This document summarizes a presentation on developing field education programs for online and distance social work education. It outlines objectives of collaborating to identify key elements and analyze structure. Factors to consider include timing of involvement, locations, reporting structure, vendor involvement, ethics, staffing models, and field instructor requirements. Staffing and liaison models as well as timing, structure, vendor role, locations, requirements and ethics are discussed. Contact information is provided for follow up.

1. Hindsight Is Always 20/20:
What We Wish We Had
Known
Presented by:
Michele Sienkiewicz, MSW – University of Denver
Jackie Votapek, MSW – Indiana University
Stevara Clark Johnson, MSW – Virginia Commonwealth University
Michelle Brandt, MSW – Widener University

2. Objectives
 Collaborate with other participants to identify key elements of developing
the field education components of an online or distance education social
work program
 Analyze the current structure of their existing field education program, in
order to develop an action plan for their online or distance education
program in the areas of field seminar, agency development, field liaison
visits, and problem resolution.
 Understand the challenges of delivering a quality field education program
in an online or distance education social work program.

3. Factors to Consider for Distance
Education Field Programs
 Timing of Our Involvement in the Program
 Geographic Locations
 Internal Reporting/Organizational Structure
 Involvement of Online Partner/Vendor
 Ethical Issues
 Liaison and Field Program Staffing Models
 Field Instructor Requirements/Training

4. Field Program Staffing &
Liaison Models

5. Timing of Our Involvement
in the Program
 Was the field program established when you started in your role?
 Were you involved in developing the role/program?

6. Internal Reporting/
Organizational Structure
 Who do we report to?
 How does our field department divide the work?
 What is the level of collaboration with other field staff?
 Is there an online partner/vendor involved? If so, what is their role in our
organizational structure?

7. Involvement of Online
Partner/Vendor
 Pros:
 Guidance/assistance with problem solving with students (in some models)
 Guidance/assistance with course development
 Cons:
 Loss of control? (when online partner is responsible for matching students to
placements)
 Different training

8. Geographical Locations
 Limited connections/relationships
 Unknown state specific requirements
 Developing relationships with Field Instructors from a distance

9. Field Instructor & Liaison
Requirements/Training
 Off-site vs. On-site
 Similar to or different from on campus field instructors & liaisons
 Do local field instructors & liaisons in the online program have the option
of attending training in person?
 Requirements for licensing (and thus incentive to attend training) vary by
State (eg. SIFI courses in the Northeast)

10. Student Placement & Educational
Assessment

11. Ethical Issues
 Related to:
 The corporatization of social work higher education
 Historical component of the importance of relationship building in field
placement process
 Placement coordinator and liaison dual roles with students

12. Questions?

13. Contact Us
 Jackie Votapek, Field Coordinator
 317-278-9813
 jvotapek@iupui.edu
 Stevara Clark Johnson, Assistant Professor in Teaching
 804-828-0732
 scjohnson2@vcu.edu
 Michele Sienkiewicz, Associate Director of Online Field Education
 303-871-7899
 Michele.Sienkiewicz@du.edu