Thesis 3 j en

The Block Placement Field Instruction Program of the Social Work Department of
Saint Paul University Philippines

_______________

A Thesis
Presented to the Faculty of
School of Arts, Sciences and Teacher Education
St. Paul University Philippines
Tuguegarao City, Cagayan
Philippines

_______________

In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Bachelor of Science in Social Work

_______________

Jastin An B. Bundalian
Gerly B. Mallillin
Ma. Belen M. Ong
April Divine C. Wanasen

October 2009
Approval Sheet

In partial fulfillment of the requirement for the Degree of Bachelor of Science in
Social Work, this thesis entitled the Block Placement Field Instruction Program of the
Social Work Department of St. Paul University Philippines has been prepared and
submitted by Ma. Belen M. Ong, Jastin An Bundalian, April Divine Wanasen, and Gerly
B. Mallillin is hereby recommended for oral examination

Mr. Mark Dominador M. Ventura
Thesis Adviser

Approved by tribunal of oral examination with the grade of __________.

TO THE PANEL OF EXAMINERS

Mrs. Maricel Grace L. Gomez, MSSW
Chairman

Dr. Chanda Suppil, MSSW, DPA Mrs. Pilar Acorda
Member Member

Accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Degree
Bachelor of Science in Social Work.

Madelyn E. Menor, Ph. D. Agripina B. Maribbay, Ph.D.
Program Coordinator Dean
Department of Arts School of Arts, Sciences and Teacher Education

DEDICATION

To our dear parents, mentors, friends,

and to the Almighty God. . .

This piece of work,

we humbly dedicate. . .

April

Belen

Gerly

Jastin

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This study would not have been possible without the invaluable support and assistance
of the following people whom the researchers wish to express their sincerest thanks and
gratitude:
To our dear parents, who fueled us with their unconditional love, support, guidance,
and prayers. They have been our inspiration and strength. Without them, this would not have
been really possible.
To our beloved brothers and sisters for their everlasting support and prayers.
To our dear respondents who have really shared their invaluable time and honesty in
responding to our study.
To our very patient and considerate thesis adviser, Mr. Mark Dominador M. Ventura
who guided us in the conduct of this work and who willingly shared to us his time, knowledge
and expertise.
To Mrs. Maricel L. Gomez, our Social Work adviser, for her unceasing support, guidance,
and concern to us along the way.
To our circle of friends who, in some way have also inspired and challenged us to do our
best; you have given us reasons to smile amidst the hard moments we went through to finish
this study.
Above all, to our almighty God for his divine inspiration and guiding light to carry on. We
thank Him for the gift of hope, strength, and wisdom. Everything would not be possible without
Him.

The Researchers

Abstract

The study is entitled “The Block Placement Field Instruction Program of St. Paul
University Philippines”. It aims to assess the extent to which the program goals,
objectives and activities were met, the quality and effectiveness of supervision, its
influence on the professional knowledge, attitudes and skills of the Social Work
Graduates, and the relevance of the perceived suggestions to further improve the
program.
The researchers gathered data from three groups of respondents namely, the social
work graduates from academic year 2003-2004 to 2008-2009, their supervisors and the
barangay officials of the community where they were fielded. A questionnaire was
utilized to gather and describe the respondents’ perceptions on the field instruction
program of social work department.
The study revealed that the learning goals, objectives and activities of the field
instruction program were met at a very great extent. It was also found out that the
program has a very great influence on the development of the students’ professional
knowledge, attitude and skills since the overall rating of the respondents was 4.29 which
has an interpretation of “very great extent”. As to the assessment of the role performance
of the Field Supervisors, the Social Work Graduates and barangay officials gave an
overall rating of 4.42 which is interpreted as “very effective”. This implies that the
practicumers were more than satisfied with their supervisors’ role performance. However,
the demonstration of Social Work skills by the supervisors had the lowest rating- an
implication that the Field Instruction is more task-centered. Most of the suggestions for
the improvement of the Field Instruction program were perceived very much relevant by
the respondents.
There are no significant differences on the perceptions of the three groups of
respondents as the implementation of the Field Instruction program except for their
perception on its influence on the professional knowledge of the students and activities
on working with groups and communities.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page

Title Page ……………………………………………………………………… i

Approval Sheet ……..………………………………………………………… ii

Dedication ………………………………………………………………… iii

Acknowledgement ………………………………………………………… iv

Abstract ………………………………………………………………………. v

Table of Contents ………………………………………………………… vii

List of Tables ……………………………………………………………….... viii

List of Figures ……………………………………………………………….... ix

Chapter

1 THE PROBLEM AND REVIEW OF
RELATEDLITERATURE..…………………………………… 1

Introduction……………………………………………………. 1

Related Literature and Studies………………………………… 3

Conceptual/Theoretical Framework …………………………… 16

Statement of the Problem ……………………………………… 19

Hypotheses …………………………………………………….. 20

Significance of the Study …….......…..………………………… 21

Scope and Limitation …………………………………………… 22

Definition of Terms ………………………………………….. 22

2 METHOD ……………………………………………………... 25

Research Design …………………………………………... 25

Respondents of the Study ……………………………………… 25

Instrumentation……..…………………………………………… 26

Data Gathering Procedure ……………………………………… 26

Data Analysis …………………………………………………… 27

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION………………………………… 30

Results……………………………………………………………. 30

Discussion ……………………….…………………………… 68

4 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS ……………………………………. 69

Summary ……………………….…………………………… 69

Conclusions ……………………….…………………………… 74

Recommendations………………………………………………… 75

APPENDIX ……………………….……………………….…………………… 76

REFERENCES ……………………….…………………………………………... 93

CURRICULUM VITAE ……………………….…………………………………. 95

List of Tables

Table No. Title of Table Page

1 Frequency and percentage Count of the Respondents………… 30

2.1 Mean and descriptive interpretation of the respondents'

perception on the extent to which learning goals and

objectives of the field instruction program are met…………… 31

3.1 Mean and descriptive interpretation as to the

extent to which activities on working with individuals

were being met…………………………………………………. 33

3.2 Mean and descriptive interpretation as to the extent to which activities
on working with groups were being met…………….. 34

3.3 Mean and descriptive interpretation as to the extent

to which activities on working with communities were

being met……………………………………………………….. 36

3.4 Mean and Descriptive interpretation of the respondents'

perception as to the extent to which activities on Supervision

and Training were being met…………………………………… 38

3.5 Summary table on the Mean and descriptive interpretation

of the respondents' perception as to the extent to which

activities of the block placement field instruction

program are met………………………………………………… 40

4.1 Mean and descriptive interpretation as to the influence

of the Field Instruction program on the students'

professional knowledge………………………………………… 41

4.2 Mean and descriptive interpretation as to the influence

of the Field Instruction program to the students'

professional attitudes………………………………………….. 43

4.3 Mean and descriptive interpretation as to the influence of

the Field Instruction program on the students' professional

skills……………………………………………………………. 46

4.4 Summary of the mean and descriptive interpretation of the
respondents' perception as to the influence of the

Field Instruction program on the student's professional

knowledge, attitude, and skills………………………………… 49

5.1 Mean and Descriptive Interpretation of the

Respondents' Perception as to the performance of

administrative roles by the field supervisors………………….. 50

5.2 Mean and descriptive interpretation of the respondents'

perception as to the performance of teaching roles by the

Field Supervisors……………………………………………… 53

5.3 Mean and Descriptive Interpretation of the Respondents

Perception as to the performance of enabling roles by

the field supervisors………………………………………….. 56

5.4 Summary of the mean and descriptive interpretation

of the respondents' perception as to the role performance

of the field supervisors………………………………………… 58

6 Mean and descriptive interpretation of the respondents'

perception as to the relevance of the perceived

suggestions to improve the Field Instruction program……….. 59

7 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on the significant

difference among the perception of the three groups of

respondents as to the extent to which the learning

goals, objectives, and activities were met when grouped

according to type of respondents……………………………… 62

8 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on the significant

difference among the perception of the three groups of

respondents as to the influence of the Field Instruction

program on the students' professional attitude, knowledge

and skills……………………………………………………….. 64

9 Analysis of Variance on the significant difference among

the perception of the two groups of respondents on

the role performance of the Field Supervisors………………… 65

10 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on the perception

of the respondents on the relevance of the perceived

suggestions to further improve the Field Instruction program… 66

List of Figures

Figure No. Title of Figure Page

1 Paradigm ………………………………………….. 18

Chapter 1

THE PROBLEM AND REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Introduction

The modernizing society has given rise to complex social issues that affect man

and his environment (Serafica). In order to alleviate the social issues that threaten man’s

social functioning, many humanitarian professions have sprung. One of those which have

been existing since the early times is the Social Work profession. As the world becomes

even more complex and challenging, Social Workers are demanded to become more

responsive and adaptable to the call of the times. It is therefore important that Social

Workers, as they perform their roles in responding to the changing needs and demands of

the various sectors, should be well equipped with necessary knowledge, attitudes, and

skills for a more competent practice.

Social Work can be described as a practicing profession that requires sound

knowledge and competency in practice (Hepworth, Looney, & Larsen, 2002). Students

have to learn and acquire knowledge and skills throughout the entire course. They are

also expected to perform these knowledge and skills in various occasions in the course,

such as in lectures, in seminars, and most importantly, the fieldwork placements. Field

Instruction Program in the Social Work curriculum performs a very vital role in the

training of future Social Workers. It enables the students to concretize the theories and

concepts they have learned in the classroom, it allows the students to test their abilities in

supervised educational settings and enables them to master and synthesize Social Work

knowledge, values and skills.

Field Instruction is one component of the BS Social Work curriculum which

offers opportunities for the integration of theories and practice which could be within an

established social agency or community (Kerson, Toba Schwaber, 1994). The students

are placed in Social Welfare settings and communities to undergo supervised training in

professional development. Its inclusion in the Social Work curriculum was mandated by

the National Association of Social Work Education (NASWEI) to all Social Work

Schools. According to Republic Act 4373, Social Work students are required to complete

1000 hours of practical training on an established Social Work agency under the

supervision of a qualified Social Worker. This curricular area of the program is a

requirement before a Social Work graduate is permitted to take the board examination.

(Field Instruction Manual)

The non-government and government organizations/institutions, and communities

where students are fielded serve as the teaching-learning situation where they hone their

skills and develop a degree of professional competence necessary to contribute to

community and national development.

The Social Work profession is not merely “academic and theoretical” but is

“definitely practical”. Indeed, there is no better way for the students to synthesize and

incorporate learning than to be given the opportunity to experience the actual job

situation through the Field Instruction Program.

Hence, an assessment of the extent to which its goals and objectives are achieved,

the quality of supervision and instruction, and its effectiveness in developing the

students’ knowledge, attitudes, and skills to find out the areas which need further

improvement is very important.

Related Literature

This section provides more background information and insights about the present

study. It is divided into four subsections namely: foreign literature, foreign study, local

literature, and local study.

Foreign

Field instruction program is also offered in every school of Social Work and it is

being held in various settings, requirements and guidelines.

In Belmont University, the Field Instruction Program is a two (2) semester sequence

of courses. Supervision is provided by practitioners with either a Bachelor or Master’s

degree. The students complete 250 clock hours of work each semester. The field

placement is seen as the culminating experience which begins when the student takes

Introduction to Social Work (SWK 2000). The program aims to prepare students for the

beginning level of generalist social work practice. (http://www.belmont.edu/socwork/pdf/

FieldManual.rev.12.06.0web.pdf)

The Field Practicum of Jane Addams University is also geared on working with

individuals, groups, families, and communities and is further concerned with the

restoration, maintenance and enhancement of social functioning and experience with

various clienteles including diverse racial and ethnic groups and those populations at-risk

or economically deprived. (Jane Addams

Universityhttp://www.uic.edu/jaddams/college/field/field_instruction_MSW.html)

In North Carolina University, Field Instruction is taken concurrently with Field

Instruction Seminar. The seminar is said to provide an opportunity to generalize

principles beyond the specifics of the particular agency and community in which the

students are taking field instruction. In addition to this, the students at the beginning of

the field placement, undergo an orientation to the agency wherein the personnel

practices, organization and structure, philosophy and objectives of the agency,

community resources linked with the agency, the issues of personal safety while on

agency business, and organization of the office space are discussed. Planning for the

student’s arrival is also extremely important for them. The Field Instructor has weekly

individual conferences with the students wherein the students take responsibility of

planning of the issues to be discussed in the conference. (http://www.uncg.edu/swk/docs/

bsw/pdfs/2009%20Field%20Application.pdf)

In Austin Peay University, students become eligible for admission to the field

practicum upon successful completion of the subject Seminar for Field Instruction (SW

4400) and all courses in:

• the Social Work Practice

• the Human Behavior and Social Environment

• the Social Welfare Policy and Services

• Research Methods

Their Field Practicum component consists of two courses:

• SW 4410 Field Instruction. Students receive 12 semester hours credit for the

supervised field teaching-learning component within an approved agency setting.

Students do a one semester block placement for a total of 480 clock hours.

• SW 441C Field Instruction Concurrent Seminar. Students receive 3 semester

hours credit for this classroom seminar. The seminar focuses on integrating

learning and skill development. Students meet class for three hours once a week

on campus.

The students are fielded in a variety of rural and urban locations and in mental

health, health care, home health, hospice, child welfare, alcohol and substance abuse,

hospital Social Work, sexual abuse, domestic violence, corrections, juvenile

delinquency, behavioral health services for adolescents and adults, day care, aging, HIV/

AIDS, and School Social Work.

Meanwhile, the Field instruction program of the Elizabeth Town University

requires grades of “C” or higher on the major Social Work courses/ subjects. Field

experiences in this university are arranged to meet the student’s individual interest. It

include but are not limited to such areas as child welfare, corrections, mental health,

hospitals, rehabilitation, health care, schools, and aging.

Their field instruction courses are the following:

470 Field Instruction I- This is equal to 6 credits. The students undergo supervised field

instruction for at least 200 hours in an agency plus a weekly on-campus seminar. The

students begin to assume responsibility with client systems like monitoring tasks,

providing support, conducting group activities, and assisting the Social Worker with

other professional responsibilities.

471 Field Instruction II- This is a 12-credit course which consists of 400 hours field

practice plus a weekly on-campus Seminar. The Students proceed from an “assistant”

position to one of complete client responsibility under direct supervision. Roles students

assume may include advocate, enabler, social broker, and program planner.

The following are the target knowledge, values, and skill areas that the students

should acquire through successful participation in SW 470 Introductory Field Instruction

and SW 471 Advanced Field Instruction as stated in the field instruction manual of the

Elizabethtown College:

Knowledge

1. understand the field agency: its history, philosophy, client populations, funding, and

organizational structure in order to influence and critique its policies.

2. understand the professional Social Worker's role in ethics, confidentiality and

accountability to clients.

3. knowledge of the theoretical frameworks from both liberal arts and the Social Work

curriculum to develop a foundation for professional practice.

4. knowledge of the structure and function of community resources and social service

delivery systems.

5. knowledge of assessment, goal setting, intervention, evaluation and termination as

practiced in generalist social work at micro, mezzo and macro levels.

6. knowledge of effective intervention strategies to promote social and economic justice

and to overcome obstacles of oppression and discrimination to population at risk.

Values.

7. practice without discrimination and with respect to clients’ age, class, color, culture,

disability, ethnicity, family structure, gender, marital status, national origin, race,

religion, sex and sexual orientation;

8. sees problems as challenges and believes problem situations can change.

9. sees the inequalities in society and the need for societal change;

10. understands their own style of helping as a growing individual with strengths and

weaknesses;

11. practice in accordance with Social Work values and ethics;

12. accepts responsibility for their own ethical conduct and development of knowledge

and skills;

Skills

13. use supervision appropriately to develop as a professional Social Worker;

14. communicate and interact effectively with individuals, groups, families and

organizations, respectful of diverse populations of all categories;

15. use social service networks to link resources with client needs, make referrals, and

record results;

16. advocate with clients and colleagues towards social change efforts in response to

community needs for social and economic justice;

17. relate to clients, colleagues and supervisors with good communication skills in oral

and written forms;

18. integrate and apply knowledge, theory and critical thinking skills gained in liberal arts

and social work courses to actual Social Work situations;

19. assess the effectiveness of helping systems and assist in promoting effective, just and

responsive service delivery systems; and

20. Utilize research related to Social Work practice to implement effective interventions

across client populations. (http://www.etown.edu/docs/SocialWork/SW%20Student

%20Handbook%202007-2008.pdf)

Meanwhile, in Livingstone College, Field Instruction is scheduled during the

senior year. At this time, students are assigned to a social agency or community setting to

complete 504 hours of placement. Agencies are selected based on their ability to provide

experiences in generalist Social Work practice.

Local Literature

The Social Work Department of St. Paul University conducts Field Instruction in

a Block Placement model. This means that the basic courses in Social Welfare Policies,

Programs and Services (SWPPS), Human Behavior and Social Environment (HBSE),

Social Work Methods, and all major subjects must have been completed first by the

student before he enrolls in the Field Instruction Program. This is unlike the concurrent

one, which is composed of four field Instruction courses namely: Field Instruction I (FI I)

which focuses on casework; Field Instruction II (FI II) which focuses on group work;

Field Instruction III (FI III) which gives emphasis in community organization; and Field

Instruction IV (FI IV) which covers supervision and training. In block placement Field

Instruction, the four Field Instruction courses are fused into only two courses. Field

instruction I is a fusion of casework (FI I) and group work (FI II) while Field instruction

II is a fusion of community organizing (FI III), and supervision and administration (FI

IV).

Field Instruction I, a ten unit course, covers structured-setting experiences,

techniques and guidelines in data collection and documentation such as interviewing,

recording, etc. It also aims to give the students an opportunity to experience and learn the

skills in working with individuals and groups. The students are given five hundred (500)

hours to finish the course. On the other hand, Field Instruction II covers the community

setting and training and supervising: a) out-of-school youths; b) youth leaders c)

women’s group d) community leaders e) volunteers and others. The students are also

given five hundred (500) hours to finish the course for a total of the required 1000 field

hours as provided in RA 4373, otherwise known as the Social Work Law.

The students are fielded in various agencies here in Region II like the Department

of Social Welfare and Development, Reception and Study Center for Children, Haven for

Women, Regional Trial Court, Green Meadow, Overseas Workers’ Welfare

Administration, Cagayan Valley Medical Center, Lingap Center, etc., and also in

agencies located at National Capital Region as Saint Luke’s Medical Center, Hospicio de

San Jose, Drug Rehabilitation Center, Molave Youth Home, etc,. In Field Instruction II,

the students are fielded in depressed, deprived, and underserved communities and they

are usually based in the Community Development Center of St. Paul University

Philippines.

In the selection of placement agency or community, the Social Work Department

of the University considers the background, experiences, educational needs and interest

of students, as well as the existing facilities of the agency/ community. In the choice of

communities for field work placement, the security of the practicum students and

accessibility for supervision is considered.

The basic functions and responsibilities of the Field instructor, supervisor and

students are listed based from the Block Placement Field Instruction manual.

Field Instructor:

Basic Functions:

The roles and responsibilities of the faculty adviser center on his/her liaison

functions between the school and the agency. He/ She focuses on what the student is

gaining and learning in the field instruction program, in relation to the student’s total

academic experience.

Duties and Responsibilities:

1. consults with the agency field supervisor about the placement of the student

assigned in the agency;

2. makes available to the agency the background information of the students;

3. holds regular conferences with the students and the agency supervisor;

4. keeps a record of the student’s program, including notes of consultations;

5. when necessary, offers counseling assistance to the students; and

6. computes the grades of the students.

Agency Field Supervisor

Basic Functions:

The role of the agency supervisor is to facilitate the learning process of the

students when it comes to the application of the various concepts and theories of social

work.

Primary Duties and Responsibilities:

1. plan together with the Program Coordinator and Field Instructor the activities of

the students in the agency and other matters that are related to field instruction;

2. orient the students on the agency goals, objectives and agency’s practicum

program;

3. selects and assigns appropriate cases, groups and activities related to practicum;

4. plans and facilitates student’s participation in staff meetings especially those that

would contribute/ affect student’s practicum activities;

5. evaluates the student’s performance in the agency;

6. submits a written evaluation on the student’s performance at the end of the

semester; and

7. attends, whenever possible the seminar and meetings sponsored by the school.

In the early years of Field Instruction, the Field experience at the undergraduate

level was distinguished from that at the graduate level in three major aspects: (1) the

student at the undergraduate experience was learning about Social Work, what its goals

are, its operations and problems, rather than acquiring skills in how to practice Social

Work; (2) the field work experience was to train students to observe and gather

meaningful information about social services rather than developing their skills to

become practitioners: and (3) the time required for field experience was considerably less

than in the graduate level, which was 1000 hours. But now, Social Work Field Instruction

at the undergraduate level is already 1,000 hours, and the students are given greater

opportunities to integrate theory and practice in a generalist model and prepare them for

direct Social Work practice.

Meanwhile, the University of the Philippines College of Social Work and

Community Development praxis is anchored on people’s participation and

empowerment, personal and social transformation, solidarity with marginalized groups,

and gender-responsiveness. Its pursuit of academic excellence rests on integration of

theory and practice, and is infused with passionate scholarship, critical thinking,

innovativeness and creativity.

The University of the Philippines also has a number of Social Work practitioners

who now assume sensitive and highly specialized functions and responsibilities in both

government and non-government institutions. Their undergraduate training has been

circumscribed to a generalist practice orientation. (http//cswcd.upd.edu.ph/index.php?

option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=1)

The Field Instruction Learning Goals of the University of the Philippines are as

follows:

1. to analyze issues, concepts, principles and processes related to social welfare

policy formulation and implementation;

2. to apply skills in influencing policy development; and

3. to use appropriate strategies in the analysis, formulation and implementation of

plans and programs within and outside the agency.

The students start earning their field work hours in their third year either in a

concurrent or a block placement model. (http://cswcd.upd.edu.ph/index.php?

option=com_content&task=view&id=56&Itemid=1)

In University of Mindanao, the subjects: Social Work and Social Legislation (SW

37), Project and Resource Management in Social Work (SW 42), and Helping Process

and Approaches in Working with Communities (SW 44) must first be completed by the

students before they are qualified to enroll the Field Instruction Program. Their

curriculum has four field instruction courses; the first one which is taken during the

summer of the junior year is a three-unit course. On the first semester of the senior year,

Field Instructions 2 and 3 – which are five units each are offered. Then at the last

semester, only a 2.5 unit Field practice was offered together with the subjects: career and

personality development (Caed 500b), seminar in Social Work (SW 43), Human

Behavior and Social Environment (SW 54), Social Welfare Policies and Programs (SW

55), and Social Work Methods (SW 58). (http//www.umindanao.edu.ph/index.php?

com=com_content&id=154)

At the Centro Escolar University, the first semester of field work is called Field

Observation. The goal is to enable the student to gain an understanding of the social

environment where his potential clients live as discussed in the classroom. This is done

through actual observation of the activities of public and private agencies in the

community which develop awareness of the available resources, problems and needs of

the people in the community. The students assist Social Workers by visiting homes of

clients, attending case conferences, participating in other activities that offer them

learning experiences. These activities are correlated with their Social Work subjects

during the semester such as interviewing and recording, social case work and social

group work. (Report on the 2nd National Workshop on Social Work Education, July 17-

19, 1968).

Related Studies

Foreign

Hepworth and Larsen, in their study entitled “Enhancing the effectiveness of

practicum instruction: An Empirical Study” (1982) revealed that students taught under

the competency-based/task-centered methods of practicum instruction performed at a

higher overall level of competence and had more confidence in their skills than those

taught under the traditional method. (http//www.task-centered.com/larsen82htm).

Furthermore, the study of Mofatt (1977) which used the task-centered model in a student

unit in a general medical practice in Australia found positive reactions from the clients,

referral sources, and students. (www.task-centered.com/moffatr.htm)

Meanwhile, the study of Hepworth and Larsen (1982) also revealed that practice

instructors play a strategic role in assisting students gain the competence essential to

effective practice. However, according to Caspi (1997) practicum teaching methods are

rarely clearly structured. Furthermore, there are few approaches that operationalize

principles of quality field education. Although field instructors are responsible for

assisting students learning, there is a paucity of models with detailed guidelines that

structure the field instruction process and offer methods for achieving practicum

objectives. As such, many practicum instructors educate using a personal, often

unstructured approach to supervision raising concerns about accountability and quality

field instruction. His study entitled “The Task-Centered Model for Field Instruction”

aimed to gain insight into the task-centered model for field instruction performance. Data

collection strategies included interviews, critical incident reports, contracts, a self-

evaluation instrument, audio taped supervision meetings, and interpersonal process recall.

Findings were used to modify and improve the model. The result is a refined model, with

step-by-step guidelines, ready for application and further testing. (www.nhf.com/html/lib/

umi/1997.htm)

Local

An assessment of the concurrent Social Work field instruction program of St. Paul

University was conducted by Melida Tomas in 1999. The respondents were the social

work graduates from the school year 1981 to 1986. It found out that the objectives of the

program and all the activities under working with individuals, groups, communities and

supervision and training were all perceived by the respondents as very good.

The supervisors were also found to be effective in performing their role and

imparting to the graduates or respective supervisees the knowledge, skills and attitude to

become Social Work practitioners. However, the field supervisors do not possess

adequate educational qualifications expected of a supervisor. (Tomas, 1999)

Meanwhile, Editha Pagulayan conducted a study entitled, “Bachelor of Science in

Social Work of St. Paul University Philippines: An Appraisal” in 1992. On area of Field

Instruction, it found out that the ratio of students to faculty was very limited.

Furthermore, the conditions prevailing in Field Instruction were viewed as moderately

extensive. Dialogues between and among the agency supervisor, faculty of department of

Social Work and the students are found quite irregular or unsatisfactory.

Also, the extent of how the institution is meeting the requirements for Social

Work laboratories, like varied social welfare agencies, the competence and

responsiveness of social welfare agencies’ staff in assisting were considered as

moderately extensive. (Pagulayan, 1992)

The study also revealed that there is a need to designate a Field Instruction

coordinator with the corresponding remuneration and convenient schedule so that a more

systematic planning, organizing and supervising field placement of the students can be

done.

The study also found out the coordination between community involvement and

instructional schedules of students is quite unsatisfactory.

A survey presented in the 1999 Convention of the National Association of Social

Work Education Inc. among nine schools highlighted the problems usually encountered

in Field Instruction. These problems are: very limited agencies with licensed Social

Workers, supervisors who could not communicate or facilitate effective learning,

inadequate supervision by some agency Field Instructors, no specific work area

designated for students, personality conflict with the supervisor, lack of time for

supervision, students’ weak facility for expression, poor documentation of experiences,

limited budget; minimal travel allowance for Field Instruction. They also presented the

following solutions: conduct an agency supervisors’ training, dialogues, set concrete

guidelines, students advised to consult with their Agency Field Supervisors (AFS)

regularly or as the need arises, requested the agency or the Barangay officials to provide a

place for field instruction, supervisors should understand and do their job, maximize

consultations, recommend school follow-up of communications; screening of students,

and required field instruction fees (BOR Res. No. 11S. 1997)

Conceptual Framework

Like many other professionals, the Social Worker is more of a technologist than a

scientist. The Social Worker draws on knowledge related to social conditions and

problems, social policies and programs, social phenomena, the Social Work profession,

and various practice theories in order to facilitate the process of change. Students are

expected to upkeep themselves with these knowledge in the fieldwork placements and

throughout their professional lives as Social Workers in the future. The Social Worker is

expected to be a competent professional, which means much more than possessing

knowledge of practice theory. Competent practitioners must be able to transform

knowledge into action.

In Social Work, it is not possible to separate theory from practice or concept from

action. In fact, practice is the process of using knowledge and applying theory in order to

bring about specific types of change. A practice uninformed by theory tends to become

repetitive and sterile, whereas theory uninformed by the realities of practice tends to be

merely interesting and usually irrelevant. This is why Field Instruction Program is

essentially included in every Social Work curriculum. It is through this course that

students are given an opportunity to experience, test out, match, apply and integrate

theories and concepts learned from the classroom. It enables students to develop the skills

and techniques of social work practice. It is where students move from "knowing" and

"understanding" to actual "doing." Undoubtedly, the Field Instruction Program was

considered as the “core of Social Work education”. (National Association of Social Work

Education Inc.,)

It is important therefore that the quality of the program be assured through

assessment. Assessment is a basic condition for the development and improvement of an

existing system or program. It is a process in which the strengths and weaknesses of a

system or program are discovered and analyzed. Analysis of these strengths and

weaknesses may reveal the extent of the system or program effectiveness in the

attainment of the goals and objectives of an organization and at this point, innovation and

corrective policy guidelines should be immediately formulated.

Light and Smith advocated assessment to be established in on-going program

development and should not be treated as a separate endeavor from program as usually

practiced.

Assessment is inevitable. It provides sound evidence of the effectiveness or

failure of a system or program. It encourages innovative introduction of new procedures

to further improve and strengthen such system and program.

Not distinct from any other programs, the Field Instruction Program, as

mentioned a while ago, also needs to be continuously assessed in order to reassure that its

goals are being met and that it goes with the thrust of the Social Work Program which is

to prepare the students for competent, direct Social Work practice in any setting and

develop the students into responsible and useful members of the society. Furthermore,

assessment of the Field Instruction Program would open doors for innovation and

improvement.

Paradigm of the Study

INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT
1. Field Instruction
Program
Goals and objectives
activities Recommendations for
supervisors' role Assessment of the a more responsive,
performance
Field Instruction and comprehensive, and
2. The influence on the
students’ professional its influence of the effective Field
development students’ professional Instruction program
2.1 Knowledge development for social work
2.2 Attitude students
2.3 Skills

Feedback

Figure 1

The paradigm shows that through assessment of the program goals and objectives,

activities, and its influence on the students’ professional development, the researchers

could be able to come up with recommendations for a more responsive, comprehensive,

and effective Field Instruction Program for the Social Work students which will lead to

quality Social Work Graduates.

Statement of the Problem

This study aims to assess the Block Placement Field Instruction Program of the

Social Work Department of St. Paul University Philippines. Specifically, it attempted to

answer the following questions:

1. To what extent are the following components of the Field Instruction met in terms of:

1.1 Learning goals and objectives;

1.2 Activities;

1.2.1. Working with individuals;

1.2.2. Working with groups;

1.2.3. Working with communities; and

1.2.4. Supervision and training.

2. What influence on the following has the Field Instruction program had upon the

students’ professional formation/development?

2.1. Knowledge

2.2. Attitude

2.3. Skills

3. How effective was the role performance of the Field Supervisors as perceived by the

respondents in terms of the following:

3.1 Administrative roles;

3.2 Teaching roles; and

3.3 Enabling roles

4. How relevant to the respondents are the perceived suggestions to further improve the

field instruction program of the Social Work Department?

5. Is there a significant difference between the perception of the three groups of

respondents on the extent to which the learning goals and objectives, and activities are

met?

6. Is there a significant difference between the perceptions of the three groups of

respondents regarding the influence field instruction had on the development of students'

Social Work knowledge, attitudes and skills?

7. Is there a significant difference between the perception of the Social Work graduates

and barangay officials in the role performance of the supervisors?

8. Is there a significant difference on respondents' perception on the relevance of the

suggestions to improve the field instruction program?

Hypotheses

This study aimed to determine if there exist significant differences on the

respondents’ perception on the components of the Block Placement Field Instruction

Program of the Social Work Department.

1. There is no significance difference in the perception of the three groups of

respondents on the extent to which the learning goals and objectives, and

activities are met.

2. There is no significant difference between the perceptions of the three groups

of respondents regarding the influence field instruction had on the

development of students' Social Work knowledge, attitudes and skills.

3. There is no significant difference between the perception of the Social Work

graduates and barangay officials in the role performance of the supervisors.

4. There is no significant difference on respondents' perception on the relevance

of the suggestions to improve the field instruction program.

Significance of the Study

This study endeavored to assess the Field Instruction Program of the Social Work

curriculum.

Specifically, the researchers are conducting this study to serve the following

purposes:

For the Social Work Department. This study could provide information regarding

the effectiveness of the Field Instruction program which could serve as their basis in

decision-making, program enhancement and/or planning, and formulation of new policies

towards a Field Instruction Program that is more comprehensive and responsive to both

the needs of the students and of their clients. The findings of this study will also urge

them to integrate more practical and workable teaching strategies that will help prepare

the students to fully face the actual work.

For the Field Supervisors. This study will enable them to know whether they and

their agency are able to meet the standards of the Field Instruction Program, and urge

them to make necessary actions for improvement.

For the Practicum Students. Assuring the quality of the Field Instruction program

will contribute greatly into its responsiveness and effectiveness for the students’ training

needs. Thus, helping the students become more competent and well-equipped in their

future career.

For the Future Researchers. This study will serve as their reference for similar or

related studies they are conducting.

Scope and Limitations

This study concentrated on the assessing the Block Placement Field Instruction

Program of the Social Work Department of St. Paul University Philippines from the

Academic Year 2003- 2004 to 2008- 2009. First, it looked into what extent the goals,

objectives, and activities in the Field Instruction Program were met. Second, it assessed

the extent of influence it had on the students’ professional development in three aspects

namely their Social Work knowledge, attitudes, and skills. Third, it assessed the role

performance of the Field Supervisors. Lastly, it looked into the relevance of the perceived

suggestions to further improve the Field Instruction program.

Definition of Terms

The following terms were enumerated and defined to provide clear understanding

of the study.

Agency. The social welfare agency which has been set up by the government or a

group of concerned citizens to deal with the social, economic, personal problem of

individual human beings who are experiencing some problems in the management of

their personal lives. (Leonora de Guzman, 1992)

Block Placement Field Instruction Program. It is the Field Instruction Program

implemented by the Social Work Department of SPUP wherein all major subjects in

Social Work have been first completed before they enroll in Field Instruction.

Field Instruction. It pertains to an educational process (Leonora de Guzman,

1992) where the student is placed in a particular social welfare agency setting to integrate

and apply Social Work theory as well as principles of practice into actual situations,

where the student develops his competence as a professional social worker. It is one of

the four major curricular areas in professional Social Work education. (Manual for Field

Instruction)

Field Instructor. This refers to a qualified Social Worker who focuses on giving

theoretical inputs that would guide the students in their practicum.

Field Supervisor. This refers to a qualified social worker in the field/ agency

designated to carry out the responsibility for the work and learning process of a Social

Work student undertaking his field practicum. A supervisor is a licensed Social Worker

who has had adequate experience in Field practice.

Social Work Practice. The professional application of social work value,

principles, methods and techniques to one or more of the following objective and goals:

to help people obtain tangible services, counseling and psychotherapy with individual,

families and groups; help groups and communities provided on their own or with external

assistance in their economic condition, facilitate and enable people to become more

economically productive and be involved in participating in the community and local

affairs, especially those that affect them directly (Ronnie, Hepworth and Larsen, 1997).

Chapter 2

METHODS

This chapter describes how this study was conducted. It presents a description of the

research design used, the respondents of the study, research instrument used, sampling

technique, data gathering procedures, and statistical treatment of data.

Research Design

This study made use of the descriptive-survey method of research to gather and

describe the perceptions/assessments of the respondents on the Block Placement field

instruction program of the Social Work department.

Respondents

To be able to assess the Block Placement Field Instruction Program objectives,

goals, activities; determine the level of its influence on the professional development of

the students in terms of knowledge, attitudes, and skills; and the relevance of perceived

suggestions for the further improvement of the program, the Social Work Graduates of

St. Paul University Philippines from the Academic Year 2003-2004 to 2008- 2009, the

Field Supervisors, and the Barangay officials in Barangay Estefania, Amulung were

chosen as the respondents. In assessing the role performance of the Field Supervisors,

only the Social Work graduates and officials of Barangay Amulung (community where

the students from batch 2004-2008 had their field practicum) were the chosen as the

respondents. The respondents were determined using the convenient sampling technique.

Instrumentation

Questionnaires were used as data-gathering instrument.

The questionnaires are based on the evaluation tool in the Block Placement Field

Instruction Manual and on the one used by Tomas (1999). Other items on the

questionnaire were also formulated by the researchers basing on the concepts in Social

Work practice.

The questionnaire consists of three parts: the first part was used to rate the extent

to which the goals, objectives and activities of the field instruction program were met. It

contains 36 questions which are rated using the scale of 1-5 from “least extent” to “very

great extent”.

The second part has 55 items that evaluates the influence of the program to the

students’ professional knowledge, attitude and skills. The scale used in the first part of

the questionnaire was also used.

The third part on the other hand, assesses the role performance of the supervisors

using the 1- 5 scale from “very effective” to “very ineffective”.

Data Gathering Procedure

The researchers made a letter addressed to the Head of the University Registrar,

Dr. Rosalinda Tanguilan, requesting for a list of the Social Work graduates from

Academic Year 2003- 2004 to 2008- 2009. The researchers personally floated the

questionnaires to the respondents. Some of the questionnaires were also sent through e-

mail. This is because some of the respondents are already employed in the different parts

of the country.

The data gathered were tabulated and analyzed to come up with accurate results in

response to the research problems.

Data Analysis

The following statistical tools were used in the analysis and interpretation of data

collected.

1. Frequency and percentage Count. This was utilized to present the number of

respondents and their percentage distribution per academic year;

2. Weighted Mean. This was used to determine the average responses of the

respondents as to their evaluation of the Block Placement Field Instruction

program; and

3. (Analysis of Variance) ANOVA. This was also used to determine if there are

significant differences on the perceptions of the three groups of respondents as

to their evaluation of the Block Placement Field Instruction program.

To evaluate the extent to which the learning goals and objectives, and activities of

the Field Instruction Program are met, the researchers used the following arbitrary scale:

Scale Descriptive Interpretation

4.20- 5.00 Very Great Extent

3.4 - 4.19 Great Extent

2.6 - 3.39 Moderate Extent

1.8 - 2.59 Little Extent

1.0 - 1.79 Least Extent

To determine the influence on the knowledge, attitude, and skills that the Field

Instruction Program had upon the students’ professional formation or development, the

researchers used the following arbitrary scale:


4.20- 5.00 Very Great Extent

3.4 - 4.19 Great Extent

2.6 - 3.39 Moderate Extent

1.8 - 2.59 Little Extent

1.0 - 1.79 Least Extent

To assess the role performance of the field supervisors, the arbitrary scale below

was used:

4.20- 5.00 Very Effective

3.4 - 4.19 Highly Effective

2.6 - 3.39 Effective

1.8 - 2.59 ineffective

1.0 - 1.79 very ineffective

To determine the relevance of the perceived suggestions for the improvement of the

Block Placement Field Instruction Program, the researchers used the following arbitrary

scale:


4.19- 5.00 Very Much Relevant

3.4 - 4.19 Much Relevant

2.6 - 3.39 Moderately Relevant

1.8 - 2.59 Fairly Relevant

1.0 - 1.79 Not Relevant

Chapter 3

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents, analyzes and interprets the data gathered from the

respondents.

1. Frequency and percentage count of the respondents

Table 1

Frequency Count and Percentage Distribution of Respondents

Type of Respondent Frequenc Percentage
y

SOCIAL WORK GRADUATES
AY 2003-2004 3 6.66 %

AY 2004-2005 5 11.11 %

AY 2005-2006 2 4.44 %

AY 2006-2007 3 6.66 %

AY 2007-2008 2 4.44 %

AY 2008-2009 10 22.22 %

Barangay officials 10 22.22%

Supervisors 10 22.22%

TOTAL 45 100%

Table 1 shows that the Social Work graduates have the highest percentage in the

total number of respondents with 55.56%. The Barangay officials and supervisors are

equal in number, each of which is 10.

2. The extent to which learning goals and objectives of the field instruction program were
met

Table 2.1.

Mean and descriptive interpretation of the respondents' perception on the extent to which
learning goals and objectives of the field instruction program are met

Mean and Descriptive Interpretation Over-all
Mean and
Item Social Supervisors Barangay
Descriptive
Work officials
Interpretation
Graduates

1. To provide the students 4.54 4.2 4.4 4.38
with the opportunities to
integrate the theory and Very Great Very Great Very Great Very Great
practice under supervision. Extent Extent Extent Extent

2. To assist the students in 4.54 4.2 4.5 4.41
acquiring an understanding
of the realities in practice Very Great Very Great Very Great Very Great
and in assessing his own Extent Extent Extent Extent
fitness for social work

3. To enhance the students’ 4.56 4 4.4 4.32
development of practice
skills that will prepare him Very Great Great Very Great Very Great
for competent practice Extent Extent Extent Extent

4. To develop a 4.54 4 4.43 4.32
commitment in serving
others and in the creation of Very Great Great Very Great Very Great
a just society Extent Extent Extent Extent

5. Develop a critical 4.38 4 4.4 4.26
awareness of the different
issues through her/his Very Great Great Very Great Very Great
exposure to existing Extent Extent Extent Extent
economic, political, socio-
cultural reality situations

6. To develop appreciation 4.62 4.3 4.5 4.47
of the social work
profession. Very Great Very Great Very Great Very Great
Extent Extent Extent Extent

Categorical Mean 4.51 4.12 4.42 4.35

Very Great Great Very Great Very Great

Table 2.1 shows that all the goals and objectives of the field instruction program,

as perceived by the Social Work graduates and barangay officials were met to a "very

great extent". Both the Social Work graduates and barangay officials gave it a categorical

rating of 4.51 and 4.42 respectively. The Field Supervisors had a lower rating of 4.12

with a descriptive interpretation of “great extent”. Specifically, items 3, 4 and 5 got

“great extent” ratings from the supervisors. This implies a difference on the level of

expectations of the supervisors as to how goals and objectives of the Field Instruction

program were being attained.

Even so, it garnered an over-all mean of 4.35 interpreted as “very great extent”

which implies that all of the goals and objectives of the Block Placement Field

Instruction Program were successfully attained.

3. The extent to which Activities on the Field Instruction Program were met

3.1. Working with individuals

Table 3.1

Mean and descriptive interpretation as to the extent to which activities on working with
individuals were being met

Item Mean and Descriptive Interpretation Overall Mean
and
Social Work Supervisors Barangay Descriptive
Graduates Officials Interpretation

1. Home visits and Collateral 4.58 4.5 4.5 4.53
interviews
Very Great Very Great Very Great Very Great

2. Making Case studies 4.75 4.5 4.3 4.52


3. Counseling 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2


4. Observing/conducting 4.08 3.6 4.2 3.96
therapy sessions
Very Great Great Very Great Great Extent
Extent Extent Extent

5. Referral works 4.17 4.2 4.4 4.26

Great Extent Very Great Very Great Very Great

6. Intake interviews 4.5 4.6 4.4 4.5


7. Documentation 4.54 4.3 4.5 4.45


8. Case Presentations 4.5 4.3 4.4 4.4

a.) flow and organization Very Great Very Great Very Great Very Great
of the presentation Extent Extent Extent Extent

b.) Facilities and
equipments used (conference
room, use of technology, visual
aids, handouts, etc.)

9. Case Management 4.46 4.4 4.43 4.39




Table 3.1 shows that eight (8) activities under working with individuals were

perceived met at a "very great extent". Only item number 4 was perceived as being met to

a "great extent". It could also be noted that the supervisors gave item number 4 the lowest

rating of 3.6. This is supported by the fact that therapy sessions are usually conducted in

settings that serve groups of clientele whose problems are emotional and psychological

and at the same time, confidential in nature. An example is the Reception and Study

Center for Children and Regional Haven for Women and the agency's Social Workers or

Field Supervisors rarely endorse the holding of therapy sessions to the students.

3.2. Working with groups

Table 3.2

groups were being met

Item Mean and Descriptive Interpretation Overall mean and
Descriptive
Social Work Supervisors Barangay
Interpretation
graduates officials

1. Interviewing 4.79 4.3 4.4 4.50

Very Great Very Great Very Great Very Great Extent

2.Facilitating of group 4.58 3.7 4.5 4.26
sessions/ meetings
Very Great Great Very Great Very Great Extent

3.Assisting groups in 4.58 3.8 4.3 4.23
problem-solving


4. Organizing/ 4.45 3.8 4.6 4.28
conducting trainings
seminars, Workshops Very Great Great Very Great Very Great Extent

5.Organizing group 4.42 3.8 4.6 4.27
members

6.Tapping of 4.17 3.7 4.4 4.09
resources
Great Extent Great Very Great Great Extent
Extent Extent

Categorical mean 4.5 3.85 4.47 4.35


As presented in table 3.2, five (5) out of the six (6) activities under working with

groups were generally perceived by the respondents as met at a "Very Great Extent".

Only one of the items- the tapping of resources- was perceived as being met at a "Great

Extent", specifically by the Social Work graduates and Field Supervisors. This could be

attributed to the limited sanctions given to the students in welfare agencies to link with

resources. It could also be noted that 5 out of the 6 items rated as “very great extent” by

the students and barangay officials were rated only as "Great Extent" by the supervisors.

3.3 Working with Communities

Table 3.3

communities were being met

and
Social work Supervisors Barangay
Descriptive
graduates officials
Interpretation

1. Conducting 4.42 3.9 4.5 4.27
community surveys
Very Great Great Extent Very Great Very Great

2. Helping 4.5 3.6 4.3 4.13
communities
identify, assess and Very Great Great Extent Very Great Great Extent
solve problems Extent Extent

3. Strengthening 4.38 3.7 4.6 4.23
community groups
and structures Very Great Great Extent Very Great Very Great

4. Creating/ 4.42 3.5 4.2 4.04
organizing new
groups Very Great Great Extent Very Great Great Extent
Extent Extent

5. Identifying and 4.25 3.8 4.3 4.12
developing potential
leaders Very Great Great Extent Very Great Great Extent
Extent Extent

6. Building linkages 4.33 3.7 4.2 4.08
with agencies and
institutions outside Very Great Great Extent Very Great Great Extent
the community Extent Extent

7. Mobilizing 4.42 3.8 4.2 4.14
community Very Great
resources Very Great Great Extent Extent Great Extent
Extent

8. Use of the three 4.58 3.8 4.2 4.19
community
organization models Very Great Great Extent Very Great Great Extent
Extent Extent
a.) Community
development

b.) Social
planning

c.) Social action


Very Great Great Extent Very Great Great Extent
Extent Extent

Table 3.3 shows that six (6) out of the eight (8) activities given under working

with communities are met to a "great extent" while only two (2) items were rated as met

at a "very great extent". Most of the items were rated as only "great extent". This result is

supported by the reason that the standard duration of working with communities is 5

years and the Practicumers are fielded in the community for only 500 hours which

implies that the complexity of the community system along with the duration of Field

Placement makes it a little difficult to meet the activities at a very great extent.

Nevertheless, the activities in working with communities are still generally perceived as

met to a "Great extent" with an overall mean of 4.18. This may be attributed to the

students' immersion in the community. Moreover, since block placement Field

Instruction requires that all major subjects should have been finished first before it could

be enrolled in, the students already have more time to focus on their Field Practicum thus,

it was perceived still as met at a "great extent".

It is again noted that the Social Work graduates and barangay officials rated all of

the items as met at a “very great extent” while the supervisors rated all as met only at a

“great extent”.

3.4. Supervision and Training

Table 3.4

Mean and Descriptive interpretation of the respondents' perception as to the extent to
which activities on Supervision and Training were being met

Item Mean and Descriptive Interpretation Over All Mean
and Descriptive
Graduates Supervisors Barangay
Interpretation
Officials

1. Organizing and 4.42 4.2 4.4 4.34
conducting
seminars/ training Very Great Very Great Very Great Very Great

2.Tapping of 4.25 4.1 4.1 4.15
resource system
Very Great Great Extent Great Extent Great Extent
Extent

3. Mobilizing 4.25 3.9 4.2 4.12
inner resources
Extent Extent

4. Imparting 4.45 4.2 4.4 4.35
knowledge and
skills through Very Great Very Great Very Great Very Great
trainings and Extent Extent Extent Extent
seminars

5. Using 4.5 4.3 4.3 4.36
supervisory and
administrative Very Great Very Great Very Great Very Great
skills Extent Extent Extent Extent

a.) Planning

b.) Organizing

c.) Coordinating

d.) Directing

e.) Controlling

f.)Communicating



Table 3.4 shows that items 1, 4, and 5 were perceived by the respondents as being

met at a "very great extent". However, two of the items were perceived as met only at a

"great extent". These items are tapping of resource system and mobilization of inner

resources. This could be attributed to the fact that since students are fielded in depressed,

deprived and underserved communities, mobilization of resources is being hampered by

the limited resources in the area. Furthermore, no Social Welfare agency has the

monopoly of programs and services for all client needs. Bureaucratic processes in

agencies where outside resources could be tapped also made it a little difficult to tap

resources at a very great extent. Even so, both items were still perceived as met at a

"great extent".

Generally, the Social Work graduates and Barangay officials perceived activities

under working with communities as met at a “very great extent” while the supervisors

rated lower at 4.14 interpreted as “great extent”.

Table 3.5

Summary table on the Mean and descriptive interpretation of the respondents' perception
as to the extent to which activities of the block placement field instruction program are
met

and
Social Work Field Barangay Descriptive
Graduates Supervisors Officials Interpretation

Working with 4.42 4.29 4.36 4.36
individuals

Working with groups 4.5 3.85 4.47 4.35


Working with 4.41 3.73 4.41 4.18
communities
Extent Extent

Administration and 4.38 4.14 4.28 4.27
Supervision

Three of the four activities in the block placement field instruction program were

rated as met to a “Very Great Extent” by the respondents. As shown in the table above,

working with individuals had the highest weighted mean of 4.36, next are working with

groups and administration and supervision, both having general weighted mean of 4.28.

Working with communities got the lowest weighted mean of 4.18 with a descriptive

interpretation of “great extent”.

4. Influence of the block placement field instruction program on the students’
professional development

1.1. Knowledge

Table 4.1

Mean and descriptive interpretation as to the influence of the Field Instruction program
on the students' professional knowledge

and Descriptive
Social Field Barangay
Interpretation
work Supervisors officials
graduates

1. Social welfare agencies, 4.5 4 4.2 4.23
programs, services,
structure, functions, and Very Great Great Extent Very Great Very Great
procedures. Extent Extent Extent

2. Nature of the clientele 4.5 4 4.2 4.23
system and problem
situation Very Great Great Extent Very Great Very Great

3.Documentation and 4.58 3.7 4.3 4.19
process recording
Extent Extent

4. Internal and external 4.33 3.9 4.2 4.14
resources (NGO’s, GO’s,
PO ) Very Great Great Extent Very Great Great Extent
Extent Extent

5. Research 4.25 3.4 4.3 3.98

Extent Extent

6. Principles of leadership 4.33 3.9 4.4 4.21


7. Community values 4.33 3.8 4.3 4.14

Extent Extent

8. Meeting community 4.17 4.1 4.3 4.19
procedures
Great Great Extent Very Great Great Extent
Extent Extent

9. Problem-solving process 4.33 4 4.2 4.18

Extent Extent

10. Goal and objective 4.54 4.1 4.2 4.28
setting

11. Management and 4.33 3.8 4.4 4.18
program implementation
Extent Extent

12. Techniques in assessing 4.45 3.8 4.3 4.18
programs and activities
Extent Extent

13. Situational realities 4.25 4 4.3 4.18

Extent Extent

14. Current trusts, issues, 4.54 3.9 4.2 4.21
and trends

15. Roles and contributions 4.45 3.9 4.4 4.25
of social work profession
in national development Very Great Great Extent Very Great Very Great

16. Clearer 4.54 3.9 4.3 4.25
view/perspective on the
roles performed by social Very Great Great Extent Very Great Very Great
workers in different Extent Extent Extent
settings


Extent Extent

As shown in table 4.1, seven (7) out of the sixteen (16) items were rated by the

respondents as having “very great extent” of influence on the knowledge of the students.

It has an overall mean of 4.19 interpreted as “great extent”. It could also be noted that all

except one of the items were rated as “great extent” by the Field Supervisors. This is only

manifested by the fact that classroom discussions are rarely held as the students enroll in

Field Instruction.

4.2. Attitudes

Table 4.2

to the students' professional attitudes

Item Mean Overall
Mean
Social work Field Barangay
graduates Supervisors officials

1. Demonstrate conscious 4.38 4.3 4.4 4.36
and disciplined use of
professional self Very Great Very Great Very Great Very Great

2. Identification with the 4.33 4.3 4.4 4.34
philosophies, principles,
values, and ethics of the Very Great Very Great Very Great Very Great
social work profession Extent Extent Extent Extent

3. Recognize and use 4.33 4.2 4.3 4.28
student role as learner

4. Appreciate working in a 4.58 4.2 4.2 4.33
given structure


5. Acceptance of the 4.54 4.2 4.5 4.41
nature of the clientele

6. Acceptance of the 4.67 4.1 4.5 4.42
nature of their work and
his role in national Very Great Great Extent Very Great Very Great
development Extent Extent Extent

7. Appreciation for 4.67 4 4.4 4.36
writing recording and
documentation Very Great Great Extent Very Great Very Great

8. Appreciation of the 4.67 4 4.5 4.39
value of research in a
given community Very Great Great Extent Very Great Very Great

9. Willingness to involve 4.58 4.1 4.5 4.39
and commit oneself to
clients and assigned cases Very Great Great Extent Very Great Very Great

10. Willingness and 4.67 4.1 4.5 4.42
resourcefulness to
identify, create, mobilize, Very Great Great Extent Very Great Very Great
and utilize resources Extent Extent Extent

11. Positive attitude 4.71 4.1 4.3 4.37
towards continuous
reflection to improve Very Great Great Extent Very Great Very Great
performance; willingness Extent Extent Extent
to improve performance
considering suggestions
raised

12. Flexibility and 4.63 4.3 4.3 4.41
adaptability

13. Being courteous and 4.58 4.4 4.2 4.39
respectful to others

14. Sensitive to individual 4.71 4.3 4.3 4.44
needs and feelings ( to
client, staff, co-field Very Great Very Great Very Great Very Great
workers) Extent Extent Extent Extent

15. Punctuality and 4.5 4.2 4.2 4.3
attendance

16. Unceasing 4.67 4.4 4.2 4.42
commitment and
enthusiasm Very Great Very Great Very Great Very Great

17. Patience, perseverance 4.71 4.3 4.3 4.44
and willingness to take
chances/ risks/ challenges Very Great Very Great Very Great Very Great

18. Display the ability to 4.63 4.3 4.3 4.41
use supervision in
learning Very Great Very Great Very Great Very Great



Table 4.2 shows that the impact of the block placement field instruction program

on the students' professional attitude is at a "very great extent" with an overall mean of

4.38 as perceived by the three groups of respondents. This result implies that the students

were being guided by the rules and policies stipulated in the Block Placement Field

Instruction manual in terms of student demeanor. It could also be inferred from the data

that supervisors and instructors also give importance and attention to the upholding of

Social Work values, principles and ethics in Field Practicum.

4.3 skills

Table 4.3

on the students' professional skills

Item Mean Overall
Mean
Social work Field Barangay
graduates Supervisors officials

1. Ability to establish rapport 4.71 4.2 4.2 4.37


2. Ability in interviewing 4.63 4.2 4.2 4.34


3. Ability to use existing written 4.54 4.1 4.3 4.31
materials (eg. records, reports)

4. Ability to organize, analyze, 4.63 3.8 4.1 4.18
and interpret data gathered
Very Great Great Great Great

5. Ability to formulate 4.75 4 4.2 4.32
diagnostic assessments, and
treatment plans Very Great Great Very Great Very Great

6. Ability to identify appropriate 4.63 3.9 4.3 4.28
strategies and intervention

7. Ability to identify, match, 4.42 4 4.3 4.24

and utilize resources Very Great Great Very Great Very Great

8. Skill in preparing evaluation 4.54 4 4.4 4.31
guide. Ability to assess whether
goals/ objectives are achieved Very Great Great Very Great Very Great

9. Ability to deliver practical 4.58 4.3 4.4 4.43
services; ability to utilize
programs and services of the Very Great Very Great Very Great Very Great
agency. Extent Extent Extent Extent

10. Ability to sustain interest 4.75 4.4 4.3 4.48
and zeal of clients to attaining
set objectives; skill in Very Great Very Great Very Great Very Great
encouraging, involving, Extent Extent Extent Extent
facilitating participation of the
clients

11. Skill in dealing with the 4.63 4.2 4.3 4.38
clients’ feelings

12. Skill in making referrals 4.42 4.1 4.3 4.27


13. Skill in identifying, 4.5 3.9 4.3 4.23
utilizing, and redirecting forces
in the group Very Great Great Very Great Very Great

14. Ability to function within 4.5 4.1 4.5 4.37
the agency structure

15. Ability to interpret programs 4.5 4 4.5 4.33
and services to client system

16. Skill in recording and 4.71 4.1 4.3 4.37
documentation


17. Ability to establish linkages 4.46 4.1 4.3 4.29
with GO’s and NGO’s

18. Ability to give and receive 4.5 4.1 4.1 4.22
suggestions and
recommendations for further Very Great Great Great Very Great
directions. Extent Extent Extent Extent

19. Ability to terminate the 4.5 4.2 4.1 4.27
helping relationship

20. Skills in the analysis and 4.46 3.9 4.3 4.22
development of social policy
and services by knowing the Very Great Great Very Great Very Great
structure of the program, its Extent Extent Extent Extent
history, relationship to other
programs and the political
process and means to affect
change.

21. Ability to apply strategies of 4.41 3.9 4.4 4.24
advocacy and social change that
advance social and economic Very Great Great Very Great Very Great
justice Extent Extent Extent Extent



Table 4.3 shows that 20 out of 21 Social Work skills were generally perceived by

the respondents as being influenced by Field Instruction Program at a “very great extent”.

Only item number 4 which is the “ability to organize, analyze and interpret data

gathered” had the lowest overall mean of 4.18 interpreted as great extent.

Thesis 3 j en

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Thesis 3 j en

Similar to Thesis 3 j en (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Thesis 3 j en