View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Graduate Social Work Students' Experiences with Group Work in the Field and the Classroom

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Graduate Social Work Students' Experiences with Group Work in the Field and the Classroom
Language: English
Authors: Goodman, Harriet, Knight, Carolyn, Khudododov, Khudodod
Source: Journal of Teaching in Social Work. 2014 34(1):60-78.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 19
Publication Date: 2014
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Postsecondary Education
Higher Education
Descriptors: Student Experience, Field Experience Programs, Graduate Students, Social Work, Teamwork, Classroom Environment, Group Therapy, Practicums, Assignments, Educational Opportunities, Leadership Training, Majors (Students), Nonmajors, Cohort Analysis, Academic Support Services, Mail Surveys, Participant Characteristics, Readiness
DOI: 10.1080/08841233.2013.866615
ISSN: 0884-1233
Abstract: For decades, group work scholars have described a discrepancy between student preparation for group work practice and opportunities to work with groups in the field practicum and professional practice. Educators in related disciplines such as counseling and psychology have expressed similar concerns. This article reports findings of a study of MSW students in a program that includes a practice methods specialization in group work. The purpose was to determine the prevalence of group assignments among all students regardless of their method specialization. A majority of all respondents reported substantial opportunities to practice group work and receive appropriate supervision. Opportunities for majors in group work were significantly greater than for their non-group work counterparts. However, a majority of all students did not feel classes prepared them for group practice. Findings suggest social work must renew its commitment to preparing all students for this practice modality.
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 65
Entry Date: 2014
Accession Number: EJ1026203
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHIajXIVmOJHDFTZ16c8pZRAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDMdIQq2J3LyoZEvYWgIBEICBmqH2gu4Oke_sUF2UARosGEIE6PQ52Z4-z87xbJRYzfBgoDk-c-d0pFBI1GmCGHUOSt97vI0YHQMR-I_S520WydkK2NKfHzxELgCK1yrMYxWHNeXbZrFX2jYO-uqaU5T9ocMbKyLeZ2sgVN6ktPJyKEk6jZsElQoONySvBm8_8kjgFIJ9oMx0YMefwNnbquu4JHY7u4k71Colkyo=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0094240609;8am01jan.14;2019Feb28.13:40;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0094240609-1">Graduate Social Work Students’ Experiences with Group Work in the Field and the Classroom. </title> <p>For decades, group work scholars have described a discrepancy between student preparation for group work practice and opportunities to work with groups in the field practicum and professional practice. Educators in related disciplines such as counseling and psychology have expressed similar concerns. This article reports findings of a study of MSW students in a program that includes a practice methods specialization in group work. The purpose was to determine the prevalence of group assignments among all students regardless of their method specialization. A majority of all respondents reported substantial opportunities to practice group work and receive appropriate supervision. Opportunities for majors in group work were significantly greater than for their non-group work counterparts. However, a majority of all students did not feel classes prepared them for group practice. Findings suggest social work must renew its commitment to preparing all students for this practice modality.</p> <p>Keywords: group therapy; generalist practice; population survey; field practicum; trainees</p> <hd id="AN0094240609-2">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0094240609-3">Background</hd> <p>Since its founding in 1952, the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) has promulgated standards for schools of social work. As the only accrediting body for these schools, its policies wield considerable influence over curriculum design. This influence was particularly notable in 1969 when CSWE established a new curriculum policy that eliminated prescriptive elements and allowed programs to fashion curricula according to their own vision ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref1">6</reflink>]). One of the objectives of these new standards was to encourage social work programs to teach students to practice all methods, including casework, group work, community organization, and administration and move away from concentrations or "majors" in just one method. This promoted the development of the theoretical underpinnings for generalist practice in social work education ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref2">54</reflink>]).</p> <p>Based on its most recent standards, established in 2008, CSWE expects students to be able to demonstrate competence in practice with individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities (Council on Social Work Education [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref3">12</reflink>]. Typically, MSW programs devote the foundation year to generalist practice and teach proficiency across all practice methods; some then go further and offer generalist practice as an advanced concentration ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref4">48</reflink>]). However, because the second, or advanced, year typically is devoted to specializations in fields of practice, populations, or problem areas, there are limited opportunities in most programs for students to advance their understanding about group work.</p> <p>As discussed below, group work educators have argued that the focus on generalist practice detracts from the coverage of group work in the social work curriculum. The study reported on in this article explored graduate students' experiences in the classroom and field at one large urban school with group work practice. Of note is the fact that the program in which the students matriculated was one of the few remaining programs that continue to offer a group work major.</p> <hd id="AN0094240609-4">The Current State of Group Work Education</hd> <p>With the expansion of generalist practice, group work educators and practitioners have observed the subjugation of group work practice in favor of an emphasis on work with individuals and families. Although the intention of generalist practice is to produce workers proficient across all methods, clinical practice models dominate generic practice ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref5">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref6">38</reflink>]). The documented decline of group work concentrations and specialized group work courses in social work programs reinforces these concerns ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref7">1</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref8">28</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref9">42</reflink>]). The proportion of MSW programs offering group work as a separate concentration reached a high of 76% in 1963 ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref10">51</reflink>]). However, based upon the most recent data available, this figure has fallen to a low of less than 5% ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref11">7</reflink>]). In addition, less than 20% of schools of social work require students to take even one specialized group work course ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref12">58</reflink>]).</p> <p>A review of the group work literature suggests that social work educators have become particularly concerned about the state of social work education. Academics in related fields such as counseling and psychology also have expressed concerns regarding student preparation for group work. Most notably, these educators point to the lack of a standardized curriculum for teaching core principles and concepts regarding the group modality ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref13">57</reflink>]). A related worry focuses on the lack of systematic training opportunities ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref14">23</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref15">61</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref16">63</reflink>]). In addition, authors lament the reluctance on the part of students to study and practice group work, owing to their misconceptions about this modality ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref17">17</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref18">36</reflink>]).</p> <p>In a recent study of graduate and undergraduate social work students, almost one-half reported they received little or no group work education in the field or in the classroom; among students who did report receiving some preparation, a significant minority reported that their classroom and field educators did not appear knowledgeable about the modality ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref19">13</reflink>]). Similarly, in another study, first-year MSW students reported they received little or no course content in group work in their foundation or generalist practice courses when compared with content on working with individuals ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref20">59</reflink>]). Findings from psychology training programs mirror those of social work ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref21">46</reflink>]). Specifically, opportunities to engage in the group modality appear to vary widely, despite a mandate for psychology students to have group work content in courses.</p> <p>Group work educators and scholars have noted a resultant degradation of core group work concepts. For example, it is widely held that mutual aid is the distinguishing characteristic of group work. The therapeutic benefits of group participation primarily lie in the helping relationships that exist among members ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref22">27</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref23">53</reflink>]). Through these helping relationships, members learn that they are not alone, that others share their concerns, challenges, and experiences. This realization, known as universality ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref24">65</reflink>]) or the "all-in-the-same-boat" phenomenon ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref25">53</reflink>]), is reassuring and often frees participants to work on the difficulties that require intervention. Further, the credibility that comes with members' recognition of their underlying commonality allows them to make demands of each other and provide support to one another in a way that individual intervention cannot.</p> <p>Without group work education, students and practitioners are more likely to see a group as nothing more than a collection of individuals. This leads to the practice of "casework in the group" ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref26">40</reflink>]), where the worker treats each member's concerns as separate and unique and simply engages in a variation of individual treatment. Members' underlying commonalities are ignored and not utilized to foster change. Finally, social workers who lack group work training are less able to understand or effectively address group dynamics and processes, like scapegoating, monopolizing, and subgrouping, which inevitably exist and can either support or disrupt the group's work ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref27">25</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref28">26</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref29">55</reflink>]).</p> <p>Academics in other fields also have noted problems associated with insufficient training in group psychotherapy. Trainees have a difficult time understanding group-as-a-whole dynamics or appreciating the complexities associated with group leadership ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref30">37</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref31">60</reflink>]). Inadequately prepared students tend to focus on group content, not process, and they are less able to "think group" ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref32">20</reflink>]). That is, they are not "attending to the interactions among members within the here-and-now, activating the therapeutic processes that are unique to this modality, and nurturing an atmosphere that is conducive to members' growth" ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref33">9</reflink>], p. 165).</p> <p>One of the reported consequences of the decline of specialized group work instruction in social work has been that few educators bring advanced knowledge of this method to their classes. Educators in the classroom and the field are ill equipped to prepare students for group work practice, because they did not have group work training themselves ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref34">19</reflink>]). As a result, educators teaching generalist practice courses give this area of the curriculum short shrift, preferring to focus on those forms of intervention with which they are more familiar, particularly individual casework ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref35">59</reflink>]).</p> <p>As for field instruction in social work, more than half of respondents to a national electronic survey of first-year MSW students reported that field instructors provided little or no information about group theory or practice in the foundation year ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref36">58</reflink>]) Similarly, students in a second study noted that their field instructor's supervision of group work assignments focused more on the behavior of the individual members than group-as-a whole dynamics and interactions ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref37">7</reflink>]). Not surprisingly, in yet another study, students reported they began their field assignments with inadequate group work preparation ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref38">34</reflink>]).</p> <p>Ironically, although group work content in schools and programs of social work has declined, the demand for skilled group practitioners remains high, particularly in agency-based settings ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref39">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref40">29</reflink>], 2004b). Further, evidence of group work effectiveness in a broad range of settings with diverse client groups continues to expand ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref41">22</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref42">35</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref43">49</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref44">62</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref45">64</reflink>]). Research from the counseling and psychology professions provides further compelling evidence for the effectiveness of the group modality ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref46">10</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref47">50</reflink>]). Membership in a group has been found to be at least as effective as, and in some studies, more effective than, engagement in individual therapy. This discovery has led at least one set of researchers to conclude, "The efficacy of group psychotherapy has been undeniably established in the research literature" ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref48">5</reflink>], p. 121).</p> <p>Insurance companies often prefer to pay for group work services (rather than individual treatment) because they consider them less costly. In addition, many evidence-based practice settings (EBP) employ group interventions, and funding sources value them for their proven effectiveness ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref49">14</reflink>]). Thus, while most students may leave their social work education ill prepared to facilitate groups, they are likely to step into workplace settings that value this modality for its cost and treatment effectiveness.</p> <p>Research in social work, as one might expect, also reveals that students without group work preparation are less comfortable running groups and less likely to indicate a desire to assume group leadership in the future ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref50">38</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref51">52</reflink>]). When groups involve the use of evidence-based manuals, which spell out the "lessons" members are to learn and the content for each group session, workers not sufficiently schooled in core group work principles fail to appreciate the "group as a whole" conceptualization or group process. This reality may result in mechanical practice that does not fully use the group in purposeful ways ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref52">11</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref53">39</reflink>])</p> <p>In the past, reports have indicated few opportunities for social work students to have group work experiences in the field ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref54">6</reflink>]). However, given the continued reliance upon the group modality in contemporary practice, it is important to ascertain whether this continues to be the case. Recently, in a national survey of MSW students, two-thirds stated they had a group assignment in their first year in fieldwork ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref55">58</reflink>]) Further, students have reported they received group assignments in their placements, even though they anticipated their work would be with individuals ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref56">34</reflink>]). This may be one practical reason why students express an interest in learning about group practice via specialized group work courses ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref57">38</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref58">58</reflink>]). Students may also recognize the market is growing for clinicians who have group work training and experience ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref59">41</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0094240609-5">RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND STUDY RATIONALE</hd> <p>In the context of the current state of group work education in the class and field, in social work and related disciplines, we sought to answer the following questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. What proportion of students currently in the field had group assignments?</item> <p></p> <item> 2. Were students more likely to have group fieldwork assignments in their first/foundation or second/advanced year?</item> <p></p> <item> 3. What types of opportunities for leadership did students with group assignments have?</item> <p></p> <item> 4. What support did students with group assignments in their field placements receive in both course and field instruction?</item> <p></p> <item> 5. Were there differences between students who were group work majors versus those with other majors in their opportunities to practice group work, and in the level of support they received in both course and field instruction when they had group assignments in their placement?</item> </ulist> <p>We undertook this study in an MSW program that offers a concentration in group work in addition to method options in clinical, community, and organizational practice. Although all students in this graduate program receive some group work instruction in a first-year practice laboratory, it was unclear whether such coverage of group work was sufficient to meet student needs as they entered their field placements.</p> <p>It also was not clear whether group work instruction in the foundation practice laboratory and in group work major courses responded to the contemporary demands of group work practice, including evidence-based interventions, increased utilization of manualized groups, the use of activity in groups, and services for involuntary clients. In addition, we did not know the extent to which students had opportunities to practice group work in their placements, regardless of their practice method specialization. Most significantly, we were not sure whether students with group assignments in their placements felt their academic and field instruction supported their group work practice.</p> <p>The following study is an example of practice-based research ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref60">21</reflink>]). It was undertaken as a part of a broader initiative to understand how the structure of a program, including a specific group work curriculum and novel instruction in the practice laboratory, was meeting the needs of all students. Our findings contribute to a spate of recent research reports about the current state of group work education in a profession that has embraced generalist methods as the foundation for social work practice. The results also have implications for the broader question about how well students from a range of disciplines are being prepared to deploy a group modality.</p> <hd id="AN0094240609-6">METHODOLOGY</hd> <p>The participants in this study all were students in an MSW program who were in field placement, including First, Second, and One-Year Residency (OYR) students. (OYR work-study students maintain employment throughout their social work studies; their fieldwork placements are in the agencies where they also work.) We sought responses from students with specializations in all four practice methods: Clinical Practice, Group Work, Community Practice, and Organizational Management. The total number of potential respondents was 581. We created an original electronic survey instrument using Survey Monkey, and we distributed it to all students in field placement late during the spring 2011 semester when students were well into their fieldwork assignments. Initially, we contacted students through their school e-mail addresses and provided them with a link to the survey. Subsequently, we sent two electronic reminder e-mails in order to increase participation. The Institutional Review Board examined the study and determined it was exempt.</p> <p>We asked all students to complete three questions: their year in the program, their major method, and the type of agency where they currently had their fieldwork placement. In addition, we asked Second Year and OYR work-study students (who were pursuing their advanced year) to indicate their second-year specialization, which in this program represents a field of practice, such as health and mental health or children and families. The discriminating question in the survey was whether the student had a group assignment as part of her or his fieldwork placement at any point during the current academic year. Students who answered this question in the negative ended their participation in the study.</p> <p>We asked students who reported having group assignments how many groups they led that year, the group intervention models they employed, and what group work courses they had taken to that point in their course of study. All first-year students would be enrolled in the second semester of the two-semester practice laboratory course in which group work was one of the four generalist methods that were covered. First-year group work majors would have been completing the first group work methods course at the time of the study; the Second Year and work-study OYR Group Work majors would have taken two required courses for majors and would have been completing the third and final group work course when they took the survey. One group work elective was offered during the 2009–2010 academic year and another during the 2010–2011 academic year; this course was open, but not necessarily available (due to the limited number of seats) to all students who were not group work majors.</p> <p>We also asked respondents a series of questions to determine what group practice opportunities they had in their fieldwork placements and whether they received support regarding groups in their class and field instruction. Subjects could respond "yes" or "no." Topics for these questions included whether they had an opportunity to form their own groups; take over an existing group; lead a group on their own; co-lead groups (and, if so, with whom); or observe a group. In addition, we asked whether subjects used activities such as games, music, or movement in their groups and whether they used a manual for their group practice.</p> <p>We also inquired whether they received weekly supervision from their primary field instructor or a task supervisor regarding their group work practice, whether they wrote process recordings for their groups, and whether they felt their school course work gave them adequate academic preparation for their group assignments.</p> <hd id="AN0094240609-7">RESULTS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0094240609-8">Description of Participants</hd> <p>Out of 581 possible respondents, 294 students completed usable surveys, resulting in a 50.6% response rate. Slightly more than 40% of the participants (40.5%, <emph>n</emph> = 119) were first-year students, and 37.4% (<emph>n</emph> = 110) were second-year or advanced-standing students; 47, or 16.0%, of the respondents were OYR work-study students; and finally, 6.1% (<emph>n</emph> = 18) were undeclared or in other programs of study. Among the respondents, 69.6% (<emph>n</emph> = 204) identified themselves as Clinical Practice students; 16.0% (<emph>n</emph> = 47) as Group Work majors; 12.3% (<emph>n</emph> = 36) as Community Practice majors; and 2.1% (<emph>n</emph> = 7) as Organizational Management majors. These distributions closely corresponded to the year in program and major method selection of all students (i.e., the universe) in the school.</p> <p>Students reported having field placements in a wide range of settings, including aging, advocacy, child welfare, criminal justice, in- and outpatient mental health, school, and hospital. The modal response for the type of field placement was mental health at 14.3% (<emph>n</emph> = 42), with students reporting fewer placements, for example, in substance abuse (4.4%, <emph>n</emph> = 13); homeless services (4.1%, <emph>n</emph> = 12); and medical (4.4%, <emph>n</emph> = 13) settings.</p> <p>More than half of the second-year students who indicated a field of practice (51.4%, <emph>n</emph> = 56) identified theirs as Children, Youth and Families, and slightly less than 32.1% (<emph>n</emph> = 35) as Health and Mental Health. Fewer students claimed either Aging (8.2%, <emph>n</emph> = 9) or Global Social Work (7.3%, <emph>n</emph> = 8) as fields of practice. The remaining two students (1.0%) did not answer the question.</p> <p>In response to the discriminating question, "Have you had an opportunity for group work practice this year," more than 80% of all students responded "Yes"; less than 20% responded "No" (Table 1). As one would expect, almost all of the group work majors reported they had group assignments, and at least three-fourths of Clinical Practice and Community Practice students had group assignments, as well.</p> <p>TABLE 1  Number and Percentage of Students with Group Assignments by Method</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Student Method (<italic>N</italic>)</td><td>Number</td><td>Percentage</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Group work majors (47)</td><td char=".">46</td><td char=".">97.9%</td></tr><tr><td>Clinical practice majors (204)</td><td char=".">167</td><td char=".">81.9%</td></tr><tr><td>Community practice majors (36)</td><td char=".">28</td><td char=".">77.8%</td></tr><tr><td>All students (294)</td><td char=".">243</td><td char=".">82.9%</td></tr><tr><td><ext-link id="TFN1001" />*Organization majors are excluded due to small <italic>N</italic> (7), as are those students with no declared major<italic>.</italic></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0094240609-9">Group Work Assignments and Supports in the Field</hd> <p>Students had a variety of group work experiences, irrespective of their major method (Table 2). Approximately two-thirds of all students reported they led groups on their own at their field placement, and a corresponding number had the opportunity to actually form a group. Slightly less than half of them reported they took over leadership of an existing group. With respect to group co-leadership, more than one-half co-led groups with other social workers, and 44.0% co-led groups with non–social workers. In addition, almost one-half of all students reported they had the opportunity to observe social workers running groups. Activity played a large role in the experiences students reported, with three-fourths stating they used strategies such as games, sports, reading, or cooking in their groups. Less than 30% used manuals that would provide detailed outlines for each session.</p> <p>TABLE 2  Group Work Opportunities for MSW Students</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Group Work Opportunities</td><td>Number Responding "Yes"</td><td>Percentage Responding "Yes"</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Used activity in group work</td><td char=".">186</td><td char=".">76.5%</td></tr><tr><td>Opportunity to lead a group on my own</td><td char=".">161</td><td char=".">66.3%</td></tr><tr><td>Opportunity to form a new group</td><td char=".">158</td><td char=".">65.0%</td></tr><tr><td>Opportunity to co-lead a group with a social worker</td><td char=".">134</td><td char=".">55.1%</td></tr><tr><td>Opportunity to observe a social worker leading a group</td><td char=".">119</td><td char=".">49.0%</td></tr><tr><td>Opportunity to take over leadership of an existing group</td><td char=".">114</td><td char=".">46.9%</td></tr><tr><td>Opportunity to co-lead a group with a non-social worker</td><td char=".">107</td><td char=".">44.0%</td></tr><tr><td>Used manual in group work practice</td><td char=".">69</td><td char=".">28.4%</td></tr><tr><td><ext-link id="TFN2001" />*For all students reporting group work experience (<italic>N</italic> = 243).</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Almost 70% of students with group assignments reported that they received supervision for their group practice on a weekly basis from their field instructor, while one-third received group work supervision from a task supervisor (Table 3). Almost 60% were required to write process recording about their groups.</p> <p>TABLE 3  Group Supervision Opportunities for MSW Students</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Group Work Practice Supports in the Field</td><td>Number Responding "Yes"</td><td>Percentage Responding "Yes"</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Field instructor included group work in weekly supervision</td><td char=".">168</td><td char=".">69.1%</td></tr><tr><td>Required to write process recording about group practice</td><td char=".">140</td><td char=".">57.6%</td></tr><tr><td>Group work supervision with a person other than field instructor</td><td char=".">7</td><td char=".">32.1%</td></tr><tr><td><ext-link id="TFN3001" />*For all students reporting group work experience (<italic>N</italic> = 243).</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>TABLE 4  Adequacy of Academic Preparation for Group Work by Method</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Major Method</td><td>Total Number</td><td>Number Reporting Adequate Preparation</td><td>Percentage Reporting Adequate Preparation</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Group work</td><td char=".">46</td><td char=".">21</td><td char=".">45.6%</td></tr><tr><td>Clinical practice</td><td char=".">167</td><td char=".">37</td><td char=".">22.1%</td></tr><tr><td>Community practice</td><td char=".">28</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">21.4%</td></tr><tr><td>All students</td><td char=".">294</td><td char=".">78</td><td char=".">26.5%</td></tr><tr><td><ext-link id="TFN4001" />*Organization majors are excluded due to their small <italic>N</italic> (7), as are those students with no declared major.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0094240609-10">Academic Preparation</hd> <p>Among all participants who reported having groups as a part of their fieldwork assignment, only slightly more than one-fourth reported their coursework gave them adequate preparation for group work practice (Table 4). Less than one-half of group work majors reported being satisfied with their academic preparation for their fieldwork. Understandably, non-majors were even less likely to report that their course work gave them adequate preparation; only approximately one-fifth of clinical practice and community practice majors reported adequate preparation in the classroom.</p> <p>Those students who reported they had taken no specialized group work courses were the most dissatisfied with their academic preparation, followed by group work majors (Table 5). The most satisfied students were those who were non-group work majors but took one group work elective course. Indeed, of this cohort of 14 students, almost two-thirds expressed satisfaction. They all were second-year or OYR students who sought out a specialized methods course as an elective.</p> <p>TABLE 5  Adequacy of Academic Preparation by Group Work Courses Taken</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Group Method Courses Taken</td><td>Total Number</td><td>Number Reporting Adequate Preparation</td><td>Percentage Reporting Adequate Preparation</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Group work for non-majors (elective) only</td><td char=".">14</td><td char=".">9</td><td char=".">64.3%</td></tr><tr><td>All the courses for group work majors</td><td char=".">49</td><td char=".">21</td><td char=".">42.9%</td></tr><tr><td>No group work courses</td><td char=".">231</td><td char=".">46</td><td char=".">20.1%</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0094240609-11">Comparison of Group Work Experiences in the Field</hd> <p>We compared the fieldwork experience of group work majors with other majors and year in program. Chi-square tests were utilized to determine whether there were differences in participants' responses based upon the year in the program and their major method. (We did not include community practice or organizational administration majors in these comparisons, because of their small sample size.) Therefore, we compared group work and clinical practice majors regarding their reported practice opportunities in the field and the supports they received in supervision. Although effect sizes often were small, group work students were more likely to have the opportunity to lead their own groups than students specializing in clinical practice with individuals and families (Table 6). Group work students also more frequently had the opportunity to form a new group.</p> <p>TABLE 6  Comparison of Group Work Practice Opportunities and Field Supports between Group Work Majors and Clinical Majors</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Group Work Practice Opportunities in the Field</td><td>Percent of Group Work Majors Responding "Yes"</td><td>Percent of Clinical Majors Responding "Yes"</td><td><italic>p</italic> Value</td><td>Effect Size (Phi)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Opportunity to lead a group on my own</td><td>88.6%</td><td>65.3%</td><td>.001</td><td>−0.223</td></tr><tr><td>Opportunity to form a new group</td><td>88.9%</td><td>59.3%</td><td>.000</td><td>−0.255</td></tr><tr><td>Opportunity to take over leadership of an existing group</td><td>57.8%</td><td>47.9%</td><td>.238</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Opportunity to co-lead a group with a social worker</td><td>59.1%</td><td>58.5%</td><td>.947</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Opportunity to co-lead a group with a non-social worker</td><td>54.5%</td><td>43.5%</td><td>.192</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Opportunity to observe a social worker leading a group</td><td>55.6%</td><td>9.1%</td><td>.442</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Used activity in group work practice</td><td>91.1%</td><td>75.3%</td><td>.022</td><td>−0.158</td></tr><tr><td>Used manual in group work practice</td><td>25.0%</td><td>32.9%</td><td>.314</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Field instructor included group work as part of weekly supervision</td><td>88.9%</td><td>65.7%</td><td>.002</td><td>−0.209</td></tr><tr><td>Supervision in group work with a person other than field instructor</td><td>37.8%</td><td>31.3%</td><td>.411</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Required to write process recording about group practice</td><td>100%</td><td>50.5%</td><td>.000</td><td>−0.420</td></tr><tr><td><ext-link id="TFN6001" />*Community Practice and Organization majors excluded due to small numbers.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Group work majors were significantly more likely to have their group work practice included as a part of weekly supervision. All group work majors reported they had to write process recording about their groups and were twice as likely to write group process recordings as their clinical practice counterparts.</p> <p>We also compared the fieldwork experiences and level of satisfaction of first-year and second-year students. There was little variation between group assignments or group supports between these two groups. However, chi square analysis did reveal that second-year students were significantly less likely to report dissatisfaction with their academic preparation than their first-year counterparts were (<emph>p</emph> =.009, <emph>Phi</emph> = –.191).</p> <hd id="AN0094240609-12">DISCUSSION</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0094240609-13">Study Limitations</hd> <p>Slightly more than one-half of the students asked to participate in this study did so. Fortunately, this proved to be a representative sample of this particular student body as a whole. However, one may question whether the results would have been different had more students chosen to respond. For example, it is possible that those students who were more interested in group work, and perhaps more experienced, were more inclined to participate in the survey.</p> <p>In addition, the study took place at only one school of social work. Whether the findings would have been similar had students from other schools been included, is unclear. Moreover, this MSW program is an outlier in contemporary social work education, because the school utilizes majors based on method, including group work, in addition to elements of a generalist practice curriculum in the first year.</p> <p>Because MSW practice curricula vary, these findings are not necessarily comparable to other graduate social work programs or to undergraduate programs, which are by definition generalist. Yet, the findings are quite similar to those of similar studies at other institutions, which show not only the decline in coverage of group work content but also the potential consequences of this decline.</p> <p>Student responses also may have been a reflection of other factors that were in play at the school. Curriculum changes were in progress, and the findings may have been influenced by student responses to that transition. In addition, the recent retirement of two long-time faculty members who primarily taught Group Work courses, and their replacement only with adjunct faculty, could have decreased group work majors' satisfaction with their classroom experiences.</p> <p>Other limitations include the potential unreliability of self-report data. Further, although recent studies indicate little difference in reliability ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref61">32</reflink>]) and in fact, subject preference for electronic surveys ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref62">18</reflink>]), it is possible that some students did not routinely use their school e-mail address and therefore were unaware of the opportunity to participate in the study.</p> <hd id="AN0094240609-14">The Student Experience</hd> <p>The most noteworthy finding was the large proportion of respondents who reported they had groups as a part of their fieldwork assignment <emph>regardless</emph>of their major method. As expected, virtually all group work majors reported they had groups in their fieldwork assignments. However, a majority of clinical <emph>and</emph> community practice majors also had group assignments.</p> <p>Equally noteworthy was the fact that a majority of students overall (and in each of the practice majors) reported being dissatisfied with their academic preparation in group work. Not surprisingly, the most dissatisfied students were those who were <emph>not</emph> group work majors and had <emph>not</emph> had an elective group work course. The only exposure to group practice principles for the majority of students occurred in the first-year two-semester practice laboratory, which is oriented however to generalist practice. The findings suggest that this laboratory, with its focus on multiple modalities, did not provide sufficient coverage of group work content.</p> <p>Somewhat unexpectedly, the most satisfied students were <emph>not</emph> group work majors but rather non-group majors who had taken an elective course in group work. The reasons for this are not altogether clear, but it is possible that, unlike their group work major counterparts, they did not have as many group work responsibilities in the field. Hence, they perceived their academic preparation to be sufficient for the amount of time they actually spent in group work practice. It also is possible that this group of students overestimated its preparation and actually was somewhat ingenuous with respect to the amount of knowledge required to engage in competent group work practice.</p> <p>Overall, the ubiquity of group assignments generally equaled proportions of students with group assignments found in other published social work research reports we were able to locate. For example, in their national survey of 1,360 social work students, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref63">58</reflink>])reported 66% had at least one group assignment in their first year of field placement. Similarly, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref64">12</reflink>] survey of BSW and MSW students found only one-fifth had never had a group experience. Consequently, our research revealed that a program that organized its curriculum around social work methods, including a group work, was not much different in exposure to groups in the field than schools that did not have such a major. Although all students reported high levels of dissatisfaction with their classroom preparation for group practice, a majority did report support in the field. For the most part, students who had a group experience received weekly supervision from either their field instructor or a task supervisor. Although this applied overwhelmingly to group work majors, a significant majority of clinical practice majors also received such weekly supervision for their groups. In fact, 52% of clinical practice majors were required to include their group practice in process recordings.</p> <p>Overall, students had numerous educational opportunities to work with groups in the field. Yet, these opportunities typically were not supported in the classroom, suggesting that students' learning about groups and their ability to demonstrate competence of this modality were compromised. And while many respondents reported co-leadership experiences, numerous scholars in social work and related disciplines have written about both the opportunities and perils of co-leadership ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref65">2</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref66">4</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref67">24</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref68">33</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref69">43</reflink>]). Among others, problems include discrepancies in power between co-leaders and relationship conflicts between the leaders that play out in subtle and not-so-subtle ways in the group ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref70">15</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref71">52</reflink>]). Similarly, students in this study reported using activity in their group work practice. Yet, without adequate classroom instruction, students are unlikely to understand that activity is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref72">39</reflink>]) Classroom instruction also would assist students in selecting an appropriate program like music, games, or movement to help the group advance its purpose and goals.</p> <p>As a school with a long and vaunted history of group work practice and a unique position as one of the few remaining MSW programs offering a group work specialization, the experience students reported in the classroom was puzzling and of concern. Separating clinical methods, as is done at this school, might have created a situation where cross-fertilization of the curriculum material within each major did not occur. This begs the question whether the option of a group work specialization enhances group work practice any more than generalist programs do. However, based on this study and recent reports about group work experience from other studies reported in this article, it appears that neither model as currently configured is keeping pace with the needs of students who probably will have to form and run groups as professional social workers.</p> <hd id="AN0094240609-15">Implications</hd> <p>In anticipation of planning for curriculum innovation, we undertook this study to learn what proportion of students in a program with a group work specialization had group assignments, the corresponding support they were receiving in the field, and whether they felt their course work prepared them for group practice. Our findings echoed [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref73">21</reflink>] experiences of students with generalist practice preparation undergoing a "baptism by fire" (p. 233). Similar to previous research, we also found that generalist practice courses gave students inadequate preparation for undertaking group assignments ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref74">7</reflink>]). Even many group work majors expressed dissatisfaction with their preparation. In fact, virtually all students entered the field with marginal academic support in the method, even though the reality was that a majority of them had group experiences as part of their field practicum.</p> <p>Related disciplines such as psychology and counseling also struggle with how to prepare students for group practice ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref75">56</reflink>]). A review of the group literature, generally, suggests that social work may be ahead of these sister disciplines in its formulation and conceptualization of group work. Despite its decline in coverage in the social work curriculum, the principles and core concepts of group work practice in the profession are generally agreed upon, as is the mode of training ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref76">3</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref77">45</reflink>]).</p> <p>There are several ways to improve this situation. The dominance of generalist practice suggests that the foundation and generalist curricula should include greater coverage of group work, particularly its foundational concepts and principles ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref78">39</reflink>]) These elements should include, among others, agency constraints on practice, applying EBP principles to group work practice, the use of manuals to guide group work practice, and working with involuntary clients ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref79">12</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref80">25</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref81">29</reflink>],2004b, 2006; [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref82">47</reflink>]).</p> <p>As noted, in this study, we found that students who took only one group work course for non-majors felt the most adequately prepared for group practice in the field. This finding is consistent with the results of studies by [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref83">38</reflink>])and [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref84">55</reflink>] that suggested even one group work course in a graduate program enhanced students' understanding of the modality and their commitment and confidence to practice it. Apparently, more research is necessary to determine how MSW programs, which overwhelmingly teach generalist practice, can best integrate group work practice content into their curricula to bolster the academic support for practice.</p> <p>The findings here also challenge practitioners who have had substantial group work preparation and experience to "give back" their knowledge and experience to help programs achieve more robust group work education in social work programs. For example, although we acknowledge the drawbacks associated with the use of adjuncts, individuals with "real-world" practice experience with groups (and training in the modality) are ideally suited to teach elective courses. Programs might also recruit part-time faculty who have completed post-graduate certificate programs, particularly in EBP practices.</p> <p>Although we were able to determine that substantial proportions of all students carried groups and had opportunities and supports in the field for their group practice, we did not attempt to determine their quality. For example, a majority of all students wrote process recordings that included their group work practice, but we do not know whether their supervision was consistent with group work practice principles. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref85">7</reflink>] noted that while generalist practice instructors rated themselves as "knowledgeable" or "very knowledgeable" about group work, they actually had a limited ability to identify basic group work concepts. Other studies suggest that field instructors who do not have group work preparation might simply generalize their practice with individuals to group intervention. However, measures for evaluating student group work practice do exist ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref86">8</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref87">44</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref88">45</reflink>]) and could be useful upon further study of group work supervision.</p> <p>Consequently, future studies should explore actual student group practice experiences more in depth to determine the quality of students' interventions and field instruction. Even though the students in the current study had abundant opportunities for group work experiences and reported robust supervision, this study did not determine the quality of either. Future research should seek to determine the actual quality of student performance and field work supervision, for example, through content analysis of process recordings and records of service. In sum, we heartily endorse more research that can look in depth at the quality of the student experience with a large national sample from which broad generalizations can be generated for the profession.</p> <ref id="AN0094240609-16"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref7" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Andrews, J.2001. Group work's place in social work: A historical analysis. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 24: 45–65.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref65" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Arons, R. D. and Schwartz, F.S.1993. Interdisciplinary co-leadership of high school groups for dropout prevention: Practice issues. Social Work, 38: 9–14.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref76" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Association for the Advancement of Social Work with Groups2010Standards for social work practice with groups. Retrieved fromhttp://<ulink href="http://www.aaswg.org/files/AASWG%5fStandards%5ffor%5fSocial%5fWork%5fPractice%5fwith%5fGroups.pdf">www.aaswg.org/files/AASWG%5fStandards%5ffor%5fSocial%5fWork%5fPractice%5fwith%5fGroups.pdf</ulink> (<ulink href="http://www.aaswg.org/files/AASWG%5fStandards%5ffor%5fSocial%5fWork%5fPractice%5fwith%5fGroups.pdf">http://www.aaswg.org/files/AASWG%5fStandards%5ffor%5fSocial%5fWork%5fPractice%5fwith%5fGroups.pdf</ulink>)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref66" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Atieno Okech, J. and Kline, W.2005. A qualitative exploration of group co-leader relationships. Journal of Specialists in Group Work, 30: 173–190.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref48" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Barlow, S., Burlingame, G. and Fuhriman, A.2000. Therapeutic application of groups: From Pratt's 'thought control classes' to modern group psychotherapy. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research. and Practice, 4: 115–134.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref1" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Birnbaum, M. and Auerbach, C.1994. Group work in graduate social work education. Journal of Social Work Education, 30: 325–335.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref11" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Birnbaum, M. and Wayne, J.2000. Group work in foundation generalist education: The necessity for curriculum change. Journal of Social Work Education, 36: 347–357.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref86" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bordelon, T. E.2006. A qualitative approach to developing an instrument for assessing MSW students' group work performance. Social Work With Groups, 29(4): 75–91.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref33" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Brabender, V.2010. The developmental path to expertise in group psychotherapy. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 40: 163–173.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burlingame, G., Fuhriman, A. and Johnson, J.2004. "Process and outcome in group counseling and psychotherapy: A perspective". In Handbook of group counseling and psychotherapy, Edited by: Delucia-Waack, J., Gerrity, D., Kalodner, C. and Riva, M.49–61. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Caplan, T. and Thomas, H.2003. "If this is week three we must be doing feelings:"An essay on the importance of client paced group work. Social Work with Groups, 26: 5–14.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chovanec, M.2008. Innovations applied to the classroom for involuntary groups: Implications for social work education. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 28: 209–225.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clements, J.2008. Social work students' perceived knowledge of and preparation for group work practice. Social Work with Groups, 31: 329–346.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohen, J. A.2003. Managed care and the evolving role of the clinical social worker in mental health. Social Work, 48: 34–44.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Corey, M. and Corey, G.2006. Process and practice in groups, Belmont CA: Brooks/Cole.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Council on Social Work Education2008Educational policy and accreditation standards. Retrieved fromhttp://<ulink href="http://www.cswe.org/Accreditation/2008EPASDescription.aspx">www.cswe.org/Accreditation/2008EPASDescription.aspx</ulink> (<ulink href="http://www.cswe.org/Accreditation/2008EPASDescription.aspx">http://www.cswe.org/Accreditation/2008EPASDescription.aspx</ulink>)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Counselman, E.2008. Why study group therapy?. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 58: 265–272.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Croteau, A.-M., Dyer, L. and Marco, M.2010. Employee reactions to paper and electronic surveys. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 53(3): 249–259. doi:10.1109/TPC.2010.2052852.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dennison, S.2005. Enhancing the integration of group theory with practice: A five part teaching strategy. Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work, 10: 53–68.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dies, R.2003. Essential psychotherapies, 2nd ed, Edited by: Gurman, A. S. and Messer, S. B.515–550. New York, NY: Guilford. Group psychotherapies</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dodd, S. J. and Epstein, I.2011. Practice-based research in social work: A guide for reluctant researchers, New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Engle, B. and MacGowan, M.2009. A critical review of adolescent substance abuse group treatments. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 6: 217–243.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fuhriman, A. and Burlingame, G.2001. Group psychotherapy training and effectiveness. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 51: 399–416.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Galinsky, M. and Schopler, J. H.1980. Structuring co-leadership in social work training. Social Work with Groups, 3(4): 51–63.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Galinsky, M., Terzian, M. and Fraser, M.2006. The art of group work practice with manualized curricula. Social Work with Groups, 29: 11–26.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garrett, K.2005. School social workers' evaluations of group work practices. Children and Schools, 27: 247–252.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gitterman, A.2004. "The mutual aid model". In Handbook of social work with groups, Edited by: Garvin, C., Guttierez, L. and Galinksy, M.93–110. New York, NY: Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goldberg, T. and Lamont, A.1988. "Effects of new integrated methods courses on interest, knowledge, and skill in social group work: A three-year study". In Roots and new frontiers in social group work, Edited by: Liederman, M., Birnbaum, M. and Dazzo, B.166–75. New York, NY: Haworth.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goodman, H.2004a. Developing social group work skills for contemporary agency practice. Social Work with Groups, 27: 17–33.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goodman, H.2004b. The survival of social group work: A call to action. Social Work with Groups, 27: 3–16.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goodman, H.2006. Organizational insight and the education of advanced group work practitioners. Social Work with Groups, 29: 91–104.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hart, A. M., Brennan, C. W., Sym, D. and Larson, E.2009. The impact of personalized prenotification on response rates to an electronic survey. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 31(1): 17–23. doi:10.1177/0193945908319249</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huffman, D.2012. Adapting the Interpersonal Process Model of Intimacy to enhance the co-leadership during training. Journal of Specialists in Group Work, 37: 152–167.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kammerman, D.2011. A new group workers struggles and successes in a host school. Social Work with Groups, 34(3/4): 233–245.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kessler, M., White, M. and Nelson, B.2003. Group treatments for women sexually abused as children: A review of the literature and recommendations for future outcome research. Child Abuse and Neglect, 27: 1045–1062.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kivlighan, D.2008. Overcoming resistance to 'Doing' evidence-based group practice: A commentary. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 64: 1284–1291.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kivlighan, D. and Tibbits, B.2012. Silence is mean and other misconceptions of group counseling trainees: Errors of commission and omission in trainees' knowledge and structures. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research. and Practice, 16: 14–34.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Knight, C.1999. BSW and MSW students' perceptions of their academic preparation for group work. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 18: 133–148.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Knight, C.2000. Critical content on group work for the undergraduate social work practice curriculum. Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work, 5: 93–112.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kurland, R. and Salmon, R.2005. Group work versus casework in a group: Principles and implications for teaching and practice. Social Work with Groups, 29: 1–15.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kurland, R. and Salmon, R.2006a. Education for the group worker's reality: The special qualities and world view of those drawn to work with groups. Social Work with Groups, 29: 73–89.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kurland, R. and Salmon, R.2006b. Making joyful noise: Presenting, promoting, and portraying group work to and for the profession. Social Work with Groups, 29: 25–28.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Luke, M. and Hackney, H.2007. Group co-leadership: A critical review. Counselor Education and Supervision, 46(4): 280–293.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Macgowan, M. J.2003. Increasing engagement in groups: A measurement based approach. Social Work with Groups, 26(1): 5–28.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Macgowan, M. J. and Vakharia, S. P.2012. Teaching standards-based group work competencies to social work students: An empirical examination. Research on Social Work Practice, 22(4): 380–388.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Markus, H. and King, D.2003. A survey of group psychotherapy training during the predoctoral psychology internship. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34: 203–209.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pollio, D. and Macgowan, M. J.2010. The andragogy of evidence-based group work: An integrated educational model. Social Work with Groups, 33: 195–209.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rittner, B. and Albers, E.1999. Developing a group work sequence: Bringing the community into group work. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 18(1–2): 113–131.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rose, S.2009. A review of effectiveness of group work with children of divorce. Social Work with Groups, 32: 222–229.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rubel, D. and Kline, W.2008. An exploratory study of expert group leadership. Journal of Specialists in Group Work, 33: 138–160.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rubin, A.1982. Statistics on social work education in the United States, New York, NY: Council on Social Work Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Secemsky, V., Ahlman, C. and Robbins, J.1999. Managing group conflict: The development of comfort among social group workers. Social Work with Groups, 21: 35–48.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shulman, L.2008. The skills of helping individuals, families, groups, and communitiesBelmont, CACengage</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Siporin, M.1975. Introduction to social work practice, New York, NY: Macmillan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Steinberg, D.1993. Some findings from a study on the impact of group work education on social work practitioners' work with groups. Social Work with Groups, 16: 23–39.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stockton, R.2010. The art and science of group counseling. Journal of Specialists in Group Work, 35: 324–330.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stone, W.2010. Introduction to the special issue on training in group psychotherapy. Group, 34: 277–281.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sweifach, J. and Heft-LaPorte, H.2008. Why did they choose group work: Exploring motivations and perceptions of current MSW students of group work. Social Work with Groups, 31: 347–361.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sweifach, J. and Heft-LaPorte, H.2009. Group work in foundation generalist classes: Perceptions of students about the nature and quality of their experience. Social Work with Groups, 32: 303–314.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ward, D.2005. Leadership in group practice: Using past and current knowledge to move toward the future. Journal of Specialists in Group Work, 30: 1–3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ward, D. and Crosby, C.2010. Using an observation model for training group therapists in a community mental health setting. Group, 34: 355–361.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weinberg, J., Nuttman-Schwartz, O. and Gilmore, M.2005. Trauma groups:, 38: 187–202. An overview. Group Analysis</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weinstein, M. and Rossini, E.1999. Teaching group treatment in doctoral programs for counseling psychology. Psychological Reports, 85: 697–700.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weiss, R., Jaffee, W., Menil, V. and Cogley, C.2004. Group therapy for substance use disorders: What do we know?. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 12: 339–350.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yalom, I. and Leszcz, M.2007. The theory and practice of group psychotherapy, New York, NY: Basic Books.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Harriet Goodman; Carolyn Knight and Khudodod Khudododov</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref87"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1026203
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Graduate Social Work Students' Experiences with Group Work in the Field and the Classroom
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Goodman%2C+Harriet%22">Goodman, Harriet</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Knight%2C+Carolyn%22">Knight, Carolyn</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Khudododov%2C+Khudodod%22">Khudododov, Khudodod</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Teaching+in+Social+Work%22"><i>Journal of Teaching in Social Work</i></searchLink>. 2014 34(1):60-78.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 19
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2014
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Experience%22">Student Experience</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Field+Experience+Programs%22">Field Experience Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Graduate+Students%22">Graduate Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Work%22">Social Work</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teamwork%22">Teamwork</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Classroom+Environment%22">Classroom Environment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Group+Therapy%22">Group Therapy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Practicums%22">Practicums</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Assignments%22">Assignments</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Opportunities%22">Educational Opportunities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Leadership+Training%22">Leadership Training</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Majors+%28Students%29%22">Majors (Students)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Nonmajors%22">Nonmajors</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cohort+Analysis%22">Cohort Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academic+Support+Services%22">Academic Support Services</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mail+Surveys%22">Mail Surveys</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Participant+Characteristics%22">Participant Characteristics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Readiness%22">Readiness</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/08841233.2013.866615
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0884-1233
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: For decades, group work scholars have described a discrepancy between student preparation for group work practice and opportunities to work with groups in the field practicum and professional practice. Educators in related disciplines such as counseling and psychology have expressed similar concerns. This article reports findings of a study of MSW students in a program that includes a practice methods specialization in group work. The purpose was to determine the prevalence of group assignments among all students regardless of their method specialization. A majority of all respondents reported substantial opportunities to practice group work and receive appropriate supervision. Opportunities for majors in group work were significantly greater than for their non-group work counterparts. However, a majority of all students did not feel classes prepared them for group practice. Findings suggest social work must renew its commitment to preparing all students for this practice modality.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 65
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2014
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1026203
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1026203
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/08841233.2013.866615
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 19
        StartPage: 60
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Student Experience
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Field Experience Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Graduate Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Work
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teamwork
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Classroom Environment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Group Therapy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Practicums
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Assignments
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Opportunities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Leadership Training
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Majors (Students)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Nonmajors
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cohort Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Academic Support Services
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mail Surveys
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Participant Characteristics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Readiness
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Graduate Social Work Students' Experiences with Group Work in the Field and the Classroom
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Goodman, Harriet
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Knight, Carolyn
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Khudododov, Khudodod
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2014
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0884-1233
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 34
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Teaching in Social Work
              Type: main
ResultId 1