied with their practicum match.
Students tend to be eminently more aware of hospital practicum than practicum in community
organizations (Bogo, 2015).
Practicum Orientation Activities
One of the main documented methods to improve MSW students’ readiness for practicum
entails orientation activities, that is, activities that help prepare students for potential experiences
in the field (Mehrotra et al., 2018). Many students express feelings of uncertainty and anxiety
prior to their first field placement, which may be heightened among students with little or no
prior social work experience as in the Foundation year (Allemang et al., 2021; Fulton et al.,
2019). A recent study that examined the field education experiences of MSW students found a
lack of clear understanding of learning objectives among students entering field education (Cai et
al., 2018). In recent years, there has been a call to implement practicum orientation activities that
will better prepare social work students for their field education experiences (Kourgiantakis et
al., 2019). Though it is now widely recognized that social work students need to be effectively
oriented to field education prior to entering practice, many schools of social work do not have a
designated and fulsome practicum orientation activity within the curriculum of the fall semester
of the Foundation year (Allemang et al., 2021; Fulton et al., 2019).
5
PRACTICUM PANEL PRESENTATIONS
Prior to commencing field education, social work students complete a variety of classes
that teach theoretical knowledge and clinical skills (Katz et al., 2017) to allow them to develop
the necessary skills to intervene in real-life scenarios. For Foundation-year MSW students who
have no prior social work experience, the orientation to social work through course material is
quite dense and often consists of a sole semester of courses. Students are also commonly oriented
to field education through simulated experience, such as roleplay or simulated clients, which
promotes active learning (Fulton et al., 2019). Simulation-based learning provides students with
the chance to engage in social worker and client encounters in a controlled environment, and
allows course instructors to observe students’ practice and provide feedback (Kourgiantakis et
al., 2019). Additionally, site visits have been used to orient students to field education, though
there are a few drawbacks to this method, including a lack of resources and challenges in
standardizing experiences (Eaton et al., 2019). Some social work programs currently use a
combination of practicum orientation activities. For example, a social work program in Israel
uses theoretical, clinical, and community-based practice studies in combination with meetings
with guest practitioners currently working in the field of social work to orient their students to
field education opportunities in community-based practice (Cohen & Shenaar-Golan, 2018).
Community-Based Social Work Practice
The aim of community-based social work is to address the structural inequalities that are
faced by populations (Liddell & Lass, 2019) and is deeply rooted in the principles of human
rights and social justice (Pardasani, 2018). An introduction to community-based social work in
classroom learning may be taught through courses such as the history of social welfare, policy,
research, theories of social change, human behaviour, community practice, diversity, and social
justice (Liddel & Lass, 2019). Although clinical practice that students may perceive as solely
6
PRACTICUM PANEL PRESENTATIONS
hospital-based is often considered distinct from or even opposite to community-based practice,
the two are deeply interconnected. As examples, clinical skills can be applied in community-
based practiced and community-based learning can bolster clinical social work by highlighting
structural injustices that influence the lives of individuals and families (Pardasani, 2018).
A qualitative study conducted in Israel revealed that many students enter the field of
social work with hopes of engaging in clinical social work in hospital settings – an attitude
attributed to a lack of knowledge about community practice, misconceptions about the relevance
and importance of community practice in social work, and/or an inability to see themselves in the
role of a community social worker (Cohen & Shenaar-Golan, 2018). An analysis of field
education evaluations of MSW students in Boston revealed that their lowest competencies, as
rated by their field instructors, were policy and research (Collins et al., 2022). The same analysis
found that many field instructors indicated “not applicable” under the policy competency,
indicating that policy practice was not at all part of a lot of student practicums (Collins et al.,
2022). Another study conducted in the Gulf Coast found that students felt there was a lack of
opportunities to engage in community-based social work despite the school’s commitment to
clinical-community practice (Liddell & Lass, 2019). These findings echo a trend in social work
field education and student preference that favours hospital practicum over community-based
practice and that clinical practice and community-based practice are mutually exclusive.
MSW Education Quality
Foundation-year MSW students typically partake in a semester of classes prior to
completing field education. These classes aim to cover a variety of topics, including policy,
research, general social work practice, human rights, and social justice (Pardasani, 2018).
Classroom learning and field education are deeply intertwined, yet one of the largest challenges
7
PRACTICUM PANEL PRESENTATIONS
faced by social work students is integrating theory into practice, which can be a significant cause
of stress for many (Fortune et al., 2018; Katz et al., 2017). MSW students with a BSW or
previous experience in social work and social services reported feeling more confident in their
professional competencies (Cai et al., 2018), underscoring the importance of the quality of MSW
education provided to Foundation-year MSW students in preparing them for their first
experiences in field education. Feedback from Foundation-year students at the University of
Toronto suggested that students felt their MSW education helped prepare them for panel
presentations from community-based social workers as part of a practicum-orientation activity
(Eaton et al., 2019). In recent years, many social work programs have been challenging the
dichotomy between clinical and community-based practice in order to teach an integrated
approach to social work that helps equip students with the knowledge and skills to intervene in a
variety of contexts (Cohen & Shenaar-Golan, 2018; Finn & Molloy, 2021). One method
pioneered by the University of Toronto, and now widely used, to assess the social work skills of
Foundation-year MSW students prior to their field practicum is the objective Structured Clinical
Examination (OSCE). This consists of a 15-minute interview by students with a standardized
simulated client that is observed and rated by a faculty member based on the students’ strengths,
areas for improvement on which to focus, and future learning goals (Bogo et al., 2017).
Throughout the process of being matched with and beginning to work in a field practicum, many
field instructors report using the feedback from the OSCEs to establish a baseline competency
for potential practicum students (Bogo et al., 2017).
Social Work Skills
Social work is a broad practice that requires a wide range of tools and skills that include
the ability to address micro- and macro-level issues. Many schools of social work teach clinical,
8
PRACTICUM PANEL PRESENTATIONS
or micro-level, knowledge and skills, such as interviewing, assessments, relationship formation,
and counselling (Bogo et al., 2017). Macro-level tools and skills, which are often required in
community-based social work practice, include critical reflexivity, community organizing and
development, social planning, advocacy, political and ethical commitment, and an understanding
of policy and research (Cohen & Shenaar-Golan, 2018; Finn & Molloy, 2021). Most social work
students will require a mix of clinical and community-based skills to thrive in their field
education and future careers as social workers, as the distinction between micro, mezzo, and
macro domains is often blurred in practice (Finn & Molloy, 2021; Liddel & Lass, 2019).
Methods
Study Design
A mixed-method quasi-experimental design was employed to evaluate panel
presentations for Foundation-year MSW students at Canada’s largest graduate social work
program in fall 2018 and fall 2019. Students completed a pre-test and post-test on measures of
practicum attitudes, MSW education quality, and preparedness for practice. Students also
completed a post-panel qualitative questionnaire. Panelists were invited to complete a brief
online survey. Ethics approval was obtained from the University of Toronto’s Health Sciences
Research Ethics Board (Protocol ID# 35204).
Intervention
Panel presentations followed the same structure as a fall 2017 pilot (Eaton et al., 2019).
Practicum staff and faculty invited field instructors from community-based social work practice
settings to present in panels. These panels replaced a class of the Foundation-year required
course Elements of Social Work Practice, the course which also contains the Objective
Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) simulation that students must pass to proceed to
9
PRACTICUM PANEL PRESENTATIONS
practicum. Students rotated through four separate panels that were each 1.15 hours long with the
following themes: (a) homelessness, (b) addictions, (c) settlement, and (d) disabilities. Students
attended panels in their class sections (approximately 16 students per panel), with their instructor
accompanying them and providing facilitation to the panelists. Each panel session had three to
four presenters who were primarily field instructors from community-based agencies. Each
panelist presented for 10-15 minutes followed by a 5-minute question and answer segment.
Panelists were instructed to present about: (a) a typical day in their professional work, (b)
organizational information (e.g., population, scope of services), and (c) details of the MSW
practicum that their organization offers. Panelists were encouraged to distribute business cards
and handouts (such as brochures about their organization).
Participants
Students
All Foundation-year MSW students (150 each in 2018 and 2019) attended the panels,
with 4 declining consent to have their data used in the study. As the panels and questionnaires
were replicated from year to year, data were pooled for a final student sample of 296.
Foundation-year MSW students commenced the program with no prior social work education,
and had completed approximately 7 weeks of coursework prior to the panels. No demographics
were collected.
Panelists
There were 21 panelists in 2018 and 22 panelists in 2019, all practicum field instructors working
predominantly in direct practice in community-based settings (e.g., community centres,
settlement agencies, addictions services, etc.) in Toronto, Canada. Nine panelists from 2018 and
10
PRACTICUM PANEL PRESENTATIONS
11 panelists from 2019 completed the online survey. Panelist data has also been pooled for a
final sample of 20.
Data Collection
Students
Students completed a pre-test of the quantitative measures in class one week prior to the panels
and a post-test of the measures, which also included a qualitative questionnaire, that was due at
5:00 p.m. on the day following the panel presentations. These questionnaires were considered a
pass/fail assignment as part of their course with the option to consent for their data to be used for
the study. The first author, who otherwise had no relationship with the students, emailed each
student a unique identifier that was used to pair the student’s pre-tests and post-tests, and to link
the questionnaire with the consent form. Faculty and the practicum office were masked to
student identity, as a research assistant prepared the de-identified data for analysis and advised
instructors that their students had completed the assignment.
Measures. Immediately before and after the panels, students completed the Social Work
Skills scale (Wermeling et al., 2013) containing sub-scales on MSW education quality and
preparation for practice, a Practicum Attitudes scale developed by the authors, and a qualitative
post-panel reflection replicated from the 2017 pilot (Eaton et al., 2019). All quantitative
measures utilized a five-point, Likert-style scale where 1 was ‘poor’ or ‘strongly disagree’ and 5
was ‘excellent’ or ‘strongly agree.’ There were two items for MSW education quality: (a) I
believe my MSW instructors’ knowledge is:, and (b) I find the quality of my social work
education to be: (Wermeling et al., 2013). Six items covered preparation for practice: (a) I
believe my social work education has prepared me for practice, (b) I find my social work
education intellectually challenging, (c) What I learned in class is what I will encounter in
11
PRACTICUM PANEL PRESENTATIONS
practice, (d) My education has prepared me for how difficult social work practice would be, (e)
My social work education has taught me to make difficult decisions, and (f) My social work
education taught me how to think as a professional (Wermeling et al., 2013). The practicum
attitudes scale contained four items: (a) I would rather be placed in a clinical setting than a
community setting, (b) I believe I can build clinical skills in a community practicum, (c)
Community-based practicum offer less of a learning experience than clinical practicum, and (d)
Community-based practicum could lead to a job that I would be interested in pursuing. The
qualitative questionnaire covered seven areas: (a) interest in panels, (b) emotional responses, (c)
preparation for panels through coursework, (d) social work activities of panelists, (e) coursework
connections to panels, (f) social work roles, and (g) takeaways (Eaton et al., 2019).
Panelists
Following the completion of each year’s panel presentations, panelists were invited to
complete a brief online survey via Qualtrics about their experience. The questionnaire was
identical to the panelist survey conducted in the pilot (Eaton et al., 2019) with questions about
panelist qualifications, practicum supervision, and panel presentation experience.
Data Analysis
Paired-sample t-tests were conducted in SPSS 26 to determine change in students’
perception of MSW education quality, social work skills, and practicum attitudes before and
after the panel presentations. Content analysis was employed on the qualitative student data
whereby two independent coders (the first and second authors) each read through all student
responses and then separately identified representative quotes that pertained to the three
quantitative domains of MSW education quality, social work skills, and practicum attitudes.
These first two coders then met to compare findings and agreed upon a set of quotes to share
12
PRACTICUM PANEL PRESENTATIONS
with the other authors. Subsequently, all authors reviewed the findings and confirmed that the
quotes identified were representative of the data collected. For the panelist survey, descriptive
statistics were compiled to describe who the panelists were and what their perception of the
panels was.
Results
Quantitative Student Responses
Students (n=296) self-reported a strongly significant improvement in attitudes toward
community-based practicum (t(217)=-4.882, p<0.001). Students self-reported a slightly
significant reduction from pre- to post-test in quality of MSW education (t(211)=2.13, p=0.034)
and an insignificant reduction to their perceived level of preparedness for practice, based on their
MSW education (t(188)=1.235, p=0.219).
Practicum Attitudes
Reflection data indicate that students were previously unaware of the scope and
variability of community-based practicum; as one student said: “My ideas of social work practice
have been enriched by these presentations, as the panelists spoke of their strengths, challenges,
and day-to-day activities. It gave me a more real-world understanding of what a social worker
does.” Many students reported learning about the various roles of community-based social
workers through these panel presentations: “[The presenter] spoke about the various ‘hats’ that
she wears, and hearing about all of the opportunities an MSW provides was very inspiring.”
The panels also provided students with information about some of the roles of social
workers that they may not have been exposed to otherwise: in response to a specific presenter,
one student said: “I didn’t know this might be an area of interest but the work and placement
opportunity sound incredible.” Several students reflected on the panelists’ influences on their
13
PRACTICUM PANEL PRESENTATIONS
practicum choices going forward. One student said the following: “After today, I plan on being
more open to experiences with populations I’m unfamiliar with or have little to no experience
working with.” Another shared: “[the presentations] made me feel brave enough to explore
placement opportunities outside of my scope and interests.”
MSW Education Quality
Based on student responses to the panels, students seem to generally feel that the eight
weeks of MSW education provided prior to the panel presentations had helped equip them with
the knowledge and skills that they require to thrive in their first practicum. As one student
expressed: “I found the interdisciplinary material and [required courses] really relevant to a lot of
the [panel] discussions.” Specifically, many students felt that classes helped prepare them for the
discourse and modalities commonly used in social work. For example, a respondent said:
“classroom material helped me have language to understand the types of work and skills used in
the profession. I knew the acronyms and modalities that the panelists were talking about and
what it might look like in practice.”
Many students find it difficult to bridge theory and practice. As one student states,
“[classroom material] provides a background of knowledge, but you can see how easily that can
change in actual practice, depending on the situation and person.” However, feedback from the
panel presentations suggests that it is an effective activity to help students transition from
classroom learning to practice, for example: “At various times the panelists mentioned the
biopsychosocial model and holistic practice, which we have spent a lot of class time on. I
appreciated seeing that theory put into practice.”
14
PRACTICUM PANEL PRESENTATIONS
Preparedness for Practice
Qualitative feedback indicates that panels were exciting and relevant to student interests:
“I’m excited to enter the field…presenters talked about things I would love to do in the future.”
They prompted students to consider readiness for their first field placement after approximately
eight weeks of MSW instruction. The panels may also have alerted students to the realities of the
field. As one student said: “This made me feel underprepared for practicum…my courses are
designed to develop my theoretical and practical skills and I have to pay closer attention and
practice more.” Students also appreciated discussion of barriers to practice: “[The presenter]
spoke about the effects of structural boundaries and the importance of policy change,” and the
importance of critical reflexivity. Several students reported feeling nervous, frustrated, and
overwhelmed when many of the panelists spoke about challenges to social work such as large
caseloads, compassion fatigue, and structural barriers, for instance:
During the presentation I felt a mix of inspiration, frustration, confusion, and happiness.
It was inspiring to listen to the different reasons the panel members chose to pursue social
work but I was frustrated and discouraged when I heard about the many barriers.
While some students found the panels to be a daunting experience, others reported feeling ready
and eager to begin their field education after hearing the experiences of the panelists. One
student said: “I [now] have less anxiety about transitioning from being a student to [being] a
professional.” In addition, qualitative feedback indicates that students connected with the
panelists:
The social worker’s focus on being client-centered was a common thread that weaved
15
PRACTICUM PANEL PRESENTATIONS
through all presentations. This stood out in such a positive way…it was always the client
first and seeing how we could support them where they are. This focus was a good
reminder of why I wanted to enter the profession.
Finally, the panelists dedicated time at the end of the presentations to answering questions. This
provided students with the chance to reflect upon the presentations and ask about specific things:
“Having that interaction through questions and answers was helpful in providing more depth.”
Panelist Evaluation
Half of panelist respondents (n=10) were graduates of the MSW program within which
they were presenting. Panelists had been supervising MSW practicum from a range of 3-25
years. Three-quarters (n=15) of panelists agreed that the panel categories (homelessness,
addictions, diversity, and settlement) were representative of current issues in the community. For
the five participants who disagreed, suggestions of other fields that could increase community
representativeness were healthcare and long-term care. The panel setup was rated favourably
overall, with 75% (n=15) noting appropriate presentation timing and 80% (n=16) noting
appropriate break timing. The few panelists who felt timing was inappropriate noted that their
peers ran over time and recommended greater facilitation of the panels.
Discussion
The key findings of this study are that: a) panel presentations are effective at broadening
the scope of placement options for Foundation-year MSW students, especially by prompting
them to consider community-based settings alongside clinical contexts; b) this panel activity can
complement and align with other curricular elements of the first semester of the Foundation year;
c) panels have sustained positive evaluations across the two years reported here and the pilot
(Eaton et al., 2017); and d) hearing from numerous social workers approximately seven weeks
16
PRACTICUM PANEL PRESENTATIONS
into the Foundation year can cause MSW students to carefully consider the quality of their MSW
education and how truly prepared for practice they may be.
There were several aspects of the panels that appeared to be especially appreciated by
students. Panelists reflected on their career journey and current shifts to help students
conceptualize entering the field. Panelists were also intentionally recruited to address critical
human rights issues. MSW students seemed to appreciate the focus on community-based practice
alternatives to clinical, hospital care. Finally, inviting practicing social workers to present to
students allows for potential mentorship opportunities, both formal (i.e., practicum) and informal
(Skrzypek et al., 2019).
Implications for Practice
Seven weeks into the fall semester of the Foundation-year may be the ideal time to host
this panel activity, given the findings. This timing permits students a remaining five weeks of
required coursework, followed by the winter break, to further prepare themselves for their
inaugural practicum. Such timing supports both the educational development needed pre-panel to
relate panelist contributions to students’ own professional development, with decent timing post-
panel for students to enact changes such as greater focus and attention in class, simulations, and
extracurricular activities (Lee et al., 2020) prompted by the panel experience.
This practicum orientation activity was offered to MSW students enrolled in a full-time
program. As of 2020, The Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) reports that
approximately 47,785 of MSW students are enrolled full-time across 283 programs (CSWE,
2021). Further, these panels were hosted by a faculty of social work set in a large urban area with
a highly structured MSW program, where the vast majority of students commence practicum on
the same timeline and within a metropolitan city. Therefore, it is full-time, urban, structured
17
PRACTICUM PANEL PRESENTATIONS
MSW programs that may find these results most applicable. Considering the approximate 28,065
students enrolled in part-time MSW programs (CSWE, 2021) and considering faculties of social
work that are based in less urban or in rural centres, offer less structured MSW programs where
practicum may commence at varying times for students, and have practicums spread over a
larger geographical area (such as an entire province or state), there may be other viable
alternatives to orient students to the field in alignment with the contextual nature of these degree
programs.
COVID-19 Considerations
The panels reported here were held in fall 2018 and fall 2019. We planned to continue the
panels as an annual event for each Foundation-year MSW cohort; however, the COVID-19
pandemic severely disrupted social work education and field practicum in fall 2020 in numerous
ways. Nationally, Canada’s accrediting body for social work education significantly reduced the
number of hours required to complete placement (Canadian Association for Social Work
Education, 2022). In our local urban context, there was a severe reduction in the number of
social workers willing to supervise a practicum student due to pandemic disruptions (such as
challenges of transitioning practice to remote delivery and other uncertainties). Consequently,
there were far fewer field instructors willing to present on potential practicum opportunities to
Foundation-year students, even through a remote panel method. This trend continued through the
fall 2021 semester. With the upcoming fall 2022 term, it appears that social work education and
field education will resume its pre-pandemic format and guidelines. As such, the panels
presented here may again be a feasible and effective method for orienting Foundation-year MSW
students to the field.
18
PRACTICUM PANEL PRESENTATIONS
Implications for Research
This mixed-methods study demonstrates the potential of cost-effective research into
graduate social work education conducted as a collaboration of faculty, practicum office, and
field instructors. The quantitative measures employed here provided compelling insight into
students’ practicum attitudes, MSW education quality, and preparedness for practicum.
Longitudinal follow-up on MSW students as they progress through practicum, and as they
graduate and enter the field, could provide further insight into the impact of curriculum on
professional outcomes.
Limitations
There is a risk of social desirability bias as students participated in the study as part of
their Foundation-year MSW required courses. While the consent form advised students that only
a research assistant – otherwise uninvolved with the MSW program – would know their identity,
and this was explicitly stated to students during the consent process, it is possible that students
responded in such a manner that they would perceive as pleasing to their instructors. The
relatively low panelist survey response rate presents the possibility that some panelists had
different views than those detailed here.
Conclusion
Panels are effective at improving student attitudes towards community-based practicum
and may help students better regulate emotions by hearing real-life practice examples (Sewell,
2020). Panels may assist students construct a realistic sense of the profession early in their
training, which may facilitate retention and job satisfaction. Follow-up regarding perception of
skills and integration to practice may determine sustained effect of this orientation intervention.
19
PRACTICUM PANEL PRESENTATIONS
References
Allemang, B., Dimitropoulos, G., Collins, T., Gill, P., Fulton, A., McLaughlin, A. -M., Ayala, J.,
Blaug, C., Judge-Stasiak, A., & Letkemann, L. (2021). Role plays to enhance readiness
for practicum: Perceptions of graduate & undergraduate social work students. Journal of
Social Work Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2021.1957735
Bogo, M., Lee, B., McKee, E., Ramjattan, R., & Baird, S. L. (2017). Bridging class and field:
Field instructors’ and liaisons’ reactions to information about students’ baseline
performance derived from simulated interviews. Journal of Social Work Education,
53(4), 580-594. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2017.1283269
Bogo, M. (2015). Field education for clinical social work practice: Best practices and
contemporary challenges. Clinical Social Work Journal, 43(3), 317-324.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-015-0526-5
Cai, Y., Bo, A., & Hsiao, S. C. (2018). Emerging social work field education trends in China.
Journal of Social Work Education, 54(2), 324-336.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2017.1350233
Canadian Association for Social Work Education. (2022). Updated statement on field education
in the context of COVID-19. https://caswe-acfts.ca/updated-statement-on-field-education-
in-the-context-of-covid-19-2/
Cohen, A., & Shenaar-Golan, V. (2018). What are social work students’ perceptions of the
community practice method? Journal of Community Practice, 26(1), 23-40.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10705422.2017.1413022
20
PRACTICUM PANEL PRESENTATIONS
Collins, M. E., Dixon, Z., & Zimmerman, T. (2022). Building policy practice into foundation
field placement experiences and outcomes. Social Work Education, 41(1), 105-118.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2020.1807495
Council on Social Work Education (CSWE). (2021). 2020 statistics on social work education in
the United States. https://www.cswe.org/Research-Statistics/Research-Briefs-and-
Publications/2020-Annual-Statistics-on-Social-Work-Education
Eaton, A. D., Katz, E., McKee, E., & Russell, D. (2019). Connecting MSW students to
community-based practicum: Feasibility and acceptability of panel presentations. Journal
of Social Work Education, 56(3), 548-559.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2019.1656589
Finn, J., & Molloy, J. (2021). Advanced integrated practice: bridging the micro-macro divide in
social work pedagogy and practice. Social Work Education, 40(2), 174-189.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2020.1858043
Flanagan, N., & Wilson, E. What makes a good placement? Findings of a social work student-to-
student research study. Social Work Education, 37(5), 565-580.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2018.1450373
Fortune, A. E., Rogers, C. A., & Williamson, E. (2018). Effects of an integrative field seminar
for MSW students. Journal of Social Work Education, 54(1), 94-109.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2017.1307149
21
PRACTICUM PANEL PRESENTATIONS
Fulton, A. E., Dimitropoulos, G., Ayala, J., McLaughlin, A. M., Baynton, M., Blaug, C., Collins,
T., Elliot, G., Judge-Stasiak, A., Letkemann, L., & Ragan, E. (2019). Role-playing: A
strategy for practicum preparation for Foundation year MSW students. Journal of
Teaching in Social Work, 39(2), 163-180.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2019.1576573
Katz, E., Serbinski, S., & Mishna, F. (2017). Taking the show on the road in holding academic
classes in community agencies: Exploratory study findings. Journal of Teaching in
Social Work, 37(4), 353-368. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2017.1325434
Kourgiantakis, T., Bogo, M., & Sewell, K. M. (2019). Practice Fridays: Using simulation to
develop holistic competence. Journal of Social Work Education, 55(3), 551-564.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2018.1548989
Lee, E., Kourgiantakis, T., & Bogo, M. (2020). Translating knowledge into practice: Using
simulation to enhance mental health competence through social work education. Social
Work Education, 39(3), 329-349. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2019.1620723
Liddell, J. L., & Lass, K. (2019). Where’s the Community Practice? Gaps in Community
Practice Education in a Clinical-Community Social Work Program. Journal of Teaching
in Social Work, 39(1), 42-59. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2018.1548408
Mehrotra, G. R., Tecle, A. S., Thi Ha, A., Ghneim, S., & Gringeri, C. (2018). Challenges to
bridging field and classroom instruction: Exploring field instructors’ perspectives on
macro practice. Journal of Social Work Education, 54(1), 135-147.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2017.1404522
22
PRACTICUM PANEL PRESENTATIONS
Pardasani, M. (2018). Recruiting, engaging, and educating social work leaders: An innovative
curricular model. Social Work Education, 37(4), 519-534.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2018.1439002
Sewell, K. M. (2020). Examining the place of emotions, affect, and regulation within social work
education. Journal of Social Work Education, 56(1), 5-16.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2019.1627262
Skrzypek, C., Diebold, J., Kim, W., Krause, D. (2019). Mentoring connections:
Implementing a student-alumni mentoring program in social work. Journal of Social
Work Education, 55(3), 449-459. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2019.1600445
Theobald, J., Gardener, F., & Long, N. (2017). Teaching critical reflection in social work field
education. Journal of Social Work Education, 53(2), 300-311.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2016.1266978
Wayne, J., Bogo, M., & Raskin, M. (2010). Field education as the signature pedagogy of social
work education. Journal of Social Work Education, 46(3), 327-339.
https://doi.org/10.5175/JSWE.2010.200900043
Wermeling, L., Hunn, V., & McLendon, T. (2013). Social work education’s effect on retention.
Journal of Social Work Education, 49(2), 222-234.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2013.768111