Considerations for Establishing a National Training Program for Placement Supervisors: A Delphi Panel Study

Background: Supervised student placements are central to social work education and are considered the “capstone of academic experience” (Dettlaff, 2008, p. 317). There is substantial literature outlining the important role of practice educators in work integrated learning (WIL), including the need for training before supervising students and areas of core knowledge and skill for effectively supporting student learning and development (Cleak & Smith, 2012; Parga & Doyle, 2019; Pascoe, 2025). Much of this research, however, has been developed using surveys, interviews and focus group methods (Finch & Taylor, 2013; Hay, 2020; Kanno & Koeske, 2010; Mooney et al., 2020; Whitehead et al., 2023). This presentation reports on research that sought to answer “What are the potential opportunities and limitations for delivering a national training program for social workers supervising student placements (Practice educators) in Aotearoa New Zealand?” by employing a Delphi panel.

Methods: A Delphi panel, sometimes referred to as the Delphi technique, provides a systematic process for engaging a varied group of experts and professionals in a structured, iterative research design (Linstone & Turnoff, 1975; Martinez-Sanchez, 2021). Best suited for exploratory research (Linstone & Turoff, 1975), the Delphi panel is used to gain insight related to a set topic through a “series of sequential questionnaires that are interspersed with summarizations of respondent comments” (Gabb et al., 2006, p.581). Typically used in curriculum development and broader educational research for establishing standards, guidelines and policies (Green, 2014; Linstone & Turnoff, 1975; Martinez-Sanchez, 2021; Sitlington & Coetzer, 2015), the use of a Delphi panel in social work education has been less common. Using purposive sampling, this research recruited 10 experts to the panel who had experience in managing placement arrangements for students and/or delivering of professional development for social workers, including representation from universities, the professional association, and the regulatory body. The panel consisted of three rounds and participation was anonymous.

Findings: The panel unanimously recognised the shared responsibility for meeting such professional development needs, and were able to agree on an emerging curriculum, highlighting core elements deemed essential for any training. Furthermore, hybrid delivery was recommended, alongside emphasising the importance that individual social workers should not bear the cost, but sustainable funding was needed. More contentious however, were considerations of ownership and management, how to communicate value to tackle perceptions of training, and the balance between improving field education/practice education without threatening the risk of provision.

Conclusions: The research highlights there is potential for a national program, but further complexities need to be considered linked to funding, consultation, partnerships and feasibility. This should also include looking beyond our field and/or borders to what is being down elsewhere.