Integrative Field Seminars for MSW Students: Outcomes for Three Cohorts

Background and Purpose:  Many social work programs offer integrative field seminars to help students reflect on their practicum experiences and integrate their classroom and field learning.  However, little is known about the effectiveness of these resource-intensive seminars.  Our recent study compared two cohorts of students, one that did not attend a seminar and a second cohort who did.  The students who attended the integrative seminar had better outcomes than the no-seminar students on 3 of 13 measures.  However, they were highly dissatisfied with the seminar.  This study follows a third cohort of students who attended a revised version of the seminar.  The research question was whether students attending the revised seminar would have better outcomes than the no-seminar or the first seminar cohorts.

Methodology:  Three successive entering classes at one school of social work questioned at the end of their first, generalist practicum.  All three cohorts had the same generalist curriculum and the same supports to assist integration of field and classroom:  field liaisons, academic advisors, and discussion in the concurrent practice courses.  The first cohort had no integrative seminar.  The second and third cohorts participated in an integrated field seminar that included small groups of students meeting bi-weekly with an experienced MSW as a facilitator.  The content for the two series of seminars was the same, but the new seminar was held at a more convenient time and the faciliators received training in group processes and facilitation skills.

The questionnaire included attitudes and behaviors that we believed might be affected by the presence or absence of the integrative field seminar.  Standardized scales included critical thinking, self-awareness, self-refection, identification with the social work profession, self-rated competency, satisfaction with field education, and stress as a student.  All students were invited to participate in the last session of the required practice course concurrent with the practicum.  We also collected field instructors’ rating of the students’ performance at the end of the practicum.  The cohorts were compared with multivariate statistics that account for the inclusion of multiple dependent variables.

Results:  The response rates were excellent, with approximately 90% of students in field practicum in each group.  The three cohorts were similar on demographic factors (young, mostly white females with little or no previous human-service experience).

Students in both seminar cohorts were higher than the no-seminar cohort on critical thinking, professional identity, and satisfaction with field education.  In addition, the students with the revised seminar were also higher than other students on frequency of self-reflection and on self-awareness.  There were no differences among the three cohorts on 8 measures, including their own and their field instructors’ rating of student competence.

Conclusion and implications:  Student attendance in an integrative field seminar appears to enhance some skills and attitudes like critical thinking and professional identity.  Despite some benefits for students, seminar attendance does not appear to improve performance.  Further research may clarify if seminars are essential or if their benefits can be delivered through other means.