Close
Logo
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected 
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
 Click here to refresh results
 Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Addressing first year Master of Social Work students' preparedness for field education: A gap analysis approach
(USC Thesis Other) 

Addressing first year Master of Social Work students' preparedness for field education: A gap analysis approach

doctype icon
play button
PDF
 Download
 Share
 Open document
 Flip pages
 More
 Summarize
 Download a page range
 Download transcript
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content Running head: FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  



ADDRESSING FIRST YEAR MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK STUDENTS’ PREPAREDNESS
FOR FIELD EDUCATION: A GAP ANALYSIS APPROACH

by

Umeka E’Lan Franklin
           


A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION


August 2018



Copyright 2018        Umeka E. Franklin

 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  2


Acknowledgements  
I would like to first thank God for the many blessings bestowed upon me to achieve the
feat of completing the doctoral program.  I would like to extend a heartfelt thank you, to my
husband, who has earned the title, “Dr. Husband” as he has always and continues to be extremely
supportive of my career and academic endeavors.  Without his support and guidance, earning this
degree would not have been possible.  
To my children, Delano, Dakota, and Dorian, thank you for being so understanding and
supportive of my journey in earning my Doctorate degree.  
I would like to thank my mother, Anita Robinson, who has instilled in me the importance
of education since I was a child and has always believed in me.  
I would like to thank a host of family, friends, colleagues, and church family that have
provided a word of encouragement, inspiration, and prayer support.
I would like to express sincere gratitude and thanks to my Dissertation Co-Chair,
Dr. Kenneth A. Yates for providing me with such excellent support, guidance, and knowledge as
I pressed through the dissertation process.  
I would also like to thank my Dissertation Co-Chair, Dr. Melora Sundt, for providing
great encouragement, support, and knowledge relative to the gap analysis dissertation.  
In addition, I thank my Committee Member, Dr. Stephen P. Hydon, for your tips,
wisdom, and professional guidance.
 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  3


Table of Contents
List of Tables 11
Abstract 14
Chapter One: Introduction 15
Introduction of the Problem of Practice 15
Organizational Context and Mission 20
Organizational Performance Status/Need 21
Related Literature 22
Importance of the Organizational Improvement 23
Organizational Mission 24
Organizational Performance Goal 24
Description of Stakeholder Groups 24
Stakeholders’ Performance Goals 25
Stakeholder for the Study 26
Purpose of the Project and Questions 26
Methodological Framework 27
Definitions 28
Organization of the Proposal 29
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature  30
Social Work as a Field-Centric Discipline 30
 Teaching Social Work 30
  Classroom Instruction 30
  Field Education 31
 Social Work Field Standards 32
 Discipline Standards 32
 Monitoring and Evaluating Student Field Work 33
Conceptual Framework 34
 Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational  
  Factors 35
  Knowledge and Skills 35
  Declarative Factual Knowledge Influences 35
  Conceptual Knowledge Influences 40
  Procedural Knowledge Influences 41
  Metacognitive Knowledge 45
 Motivation 49
  General Theory 49
  Field Faculty Factors 49
  Self-Efficacy 53
  Mood 56
  Goal Orientation 57
  Attribution 59
 Organization 62
  Resources 63
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  4


  Policies and Procedures 65
  Cultural Setting 66
  Cultural Models 66
Summary 68
Chapter Three: Methodology 69
Purpose of the Project and Questions 69
Conceptual and Methodological Framework 69
Figure A: Gap Analysis Process Model  70
Assessment of Performance Influences 70
 Knowledge Assessment 71
  Declarative Factual Knowledge 71
  Conceptual Knowledge 71
  Procedural Knowledge 76
  Metacognitive Knowledge 77
 Motivation Assessment 77
  Value 78
  Self-Efficacy 78
  Mood 79
  Goal Orientation 79
  Attribution 80
 Organization/Culture/Context Assessment 84
Participating Stakeholders and Sample Selection 86
 Sampling 87
 Recruitment 87
Instrumentation 88
 Survey Design 88
  Knowledge and Skills 89
  Motivation 89
  Organization 90
 Interview Protocol Design 90
 Document Analysis Design 91
Data Collection 91
 Surveys 91
 Interviews 92
 Document Analysis 92
Data Analysis 92
 Surveys 92
 Documents 93
Trustworthiness of Data 93
Role of Investigator 94
Limitations 94
Chapter Four: Results and Findings 95
Participating Stakeholders 96
Data Validation 98
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  5


 Criteria for Validating Collected Data 99
  Criteria by Survey Category 99
  Interviews 101
  Document Analysis 101
  Resolving Conflicts in the Data 102
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes 102
 Factual Knowledge 103
  Assumed Knowledge Influence #1: Field Faculty  
   Needs to Know what Data to Collect 103
  Assumed Knowledge Influence #2: Field Faculty  
   Needs to Know the Social Work Core  
   Competencies 104
  Assumed Knowledge Influence #3: Field Faculty  
   Needs to Know the Appropriate Plan for  
   Addressing a Deficiency in Each Social  
   Work Core Competency 106
  Assumed Knowledge Influence #4: Field Faculty  
   Needs to Know when to Implement a  
   Student Educational Agreement Plan 108
 Conceptual Knowledge 110
  Assumed Knowledge Influence #1: Field Faculty  
   Needs to Know the Purpose of the Student  
   Educational Agreement Plan 110
  Assumed Knowledge Influence #2: Field Faculty  
   Needs to Know the Alignment of the  
   Categories of the Data Compared to the  
   Social Work Core Competencies 112
  Assumed Knowledge Influence #3: Field Faculty  
   Needs to Know the Relationship between  
   Social Work Core Competencies and  
   Solutions 114
 Procedural Knowledge 116
  Assumed Knowledge Influence #1: Field Faculty  
   Needs to Know how to Collect Data and  
   Compare it to the Nine Social Work Core  
   Competencies to Assess the Gap 116
  Assumed Knowledge Influence #2: Field Faculty  
   Needs to Know how to Monitor the Plan  
   and Provide Guidance to the Student 118
 Metacognitive Knowledge 121
  Assumed Knowledge Influence #1: Field Faculty  
   Needs to Reflect on the Process, the Goal,  
   Status, and Planning 121
 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  6


  Assumed Knowledge Influence #2: Field Faculty  
   Needs to Reflect on Conducting a Strength-
   Based Meeting, Implementation Time Frame  
   of the SEAP, and Goal 122
Results and Findings for Motivation Causes 123
 Value 123
  Assumed Value Influence #1: Field Faculty  
   Needs to Value Collecting Data, Comparing  
   it with Social Work Core Competencies,  
   and Determining the Solutions According  
   to the Students’ Performance 123
  Assumed Value Influence #2: Field Faculty  
   Needs to Value Meeting with the Field  
   Instructor and Student to Implement a  
   Student Educational Agreement Plan 126
  Assumed Value Influence #3: Field Faculty  
   Needs to Value Collecting Data from the  
   Field Instructor to Monitor the Plan and  
   Provide Additional Guidance to the Student 128
 Self-Efficacy 131
  Assumed Self-Efficacy Influence #1: Field Faculty  
   Needs to Feel Confident about Scheduling  
   and Facilitating an Effective Strengths-
   Based Meeting with the Field Instructor  
   and Student 131
  Assumed Self-Efficacy Influence #2: Field Faculty  
   Needs to Feel Confident to Complete an  
   Effective SEAP 131
  Assumed Self-Efficacy Influence #3: Field Faculty  
   Needs to Feel Confident about Where to  
   Submit a Completed SEAP 131
  Assumed Self-Efficacy Influence #4: Field Faculty  
   Needs to Feel Confident about Their Ability  
   to Update the SEAP on the Expected  
   Timeline 131
  Assumed Self-Efficacy Influence #5: Field Faculty  
   Needs to Confidently Establish a Date for  
   Students to Demonstrate Improvement 131
  Assumed Self-Efficacy Influence #6: Field Faculty  
   Needs to Feel Confident about Collecting Data  
   from the Field Instructor to Monitor the  
   Plan and Provide Additional Guidance to  
   the Student 131
 Summary of Validated Influences 135
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  7


 Mood 135
  Assumed Mood Influence #1: Field Faculty Needs  
   to Feel Positive about Collecting Data 135
  Assumed Mood Influence #2: Field Faculty Needs  
   to Feel Positive about Comparing the  
   Data with the Social Work Core  
   Competencies 135
  Assumed Mood Influence #3: Field Faculty Needs  
   to Feel Positive about Determining the  
   Performance of the Student 136
  Assumed Mood Influence #4: Field Faculty Needs  
   to Feel Positive about Determining the  
   Student Expectations 136
  Assumed Mood Influence #5: Field Faculty Needs  
   to Feel Positive about Implementing a  
   SEAP to Help Student Success in Field  
   Education 136
 Summary of Validated Influences 139
 Attribution 140
  Assumed Attribution Influence #1: Field Faculty  
   Attribute Student Poor Performance to  
   Student Lack of Role Understanding and  
   not Field Faculty 140
  Assumed Attribution Influence #2: Field Faculty  
   Attribute Poor Student Performance in  
   Field Education to Student Anxiety 140
 Summary of Validated Influences 142
  Assumed Attribution Influence #3: Field Faculty  
   Needs to Attribute Student Challenges to  
   Their Ability to Collect Data, Compare it  
   with Core Competencies, and Determine  
   the Solutions based on Reported Current  
   Student Performance 143
  Interview Results 143
 Goal Orientation 144
  Assumed Goal Orientation Influence #1: Field  
   Faculty has a Mastery Approach to Their  
   Field Work and Not Doing the Minimum 144
  Assumed Goal Orientation Influence #2: Field  
   Faculty Focus on the Mastery of Their  
   Ability to Guide Student Improvement,  
   Learning, and Progress 144
 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  8


  Assumed Goal Orientation Influence #3: Field  
   Faculty Help Students to See Student  
   Current Performance as Opportunities  
   for Learning 144
 Summary of Validated Influences 146
Results and Findings for Organization Causes 147
 Cultural 147
  Assumed Resource Influence #1: Field Faculty  
   Needs to be Provided with Sufficient  
   Support to Assist with Student Success to  
   Achieve the Goals of the SEAP 147
  Assumed Resource Influence #2: Field Faculty  
   Needs to be Provided with Model Samples  
   of the SEAPs to Assist with Efficient  
   Completion of the Plan to Help Meet the  
   Learning Needs of the Student 147
  Assumed Resource Influence #3: Field Faculty  
   Needs Appropriate Training on  
   Completing the SEAP 147
  Assumed Resource Influence #4: Field Faculty  
   Needs Follow-up Training and Support  
   to Ensure Proper Implementation of the  
   SEAP 147
  Assumed Resource Influence #5: Field Faculty  
   Needs Support from Administration when  
   Feeling Overwhelmed with Student  
   Challenges and the Implementation of  
   the SEAP 148
  Assumed Resource Influence #6: The Franklin  
   School of Social Work has Policies that  
   Align with the Student Educational  
   Assessment Plan implementation 148
  Assumed Resource Influence #7: FSSW Recognizes  
   and Supports Field Faculty when Needed  
   to Assist with Student Success with  
   Achieving the SEAP 148
  Assumed Resource Influence #8: The Franklin  
   School of Social Work Incentives Align  
   with the Goals of Implementing a SEAP 148
 Summary of Validated Influences 153
 Knowledge 153
 Motivation 155
 Organization 156
Chapter Five: Recommendations and Evaluation 158
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  9


Purpose of the Project and Questions 158
Recommendations to Address Knowledge, Motivation, and
Organization Influences 158
 Knowledge Recommendations 159
  Introduction 159
  Declarative Knowledge Solutions 160
  Procedural Knowledge Solutions 160
  Conceptual Knowledge Solutions 161
  Metacognitive Knowledge Solutions 161
 Motivation Recommendations 162
  Introduction 162
  Value Solutions 164
  Attribution Solutions 165
 Organization Recommendations 166
  Introduction 166
  Cultural Model Solutions 168
  Cultural Settings Solutions 169
  Policies and Procedures Solutions 169
  Resources Solutions 170
 Summary of Knowledge, Motivation and Organization  
Recommendations 171
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan 171
 Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations 171
 Implementation and Evaluation Framework 171
 Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators 173
 Level 3: Behavior 174
  Critical Behaviors 174
  Required Drivers 175
  Organizational Support 176
 Level 2: Learning 177
  Learning Goals 177
  Program 178
  Evaluation of the Components of Learning 178
 Level 1: Reaction 179
 Evaluation Tools 180
  Immediately Following the Program Implementation 180
  Delayed for a Period after the Program  
Implementation 181
 Data Analysis and Reporting 181
 Summary of the Implementation and Evaluation 182
Limitations and Delimitations 182
Recommendations for Future Research 183
Conclusion 184
References 186
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  10


Appendix A Survey Questionnaire 194
Appendix B Interview Questions 203
Appendix C Participant Survey for use Immediately after Training 205
Appendix D Participant Survey for use One Month after Training 206
Appendix E Recruitment Letter 207
 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  11


List of Tables
Table 1: Stakeholder goals for FSSW 26
Table 2: Summary of assumed knowledge influences on  
 stakeholder’s ability to achieve the performance goal 47

Table 3: Summary of assumed motivation influences on  
 stakeholder’s ability to achieve the performance goal 60

Table 4: Summary of assumed organization influences on  
 stakeholder’s ability to achieve the performance goal 68

Table 5: Summary of knowledge influences and method assessment 72

Table 6: Summary of motivation influences and method of  
 assessment 80

Table 7: Summary of organization influences and method of  
 assessment 85

Table 8: Survey results for participant demographic characteristics 97

Table 9: Survey results for factual knowledge of data to collect 104

Table 10: Survey results for factual knowledge of SW core  
   competencies 105

Table 11: Survey results for factual knowledge of developing a  
   plan 107

Table 12: Survey results for factual knowledge of knowing when  
   to implement a SEAP 109

Table 13: Survey results for conceptual knowledge of knowing  
   the purpose of the SEAP 110

Table 14: Survey results for conceptual knowledge of knowing  
   the categories of the data compared to the SW core  
   competencies 113

Table 15: Survey results for conceptual knowledge of knowing  
   the relationship between social work core competencies  
   and solutions 115
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  12


Table 16: Survey results for procedural knowledge of knowing  
   how to collect data and compare it to the SW core  
   competencies to assess the gap 117

Table 17: Survey results for procedural knowledge of knowing  
   how to monitor the plan and provide guidance to the  
   student 119

Table 18: Survey results for procedural knowledge of knowing  
   how to monitor the plan and provide guidance  
   to the student 120

Table 19: Survey results for metacognitive knowledge of reflecting  
   on the process, goal, status, and planning 121

Table 20: Survey results for metacognitive knowledge of knowing  
   to reflect on conducting a strength-based
   meeting, implementation time frame of the SEAP,  
   and goal 122

Table 21: Survey results for value motivation to collect data,  
   compare it with the SW core competencies, and  
   determine the solutions 124

Table 22: Survey results for value motivation to meet with the  
   FI to implement a SEAP and establish a timeline 127

Table 23: Survey results for value motivation to collect data  
   from the field instructor to monitor the plan and  
   provide additional guidance to the student 129

Table 24: Survey results for self-efficacy motivation of student  
   educational agreement plan 132

Table 25: Survey results for field faculty feeling positive to  
   address students with challenges in field education 137

Table 26: Survey results for field faculty attribution of student  
   challenges in field education 141

Table 27: Survey results for attribution of student academic success 143

Table 28: Survey results for goal orientation to provide student  
   support 145
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  13


Table 29: Survey results for orientation motivation influence 146

Table 30: Survey results for organization 149

Table 31: Summary of assumed knowledge gaps validated 154

Table 32: Summary of assumed motivation causes validation 155

Table 33: Summary of assumed organization causes validation 157

Table 34: Summary of knowledge influences and recommendations 160

Table 35: Summary of motivation influences and recommendations 163

Table 36: Summary of organization influences and  
   recommendations 167

Table 37: Outcomes, metrics, and methods for external and internal  
   outcomes 173

Table 38: Critical behaviors, metrics, methods, and timing for  
   evaluation 174

Table 39: Required drivers to support critical behaviors 176

Table 40: Evaluation of the components of learning for the program 179

Table 41: Components to measure reactions to the program 180
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  14


Abstract
The utilization of the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework was applied in this study to
examine Field Faculty at the Franklin School of Social Work centered around implementing a
SEAP for students who demonstrate poor performance in field education as measured by the nine
core competencies developed by the Council on Social Work Education (2015b).  The purpose of
this study was to conduct a need’ analysis in the areas of knowledge and skill, motivation, and
organizational resources essential to accomplish the goal of FSSW Field Faculty to implement a
Student Educational Agreement Plan with students who require a successful field education.  
This study was comprised of a mixed methods approach which includes survey, interviews, and
documents analysis to gather data that identified the influence relative to Field Faculty
implementation of SEAPs.  This study collected data from 55 Field Faculty participants for the
survey, interview data for 11 participants, and 12 SEAP documents were analyzed to identify and
validate assumed influence that may factor into Field Factor in to the SEAP implementation.
Findings show validated gaps based on the assumed influences in the knowledge and
organization categories of the KMO.  Data analysis results was examined and researched based
solutions was used to address the organization’s performance barriers.  The Four Levels of
Evaluation was used to develop an evaluation and implementation plan to measure the
effectiveness of the solutions (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).

 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  15


CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION  
Introduction of the Problem of Practice
Social work is a diverse profession that focuses on enhancing the lives of individuals,
families, groups, and communities.  Social workers assist people in overcoming societal changes
that impact them and are challenging such as: divorce, disability, poverty, discrimination, mental
illness, physical illness, domestic violence, substance abuse, and unemployment (National
Association of Social Workers, NASW, 2017).  The Bachelor’s (BSW), Master’s (MSW), and
the doctorate (Ph.D.) are degrees in social work that help individuals, families, and communities
to cope with stressors.  The Council of Social Work Education has accredited schools of social
work since 1952 (Gambrill, 2012).  The BSW degree provides general entry level social work
education and the MSW focuses on specializations in the field and serves as the pathway to
becoming a Licensed Clinical Social Worker (LCSW).  
According to SocialWorkLicensure.org (n.d.), Licensed Clinical Social Workers practice
independently at the highest level and are always licensed.  Licensing titles and requirements to
become licensed vary from state to state.  A Licensed Clinical Social Worker possess specialized
knowledge to assist people with behavior, motivation, and life adjustments by providing
appropriate community resources, referrals, psychoeducation, and psychotherapy
(SocialWorkLicensure.org, n.d.).  Although licensed social workers may provide direct services
addressing mental health issues, substance abuse, medical social work, family therapy, and
school social work, Licensed Clinical Social Workers may also work in research, administrative,
or creating policy (HumanServicesEdu.org, 2018).  Nonetheless, the first step to become a
Licensed Clinical Social Worker would be to earn a Master’s of Social Work degree.  
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  16


Master’s of social work education provides professional opportunities for graduates to
serve in a variety of social work capacities where an MSW degree is required, such as in schools,
hospitals, mental health agencies, child welfare, etc.  Moreover, the Bureau of Labor Statistics
projects a 12% growth of social workers between 2014 to 2024, making social work the fastest
growing national employment opportunity for professionals (U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau
of Labor and Statistics, 2017).  This growth makes the topic of MSW first-year preparedness for
field education salient for research.
Professional degree programs of allied fields, such as those in nursing, medicine,
education, and social work have the challenge of preparing students not just with ideas but also
with applied skills and experience.  Accreditation standards set by Council on Social Work
Education (CSWE) stipulated MSW graduates are expected to graduate with many hours of site-
based practical experience (CSWE, 2015a).  To accomplish this goal, MSW students are
matched with a vetted community agency to complete their first-year field placement.    
With efforts to equip students with tools to intervene with clients in field education,
students are trained on several evidence-based practices (EBP).  McCracken and Marsh (2008)
defined EBP as the utilization of research guiding clinical in practice that are obtained from
client reports, clinician observations, and empirical research.  Brekke, Ell, and Palinkas (2007)
reported a 20-year gap in the connection between clinical research and the incorporation of the
research in health and mental health arenas.  
The Franklin School of Social Work (FSSW; a pseudonym) aligned the social work
curriculum to the overall social work profession’s commitment to the utilization of EBP’s.  The
student’s first year of the MSW program at FSSW, they are trained in the following (EBP):
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  17


Managing and Adaptive Practice (MAP), Motivational Interviewing (MI), Problem Solving
Therapy (PST), and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT).  Motivational Interviewing is
designed to resolve ambivalence in support of facilitating change promoting optimal health
(Rollnick & Miller, 1995).  Problem-Solving Therapy is created individuals who have resolved
or have no ambivalence and are ready to work on issues that may be interrupting their overall
quality of life and require guidance (Haley, 1987).  Cognitive Behavioral Therapy is an approach
that focuses on individuals that suffer from cognitive distortions and have negative self-talk
(Beck, 1979).  The purpose of integrating EBP’s in the curriculum is to provide students with
skills to transfer skills by practicing interventions with their assigned populations while
providing services in field education.  Motivational Interviewing Researchers emphasize the
importance of teaching EBP’s to cultivate the next generation of social workers who will be
committed to EBP’s that will build at the individual and agency level as well as the social work
profession’s competency in EBP (Grady, 2010).
At FSSW, students are placed at their internships relative to their chosen department of
study which consist of adult wellness, youth and families, and social work business.  Students are
assigned to their first-year placements in a contract approved community agency based on a team
of Field Faculty reviewing student’s’ personal statements that identifies student’s’ area of
interest, volunteer experiences, learning goals, and educational backgrounds.  Different from the
first-year students for field placement, the second-year students select three community agencies
that they desire placement for their second-year internship and they are mutually matched
according to the agencies acceptance of them as well.  Community agencies where students
complete their internships comprise schools, non-profit mental health agencies, hospitals,
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  18


government agencies, and homeless agencies that act as an extension of the students’ learning
aside from the university.  Students are exposed to actual social work duties and responsibilities
that enhances their social work experience.  In the role of a student intern, students are provided
the opportunity to witness client/patient interaction with social workers and provide services to
their assigned population utilizing learned interventions and skills to address the presenting
problems.  As part of the MSW program, students are required to complete a minimum of 1,000
hours of field education.  
Placements during the student’s first year is designed to support student learning in
orienting them to social work in the field and they can provide direct service to individuals,
families, groups, and organizations and communities.  Students are afforded learned skills to
employ with clients such as: interviewing, engagement, psychosocial assessment, evaluation, all
in the context of working with clients of all ages, socioeconomic statuses, cultural backgrounds,
sexual orientation, gender, and family dynamics. In combination with a 2-hour lab during the
student’s first year, they are required to complete a minimum of 14 hours to complete at their
assigned agencies.  It is in the practice lab where first-year students are trained and able to
practice the three evidence-based interventions mentioned earlier.  In the second semester of
students’ first year of field education, students are required to complete 16 hours a week while
continuing at the same field placement and take part in a field seminar course.
Students that have successfully completed the first-year placement, are matched with
agencies that they have interviewed for their second-year placement based on their career interest
and department of study.  Fundamental skills and learning opportunities are obtained during the
student’s first year of field education and those skills are enhanced during the student’s second-
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  19


year placement.  Students learn advanced clinical and macro skills to apply to their assigned
populations in addition to operating autonomously relying less on the Field Instructor to provide
guidance on fundamental areas of social work and interventions.  Students are responsible for
completing 20 hours of field education and take part in a field seminar course that endorses
evidence-based interventions designated for the department of study.  Despite the clinical skills
training that students receive in the academic setting, some students demonstrate deficient
clinical, ethical, and professional skills in field education.
Sometimes a student’s performance at their field placement is sufficiently weak or
unacceptable that an intervention is necessary.  In fact, some students’ performance problems
result in dismissal from an MSW program, which clearly impedes their progress of learning to
become a qualified professional social worker.  
The social work program that is the subject of this study recently implemented an
intervention that it expects faculty to employ whenever a student fails to meet expectations at the
field work site. This intervention, called a Student Educational Agreement Plan (SEAP), is a
process, documented by the SEAP form, that faculty are encouraged to implement should
students experience any challenges with meeting the nine core competencies in the Learning
Agreement Evaluation.  
A Student Educational Agreement Plan is a tool that is available for Field Faculty to
employ to help students to be successful as they complete their field education.  The
implementation of SEAP is facilitated by Field Faculty and the process includes the student and
Field Instructor.  The SEAP identifies specific student current behavior and assesses it against
expected behavior that aligns with the core competency.  The faculty member and student
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  20


identify a performance improvement strategy and document that and a date for the manifested
improved behavior to take place on the SEAP form.  SEAP signatures are gathered by the Field
Liaison, Field Instructor, and student demonstrating awareness of field education expected
behaviors.  Upon retrieval of all signatures, the SEAP is uploaded on the school’s database
system to track the progress of the student in field education.  Field Faculty provides ongoing
support to the student and Field Instructor until the outcomes of the SEAP has been satisfied.  
The implementation of the SEAP for students who experience challenges at their field placement
by Field Faculty is intended to increase the overall retention rates in the Franklin School of
Social Work.  
The problem the school of social work is facing is the uneven implementation of the
intervention, the SEAP, which can result in the sometimes avoidable dismissal of students from
the program.  Related to this problem is uneven faculty communication with students’ Field
Instructors to discuss students’ challenges to meet the core competencies.  Similarly, untimely
implementation of SEAPs and inconsistent faculty deployment of SEAPs are all emerging as
barriers to the effectiveness of this intervention in assisting student success in field education.  
Organizational Context and Mission
The site for this study is a social work school at a large private research university in the
western United States which conducts an accredited Master of Social Work program that is
delivered both virtually and on campus.  The mission of the Franklin School of Social Work
(FSSW) is to enhance the lives of disenfranchised individuals and communities, lead in human
rights and social justice, eliminate intricate, evolving societal problems in urban areas and
cultural contexts in the nation and world.  The mission is achieved through value-driven,
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  21


scholarly and creative social work education, research, and professional leadership.  There are
three departments: Children, Youth, and Family; Adult and Wellness, and Social Work Business.  
Students are provided the option to select one of the following specialty concentrations: Social
Work in schools, Military Social Work, Juvenile Justice, Substance Abuse, Older Adults, and
Mental Health.  Field education opportunities are available for students in their identified
specialty tracks.   FSSW educates MSW students on a national level online and locally on
campus.  
Organizational Performance Status/Need
The faculty at FSSW has been encouraged to enforce timely implementation of SEAPs to
promote student achievement in field education.  With this intention, students have been either
terminated from their field placement, dismissed from the MSW program, or have encountered
both.  Untimely faculty initiation to completion of SEAPs and the lack of executing any SEAPs
are acknowledged as an issue with faculty assisting student success in field education.  For
example, data from the on-campus program revealed that four students from fall 2015 received a
SEAP but 12 students, none of whom had a SEAP, were reported to have placement concerns
and three of those students were terminated from their field placement.  Administration of
SEAPs carried out on campus for the first-year MSW students has been small.    
As a result, the organization developed a field manual that serves as guide for students,
Field Instructors, and faculty for students completing their field practicum.  As important as the
field manual is, leadership has mentioned that students are often surprised when this tool is
identified during meetings held to address their challenges.  Consequently, students have often
been terminated from their internships and dismissed from the program.    
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  22


Related Literature
A central challenge for field-based programs such as the MSW is that entering students
may not be prepared, either developmentally or professionally for the conditions of field work.  
Kanno and Koeske (2013) found, in a study of 144 MSW students at Northeastern University
which focused on student satisfaction during their foundation year of field internship that first
year foundation MSW students began their field internships lacking confidence in their abilities
to provide services to clients.  Students expressed emotional stress due to their work, and
experienced role confusion.  
Field Instructors are tasked with monitoring the challenge students who desire to become
professional social workers and yet, they experience low self-efficacy to integrate skill at their
field internship.  Indeed, field instructors verbalize concerns of immaturity and of students
possessing minimal intellectual capacity, thus being clinically incompetent in assisting
clients/patients to cope psychosocially (Fortune & Kaye, 2003; Moore & Urwin, 1990).  
Field instructors and faculty are gatekeepers for MSW programs.  Gatekeeping refers to
educators having the professional responsibility to ensure that only those students that
demonstrate competence can earn a MSW degree (Moore & Urwin, 1990).  In 1971, participants
of a Colloquium reached an agreement that educators are responsible for allowing only those
students who demonstrate competence to complete the MSW program (Moore & Urwin, 1990).  
According to Moore and Urwin (1990), there has been a considerable amount of concern with
Social Work graduates having less of a connection to Social Work’s core values and technical
knowledge than in the past.  This concern suggests that some students lack preparation for their
field internship and are missing the fundamental values of a Social Worker, which makes
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  23


gatekeeping in admissions and in field education more important.  In addition to gatekeeping,
Field Instructors’ providing ample learning opportunities and supervision is essential for students
to optimize their skills learned from the classroom.  On the other hand, Social Work Field
Liaisons, Field Instructors, Administrators, and educators, overall, are held to the expectation of
gatekeeping as well as effectively guiding the students to become professional social workers.
Importance of the Organizational Improvement
It is important for the institution to implement faculty enforcement of SEAPs for a
myriad of reasons.  If students are failing field education and are dismissed from the university,
the program may have done its due diligence as a gatekeeper and the institution risks losing
accreditation and affirmation.  The implementation of SEAPs allows for the Field Liaison to
problem solve with the student and Field Instructor to help with student field education success.  
When SEAPs are effectively employed, the relationship between the Field Instructor and agency
strengthens and communication increases.  Students who have earned a SEAP are closely
monitored by faculty until they have completed the stated goals on the SEAP.  Thus, failure to
implement SEAPs effectively will lead to a student’s termination at the field placement, loss of
partnership with the field internship agency, student dismissal from the institution, lack of
development of quality Social Workers, and an overall inability to achieve the institution’s
mission.
This problem affects the school’s mission for students to ultimately be an effective Social
Worker when providing services to individuals, families and communities.  This problem also
represents the larger national problem of students being prepared to practice learned skills at
their field internships to be successful in field.  Students’ dismissal from field education has the
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  24


potential to impact MSW program’s accreditation and affirmation.  The requirement for faculty
on campus to implement SEAPs with students who experience challenges to meet the core
competencies is a tool utilized to support students to assist with field education success.  
Organizational Mission
The mission of the Franklin School of Social Work is to improve the wellbeing of
vulnerable individuals and communities, advance social and economic justice, and eradicate
pressing societal problems in complex and culturally diverse urban environments throughout
southern California, the nation, and the world.  The mission is achieved through value-driven,
scholarly and creative social work education, research, and professional leadership.
Organizational Performance Goal
By June 2020, Franklin School of Social Work will ensure that 100% of MSW students
will successfully graduate.  Leadership will help to drive the overall organizational goal with the
assistance of school social work faculty.    
Description of Stakeholder Groups
Franklin School of Social Work, Field Faculty, and School of Social Work leadership are
three stakeholder groups that are vested in the organizational goal of student’s’ graduation
success rates.  The school of social work at Franklin has a mission that fosters growth and
leadership for students to provide services to individuals, families, communities, and
organization.  Leadership is authorized to require faculty to support students by employing tools
and strategies to assist with the school’s retention for students.  Field Faculty are both the Field
Liaison for students enrolled in their field seminar classes.  Student’s’ progress in field education
is monitored by Field Faculty and students are provided a recommended grade in field practicum
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  25


by the student’s Field Instructor.  The Field Liaison monitors the students at their field internship
by conducting a field site visit each semester.  During the field site visit, the Field Liaison
facilitates the meeting and addresses the student’s performance related to the nine core
competencies, documentation, workload, field hours, strengths and weakness, whether the Field
Instructor is meeting program expectations, and whether weekly supervision is occurring
between the student and Field Instructor.  The role of Field Faculty devotes to the organizational
goal as they are responsible for the implementation of a SEAP when a student performs less than
satisfactorily at their field placement.
Stakeholders’ Performance Goals
By May 2018, Franklin School of Social Work leadership will require 100% of all Field
Faculty to implement SEAPs with 100% of students who experience challenges with
satisfactorily meeting the competencies.  The Field Faculty leadership established this new goal
because of student termination from their field internships and dismissal from the school.  The
role of Field Faculty providing increased support to students is assumed to assist in achieving the
school’s mission and organizational goal.  The achievement of the school’s goal will be
measured by monitored results of SEAPs implemented by faculty, student terminations, student
dismissals from the institution, through May 2019.  Table 1 shows the stakeholders’ goals that
must be achieved for FSSW to reach its organizational goal.  
 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  26


Table 1  
Stakeholder Goals for FSSW
Franklin School of Social
Work
Franklin Social Work
Leadership
Franklin Social Work Field
Faculty
By June 2020, Franklin
School of Social Work will
ensure 100% of MSW
students will successfully
graduate.
By May 2018, Franklin
School of Social Work
leadership will require Field
Faculty to implement SEAPs
100% when students
experience known challenges
when struggling to
satisfactorily meet the nine
core competencies.
By May 2018, Field Faculty
will implement SEAPs 100%
with 100% of students who
require a successful field
education.


Stakeholder for the Study
Field Faculty will be the focus of this gap analysis improvement model methodology
study.  Field Faculty is not only the student’s seminar professor, they are also their Field Liaison
in which they are responsible for monitoring their enrolled student’s progress at their field
placements.  The responsibility of the Field Faculty also includes ongoing communication with
the student’s Field Instructor related to the students’ performance and learning opportunities.  
While there many students who perform well as they complete their field education hours during
the first year of the MSW program, there are others who experience some behavioral and clinical
challenges.  
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this study is to conduct a needs’ analysis in the areas of knowledge, skill,
and motivation, and organizational resources essential to accomplish the goal that by May 2018,
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  27


Field Faculty will implement SEAPs 100% with 100% of students who require a successful field
education.  While a complete needs analysis would focus on all stakeholders, Field Faculty will
be the focus in this analysis.
Therefore, the questions that guided this study are
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs necessary for the Franklin
School of Social Work Field Faculty to reach the goal of implementing SEAPs with
100% of students requiring them, to assist students with Field Education success?
2. What are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions to those
needs?
Methodological Framework
Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis provided a framework to guide the improvement
model to address the performance gap.  The initial framework addressed the overall
organizational/university goal which is long term and leads to the development of a shorter time
frame individual performance goal (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011).  According to Clark and
Estes and Rueda (2011), the next steps are to measure the gap between the organizational current
level of performance and the goal.  This process will explore the field education standards,
important factors that impact the implementation of SEAPs facilitated by Field Faculty.  
Knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational challenges are three contributing factors to
the gap (Clark & Estes, 2008).  The assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs
will stem from personal knowledge and relevant literature which will be examined and validated
through surveys, interviews, and literature review (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011).  
 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  28


Definitions
In the context of FSWW, the following terms have a specific meaning.  
 Field Education: Field Education is an independent and integral sequence of the MSW
curriculum.  Students are exposed to selected and organized opportunities guided by the
Educational Policy and Educational Standards (EPAS) and the nine Core Competencies
of the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE).  Field Education seeks to validate,
apply, and integrate the knowledge, theories, and concepts of social work practice learned
throughout the curriculum.  Field agencies are expected to provide “in vivo” experiences
relevant to the academic content.  The student on the other hand is expected to apply
academic knowledge, social work skills, critical thinking, professional behavior, ethics,
and values learned in the classroom to direct practice work.
 Field Instructor: This individual is a Field Faculty member who coordinates, monitors,
evaluates, and documents the student’s field experience to insure optimal learning and
professional development.  He/she also provides consultation, assistance, and evaluation
to the student/intern and Field Instructor.  
 Field Liaison: This individual is a Field Faculty member who coordinates, monitors,
evaluates, and documents the student’s field experience to insure optimal learning and
professional development.  He/she also provides consultation, assistance, and evaluation
to the student/intern and Field Instructor.  
 Preceptor; An individual affiliated with the agency who is responsible for a piece of the
student’s learning.  He/she is a supplementary instructional figure who may or may not
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  29


be a social worker by training.  However, the preceptor must work closely with the Field
Instructor of record.  
 Student Educational Agreement Plan: This plan is considered as the first written
academic warning and is required as early as possible if a student demonstrates
deficiency with completing the required hours at their assigned field placement, lacking
sufficient and/or untimely submissions of required process recordings, and poor
performance in any Council on Social Work Education Core Competency, and student’s
inability to comply to the National Association of Social Workers.  
Organization of the Proposal
Three chapters are used to organize this study proposal.  Chapter One introduces the
problem, organizational performance goal and missions, and concepts of the gap analysis.  
Chapter Two consists of a review of research examining first-year MSW student challenges,
preparedness, and factors impacting field education.  Finally, Chapter Three describes the
methodology that examines and validates the assumed causes for this study and illustrates ways
in which data will be collected and analyzed.  
 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  30


CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Chapter Two sets forth background information about students who experience
challenges at their field internship, the evolution of the Student Educational Agreement Plan, and
gatekeeping on behalf of admissions, Field Faculty, and the Field Instructor’s holding the student
to high standards of becoming a professional social worker while a MSW student at Franklin
School of Social Work.  The Chapter also examines the assumed influences that are an essential
component of the gap analysis (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011) that might affect the
development and implementation of a remediation plan for students who experience challenges
during their field work.    
Social Work as a Field-Centric Discipline
Teaching Social Work
Classroom instruction.  Social work is a profession that deals with complex issues that
impacts individuals on various levels of problems including social, emotional, physical, and
community.  Teaching the social work curriculum entails creating a safe and comfortable
classroom environment for students who will be expected to participate in discussions that may
involve sensitive topics.  The results of a study including 64 MSW students completed a survey,
showed that the classroom learning environment created by faculty impacts whether students feel
comfortable and safe to participate in classroom discussions (Grady, Powers, Despard, & Naylor,
2011).  Redmond (2010) further maintained that MSW students enter classes with different
racial, socioeconomic, and life backgrounds that should be considered during class discussions
when creating a safe and comfortable environment.  Creating safe classroom environments for
MSW students promotes student engagement which is essential for shaping their self-awareness
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  31


development.  MSW students are encouraged to develop and increase their self-awareness as this
helps to inform their practice as developing professional social workers.  Becoming self-aware
allows for students to limits and boundaries and avoid entangling their feelings with others which
could impede the progress of services provided to individuals, families, groups, communities,
and organizations (Gerdes & Segal, 2011).
       Teaching MSW students the social work profession includes being self-aware of values,
ethics, diversity, and difference in practice, professionalism, empathy, evidence-based practice,
feelings of the social work students, as well as addressing integrity (CSWE, 2015b; Allen &
Friedman, 2010).  Social work educators have acknowledged the need to orient social work
students to the three domains of learning: cognitive, behavioral, and affective (Allen &
Friedman, 2010).  Many social workers would argue that teaching the affective domain aspect of
social work which includes the student’s values, beliefs, self-awareness, interests, and
preferences is the most challenging to assess (Friedman, 2008; Allen & Friedman,
2010).  Moreover, the cognitive domains focus on learning and recalling which referenced by
Bloom’s taxonomy and behavior is referred to as skills that student’s practice and master (Allen
& Friedman, 2010).  Achieving competence in all three domains is necessary in social work
education to transfer skills learned as graduate MSW students.
Field education.  Since 2008, field education has been identified by the Educational
Policy and Accreditation Standards of the Council on Social Work Education (Wayne, Bogo, &
Raskin, 2010).  However, Shulman (2005) originated this term as he explained the relevance of
teaching and learning in the social work profession (Wayne et al, 2010).  In essence, field
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  32


education allows students the opportunity to transfer learned skills and theories in the classroom
to clients at their assigned field placements under the supervision of a veteran social worker(s).  
Social Work Field Standards
The field of social standards were created upon the inception of the profession in the
early 20th century with minimal revisions applied (CSWE, 2015a; Raskin, Wayne, & Bogo,
2008).  Since 1982, the Council on Social Work Education required graduate students in a social-
work program to complete a minimum of 900 hours in field education.  The standards of the
profession remain in place based on tradition and the assumption that the status quo of field
education requirements is effective (Raskin et al., 2008).  Researchers and higher-education
theory support value of education that is committed to preparing graduates for professional social
work beyond the academic setting (Raskin et al., 2008).  
Graduate social work programs have utilized Field Faculty Liaisons to be responsible for
maintaining communication with field agencies and Field Instructors to monitor student learning
in field education (Raskin et al., 2008).  Standards for Field Faculty Liaisons have long been
documented by the 1967 CSWE guide that stated Administration should provide time and
resources for liaison responsibilities (CSWE, 1967).  The standards set forth by CSWE with
regards to field education and Field Faculty conveys the value placed on the importance of a link
between the academic institution, coursework, program, and the field agency.  
Discipline Standards
Field education in most MSW programs is guided by a field manual that delineates
disciplinary standards for students, Field Instructors, Field Liaisons, and agencies. Cole and
Lewis (1993) indicated that social work educators are responsible for ensuring that social work
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  33


students are graduating as competent professional social workers.  Numerous researchers agreed
that there is much literature that addresses student unsuitability in admissions and that making
the decision to terminate a student once admitted becomes difficult.  Clear and direct
communication in admissions policies and procedures is suggested in order to decrease the
amount of issues that may arise later and require attention.  The only constitutional rights to
protect both students and educator decision makers to be put in place are equal opportunity and
safeguards.  Many court cases reported that professional behavior in clinical practice settings is
inclusive of an academic requirement and educational aspect of the professional
program.  Ultimately, social work educators are required to delineate the parameters of decision
making in the professional social work education.
Monitoring and Evaluating Student Field Work
Field education is the identified, signature pedagogy of professional social work
according to educational policy and accreditation standards of the Council on Social Work
Education (CSWE, Wayne et al., 2010).  Master of Social Work (MSW) students are provided
the opportunity to apply academic knowledge, under supervision, to their served population at
their assigned field internship.  The Field Instructor provides guidance and supervision to the
students and Field Faculty/Field Liaison provides support to the student, Field Instructor, and is
the link to the academic institution.
Nationally, MSW students are required to complete an internship to integrate learned
theories in addition to demonstrating an advanced knowledge of the nine core competencies
(Council of Social Work Education, 2016).  Two year, full-time MSW status students begin their
field education the first semester.  MSW students must demonstrate their preparedness by
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  34


satisfactorily meeting the nine core competencies as measured by their Learning Agreement
Evaluations.  The nine core competencies are (a) demonstrate professional behavior;
(b) diversity; (c) social justice; (d) engage in research and practice to service clients and
communities; (e) engage in policy practice; (f) engage with clients and communities; (g) assess
clients and communities; (h) intervene with clients and families; and (i) evaluate clients and
families (CSWE, 2015b).  
The web-based Learning Agreement allows for students to be evaluated on their
performance in field education, based on the nine core competencies developed by the Council
on Social Work Education.  The student is responsible for self-rating and the Field Instructor
evaluates the student.  While the student and Field Instructor meet weekly for one hour to discuss
social work related issues, they are required to discuss the student’s progress and communicate
with Field Faculty when the student will receive low ratings.  The web-based Learning
Agreement is administered and discussed between the Field Instructor once a semester and is
conveyed to Field Faculty along with a recommended grade for the student at the end of the
semester.        
Conceptual Framework
Clark and Estes (2008) asserted that assessing the possible influences of a performance
gap is required before developing a plan to close a gap.  Further, knowledge, motivation, and
organization are variables that must be considered to have a successful goal achievement to close
the gap.  According to Rueda (2011) assessing possible influences of the problem is often
skipped which results in inaccurate hypothesis and solution.  Furthermore, gathering information
based on knowledge and skill, motivation, and organization of the stakeholder can assist in more
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  35


accurate contribution to the solution.  Therefore, this Chapter examined the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences with respect to Field Faculty implementation of the
SEAP.  
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Factors
In the sections that follow, Field Faculty knowledge and skills; their motivation to
implement SEAPs; and organizational barriers related to resources, policies and procedures; and
culture will be examined.  The discussion will be organized according to critical behaviors that
mostly influence results which are developed to be utilized to transition from learning to desired
outcomes (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Knowledge and skills.  For the purposes of this gap analysis that focuses on the
implementation of SEAPs by Field Faculty, exploration through the lens of Anderson and
Krathwohl’s (2001) four types of knowledge and skills will be used.  The four knowledge types
according to Anderson and Krathwohl include factual knowledge, conceptual knowledge,
procedural knowledge, and metacognitive knowledge.  For each knowledge area, Field Faculty
will be assessed using surveys and interviews to validate each possible knowledge influence.  
Participants’ responses from the survey and interview contribute to solutions and are identified to
assist with closing the gap of student success in field education.
Declarative factual knowledge influences.  Declarative knowledge refers to
fundamental knowledge that provides an understanding of a problem and/or the ability to
function (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001).  The discussion of the declarative factual knowledge is
organized by assumed causes derived from the critical behaviors and includes knowing about the
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  36


SEAP, the purpose of the SEAP, knowing what data to collect, knowing the core competencies,
and knowing the components of a SEAP.
Field Faculty needs to know what the Student Educational Agreement Plan is.  Several
scholars have conveyed the importance of gatekeeping in the field of the social work profession.  
Ensuring that students are equipped with adequate skills to become a professional Social Worker
is vital for educators as gatekeepers (Sowbel, 2012; Koerin, & Miller, 1995).  Another aspect of
gatekeeping involves addressing students’ deficient performance behavior in field education.  
According to Sowbel (2012), the Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (EPAS)
requires a process of clear programmatic termination policies in social work programs.  
Referencing policy guides the process of possible termination of a student in the social work
program.  While EPAS requires clear termination policies, Koerin and Miller (1995) revealed in
a study of Bachelor of Arts in Social Work programs that 25% of students had no written
counseling for students who were unsuitable for the social work profession.  This research
provided evidence of inconsistencies in addressing student challenges in social work field
education.  Given the research provided, Field Faculty needs to know what a Student Educational
Agreement Plan is.  
Field Faculty needs to know the purpose of a Student Educational Agreement Plan.  
Researchers Sowbel (2012) and Koerin and Miller (1995) conceded that documenting student
challenges in field education is another essential aspect of gatekeeping.  Sowbel (2012) reported
difficulty proving that a student is unsuitable for the social work profession when there is a lack
of clear and consistent documentation.  Despite educators facilitating the role of a gatekeeper and
possessing the desire to support student success in field education, Sowbel (2012) reported
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  37


researchers suggest that there are disagreements about what the priorities are for Social Work
guidelines; thus, is a probable cause for the lack of consistency relative to termination policies.  
Research provides evidence for the Field Faculty knowing the purpose of the Student
Educational Agreement Plan.
Field Faculty needs to know what data to collect.  Field Instructors ambivalence to
provide information related to student performance impact Field Faculty’s goal to collect data
relative to student performance.  While gatekeeping is the responsibility of all educators, Sowbel
(2012), reported that Social Work educational programs expect the Field Instructors to be the
leading educator to address, confront, and identify student unsatisfactory performance in field
education.  This vital responsibility creates a challenge when there are inconsistencies or a lack
of information provided to other educators to support the student as researchers have found Field
Instructors experiencing ambivalence to address student deficient performance behavior
(Sowbel, 2012).  Research reported some contributing factors for ambivalence: lack of support
from Field Liaison or school administration, fear of litigation, fear of student being transferred to
another agency, lack of not knowing what to document, avoidance of appeals or authority,
conflicting educator roles, lack of valid measures or protocols in field, and unclear, unsuitability
criteria.  Field Faculty knowing what information to collect is critical to address student deficient
performance behavior in field education.
Faculty need to know the components of a SEAP.  In order to complete a SEAP, Field
Faculty needs to know the fields to complete in the SEAP to facilitate student success.  
According to Sowbel (2012), a lack of documentation that is both clear and consistent makes for
a difficult experience when attempting to prove that a student is unsuitable for the social work
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  38


profession.  Educators providing consistent documentation helps to aid in demonstrating a
student’s poor performance in field education.  Although Social Workers are less likely to
discriminate against students, they struggle with parameters of discrimination with respect to
psychiatric disability (Sowbel, 2012).  Educators grapple with documentation when identifying
performance related to a student’s psychiatric disability due to uncertainties of boundaries for
documentation.  The Americans with Disabilities Act says faculty may only make reference to
student performance based on the impact on future risks to clients and to avoid any conclusions
related to job performance (Sowbel, 2012).  As per Sowbel (2011), a recent study reported 60%
of 91% of academic institutions terminated students with a psychiatric disability where many
students had problems engaging with clients.  Knowing the components of the SEAP is essential
for Field Faculty for implementation purposes.  
Field Faculty needs to know the core competencies.  Knowing the core competencies is
significant for Field Faculty to know when implementing the SEAP.  The development of the
core competencies was developed due to complications to evaluate students in field education in
former times (Sowbel, 2011).  The expectation is for academic institutions with social work
programs to refer to competency-based measures to evaluate student’s performance in field
education.  The core competencies are designed to numerically rate student performance in terms
of behavior on a checklist (Sowbel, 2011).  The Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards
developed core competencies that constitute practice behaviors and common standards in field
education (Sowbel, 2011).  Knowing the core competencies aids in educators utilizing a common
language and measurement for Field Faculty when evaluating students in field education.  
 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  39


Field Faculty needs to know when to implement a Student Educational Agreement
Plan.  The process in which Field Faculty should implement a SEAP is major a factor in
gatekeeping for the social work profession.  As noted by Wayne (2004), law requires that
students receive notice before dismissal from a program for academic deficiencies.  Wayne
(2004) suggested early identification of poor performing students in field education provides
them an opportunity to improve in any areas deemed deficient.  A lack of early identification for
students experiencing challenges in field education does the student a disservice as they are not
afforded ample time to make any corrections.  Additionally, Wayne (2004) suggested for social
work education programs to develop a strategy to help the student to be successful in field
education, adopting a process that allows the student to be heard, which may prevent a lawsuit,
and create a system that documents the program’s efforts to act in a careful and deliberate
manner.  Field Faculty needs to know that early identification of students performing poorly in
field education is when a SEAP should be implemented.  
The declarative factual knowledge presents relevant information related to Field Faculty
knowing about the SEAP and the purpose, knowing what data to collect, knowing the core
competencies, and the components of a SEAP.  Emphasis is placed on the importance of
gatekeeping to ensure competent social workers are joining the profession, academic institutions
developing policies to improve documentation on students experiencing challenges in field
education, knowing the core competencies to evaluate student performance, and Field Faculty
knowing what constitutes psychiatric disability for documentation purposes of knowing the
components of a SEAP.
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  40


Now that declarative factual knowledge influences of the gap analysis have been
discussed, conceptual knowledge influences will be presented as the second of the four
knowledge types relative to the implementation of SEAPs by Field Faculty.  
Conceptual knowledge influences.  Conceptual knowledge as described by Anderson
and Krathwohl (2001) is defined as knowledge of categories and the interrelationships among the
basic elements help to function together for the structure on a whole.  In the case of Field
Faculty, conceptual knowledge includes the categories of core competencies compared to
student’s current performance and the relationship between the core competencies and solutions.
Field Faculty needs to know the categories of the data compared to the core
competencies.  There are various factors that may impact student success when beginning field
education.  According to Kanno and Koeske (2013), scholars have reported that students begin
their field internships with stress, anxiety, negative emotions, apprehension, and unclear
expectations.  In addition; low confidence, role confusion, and emotional strain are other factors
that potentially impede learning in field education.  Kanno and Koeske, provided many possible
causes in various categories to explain the role of preparedness and supervision quality such as,
anxiety and negative student emotions in the field setting, lack of adequate preparation for the
field placement, and quality of supervision and the field experience.  For example, students who
may experience anxiety by a client’s response to anger and grief is categorized under anxiety and
negative student emotions in the field setting.  The lack of student preparedness may cause
apprehension and anxiety and may lead to burnout risk (Kanno & Koeske, 2013).  Field Faculty
knowing the categories of the collected data and core competencies in field education may help
student success in field education.
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  41


Relationship between core competencies and solutions.  Field Faculty development of a
plan for student success in field education is based on student performance measured by the core
competencies.  Students’ poor performance in relation to the core competency determines the
solution for students to demonstrate improvement in field education.  Moore and Urwin (1990)
indicated that students must have the ability to grow and change as well as be motivated.  The
solutions must be realistic for the student to accomplish measured against the core competencies.  
Students need to show their ability to think critically and analytically when engaging in ways to
improve in field education (Moore & Urwin, 1990).  Furthermore, students need to be willing to
critically reflect on themselves and change as needed, mainly when their poor performance is
impacting their practice (Moore & Urwin, 1990).  The relationship between core competencies
and solutions for students demonstrating poor performance in field education enables students to
be informed of identified areas for improvement.  Unless, students can demonstrate competence
for practice and the ability to interpret social work as a profession, educators have failed their
mission.
The conceptual knowledge sheds light on pertinent details associated with Field Faculty
to know the categories of the data compared to the core competencies and the relationship
between core competencies and solutions.  Comparing the relationship between the data, core
competencies, and solutions helps Field Faculty to plan for student success in field education.
Comparing the data between relationships related to conceptual knowledge has been
discussed and procedural knowledge will be explored.
Procedural knowledge influences.  Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) referred to
procedural knowledge as to how to do something.  In relation to procedural knowledge, Field
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  42


Faculty will need to know how to determine the gap by collecting data and compare it with core
competencies, compare student current performance to identify solutions, know how to conduct a
meeting with the Field Instructor, determine a date for goal achievement, need to know how to
assess the information, monitor the plan, and provide guidance to the student.
Field Faculty needs to know how to collect data and compare it with social work core
competencies to determine the gap.  Field Faculty’s awareness of student poor performance in
field education is essential to determine satisfaction with core competencies.  Gelman (2011)
reported that Field Instructors from various settings replied to a survey indicating that first-year
students are excited to begin field education, however, found that they are less than moderately
prepared and experience anxiety prior to the start of their field placement.  Both Field Instructors
and students report worries pertaining to various aspects of field education before beginning
internship.  Field Instructors communicate students are concerned with appearance, lack of
knowledge and skills, travel and safety issues, and being taken seriously by staff and clients.  
Further concerns reported by Field Instructors include student inexperience, inability to
differentiate between empathy and sympathy, poor self-awareness, struggle with sitting and
listening to a client before offering a resource, self-determination, following the client’s lead, and
may not be emotionally prepared for field education (Gelman, 2011).  Students report having a
fear of inadequate resources, not knowing what to say, and may worsen client’s situations
(Gelman, 2011).  Students worries and fears may impact their performance in field education
according to the social work competencies.  Knowing how to collect data and compare it with
social work core competencies to determine the gap is necessary when addressing student’s poor
performance in field education.  
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  43


Field Faculty needs to know how to compare student current performance to identify
solutions.  Assessing for student’s prior knowledge before the start of field education is to assist
with student success.  Gelman (2011) highlighted the importance of Field Instructors knowing
student’s strengths and learning styles prior to the start of internship to guide student’s success in
field education.  Field Instructors making the effort to know the intern’s strengths is one example
of helping first-year MSW students to succeed to field education.  Field Instructors
acknowledging student’s strengths and providing feedback pertaining to areas of growth, and
allowing students to process any worries in field seminar are other activities for first-year MSW
students’ success (Gelman, 2011).  Identifying solutions for first-year MSW students in field
education that are experiencing challenges requires knowledge of a student’s current
performance.  
Field Faculty needs to know how to conduct a meeting with the student and Field
Instructor.  Addressing current student performance in a meeting is significant when supporting
a student in field education.  Despite any feelings of discomfort, research reports professional
integrity should not be compromised (Sowbel, 2012).  Social Work educators as gatekeepers are
required to address student’s poor performance regardless of feeling uncomfortable for the
purposes of the profession and client and/or patient safety.  Research documented that
conducting a strength-based meeting does not allow permission to avert from addressing a
student’s poor performance or consent to continued poor performance (Sowbel, 2012).  
Consultation with other social work educators is suggested when addressing a student’s poor
performance (Sowbel, 2012).  Gathering feedback and support provided by other social work
educators may assist with feeling comfortable when speaking with a student relative to their poor
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  44


performance in field education.  Field Faculty knowing how to conduct a meeting with the
student and Field Instructor is an important aspect of gatekeeping.  
Field Faculty needs to know how to monitor the plan.  Measuring progress of the goals
in the plan are impactful when feedback is provided.  Informing students on how they are
progressing according to the set goals enables them to adjust performance strategies to align with
the set goals (Lock & Latham, 2002).  In order to assist student’s success in field education,
communicating how they are doing when monitoring the plan helps students to achieve their
goals.  When providing specific feedback relative to the goal will inform the student as to
whether they are performing either below, above, or on target (Lock & Latham, 2002).  Students
knowing exactly how they are performing allows them to decide on whether to maintain being
above or on target.  According to Lock and Latham (2002), people tend to either increase their
effort or implement a new strategy when performance is below target.  Field Faculty needs to
know how to monitor the plan which includes informing students of their progress and providing
specific feedback relative to the set goal.
Field Faculty needs to know how to provide guidance to the student.  Knowing the
importance of when providing feedback that relates to student performance and personal growth,
performance feedback is most advantageous.  Clark and Estes (2008) emphasized a focus on
clear performance goals and current performance results is recommended when providing
feedback.  Providing specific goals to students allows them to be aware of the expectations to
improve in deficient areas.  A decline in performance occurs when goals are not clear initially
and feedback is based on identifying poor performance (Clark & Estes, 2008).  Students need to
be provided clear expectations before addressing poor performance to ensure the likelihood of
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  45


success in field education.  Recognizing past successes and identifying them when faced with the
exact tasks and reassessing past errors, helps when considering other ways to achieve a set
performance goal (Clark & Estes, 2008).  Field Faculty needs to know how to provide guidance
to a student on a SEAP to assist a student’s success in field education.
The procedural knowledge focuses on information relative to knowing how to collect
data and compare it with core competencies to determine what gaps are needed for student
improvement, knowing how to compare student performance to develop a plan, knowing how to
conduct a meeting with a student and Field Instructor, knowing how to set a date for goal
achievement, knowing how to assess the collected data, knowing how to monitor the plan, and
knowing how to provide guidance to the student.  Exploring procedural knowledge is
instrumental for Field Faculty to reinforce gatekeeping and assist students to be successful in
Field Education.
Declarative factual knowledge, conceptual knowledge, and procedural knowledge are
three knowledge types that have been discussed.  Metacognitive knowledge is the last of the
knowledge types that will be presented related to Field Faculty implementation of SEAPs.
Metacognitive knowledge.  According to Anderson and Krathwohl (2001),
metacognitive knowledge refers to the awareness and knowledge of one’s own way of thinking.  
Field Faculty reflection on the process, their goal, status and planning of the SEAP, reflection on
conducting a strengths-based meeting, time performance plan, goal, and reflection on assessing
the collected data and amount of guidance to provide the student when examining metacognitive
knowledge relative to Field Faculty is an important aspect for Field Faculty to consider when
implementing a SEAP.
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  46


Field Faculty needs to reflect on the process, their goal, status and planning of the
SEAP.  Field Faculty reflection on the many aspects of the implementation of a SEAP is
beneficial to improve the process.  When reflecting on set goals, Ambrose, Bridges, Di Pietro,
Lovett, & Norman (2010) suggested to assess the goals and constraints of the task at hand.  In
other words, Ambrose et al. emphasized the importance of thinking about the goals and any
possible barriers that may prevent a student from achieving their goals.  Ambrose et al. reminded
us to identify strengths and weaknesses, carry out distinct strategies to present the plan and
monitoring the progress throughout the duration of the plan, and reflect on whether the current
strategy is working to determine a possible need for adjustment.  Research suggested Field
Faculty’s reflection on the process, their goal, status and planning of the SEAP may assist in the
likelihood of improved student performance.
Field Faculty needs to reflect on conducting a strengths-based meeting, time
performance plan, and goal.  Reflecting on a strengths-based meeting approach during the
implementation process will help students become aware of their potential to succeed in field
education.  Lopez and Louis (2009) reported making an effort to evaluate what is right utilizing a
strength perspective and believing that every person has skills that can produce success as it
looks at ways to focus on the best qualities.  Concentrating on strengths and not only the
deficiencies helps to promote success.  The primary goal to utilize a strength-based model is to
make students confident, efficacious, lifelong learners through a student centered form of
education (Lopez & Louis, 2009).  Field Faculty’s reflection on conducting a strengths-based
meeting, time performance plan, and goal supports student improvement in field education.
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  47


The metacognitive knowledge introduced information that correlates with Field Faculty
reflecting on their process, their goal, planning and the status of the SEAP, and conducting a
strengths-based meeting, time performance and goal.  Reflecting on the implementation of the
SEAP process as discussed helps Field Faculty to gain insight into ways to adjust with efforts to
foster student success in field education.

Table 2
Summary of Assumed Knowledge Influences on Stakeholder’s Ability to Achieve the
Performance Goal
Assumed Knowledge Influences Research Literature
Declarative Factual  

FF needs to know what the Student
Educational Agreement Plan is
FF needs to know the purpose of the
Student Educational Agreement Plan  

FF needs to know what data to collect.

FF needs to know the Core
Competencies.

FF needs to know the appropriate
solutions to each CC (the plan)
FF need to know the components of the
SEAP

Sowbel (2012); Koerin & Miller (1995); Sowbel
(2011)

Declarative Conceptual  

FF needs to know the categories of the
data compared to the CCs.

Relationship between CCs and solutions.


Kanno & Koeske (2013); Moore & Urwin (1990).  

 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  48


Table 2 (Cont’d.)  

Assumed Knowledge Influences Research Literature
Declarative Conceptual  

FF needs to know the categories of the
data compared to the CCs.

Relationship between CCs and solutions.


Kanno & Koeske (2013); Moore & Urwin (1990).  
Procedural  

FF needs to know how to:
Collect data
Compare it
Determine the gap
Identify solutions

FF needs to know how to:  
Conduct the meeting with FI and
student
Determine the date for goal
achievement

FF needs to know how to:
Assess the collected data
Monitor the plan
Provide guidance to the student


Gelman, C. (2011); Sowbel (2012); Clark & Estes
(2008); Mayer (2011); Locke & Latham (2002)

Metacognitive
Reflect on the process, their goal, status,
and planning.

Reflect on running a strength-based
meeting, time frame of the performance
plan, and goal.

FF reflects on assessing the collected data
and the amount of guidance to provide the
student

Ambrose et al. (2010);  Lopez & Louis (2009)  


 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  49


Motivation
General theory.  In 2008, Clark and Estes (2008) explained that individuals are
comprised of psychological systems, i.e., knowledge and motivation.  The knowledge aspect
informs on how to do things and motivation gets and keeps individuals going and advises on the
amount of effort to consume when working on a task.  Researchers have found that there are
three different motivational processes that are either opportunities or probable problem areas;
active choice – an individual is intentionally and actively pursuing a goal; persistence – an
individual continues to work toward a goal despite any obstacles or distractions; and mental
effort – individuals work smarter and develop new solutions.
Field faculty factors.  If individuals use familiar strategies to solve a novel problem and
are unsuccessful, then they are not using mental effort, that is, seeking out new knowledge to
solve new problems (Clark & Estes, 2008).  Field Faculty needs to increase active choice and
persistence in order to enhance their motivation.  FSSW Field Faculty will be required to put
forth active choice in order to implement SEAPs for poor performing students in field education.  
A component of the active choice will include setting goals to implement a SEAP for
underperforming students in field education based on core competency, evaluation, and
information provided by the Field Instructor.  Additionally, Field Faculty will need to
demonstrate persistence in order to efficiently implement SEAPs, monitor the SEAPs, and
provide guidance to the student until goal completion.  When increasing active choice and
persistence, the self-efficacy and competence skills of the Field Faculty needs to be addressed.  
Developing greater value for the implementation of SEAPs will require increased intrinsic and
extrinsic interest, emphasizing the importance of the implementation, and demonstrating the
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  50


utility that it has for FSSW despite the time and effort required to implement SEAPs and carry
out the SEAP until goal completion.  Field Faculty needs to feel confident to collect the data
received from the Field Instructor, compare it with the core competencies, and determine the
solutions based on reported student performance. Also, they need to feel confident that they can
schedule and facilitate a meeting with the Field Instructor and student, feel confident that they
can implement a SEAP, feel confident to establish a date for students to demonstrate
improvement, need to feel confident about collecting the data from the Field Instructor to
monitor the plan, and provide additional guidance to the student.  Furthermore, creating an
environment that promotes reinforcement in support of Field Faculty implementing the SEAPs.  
Schunk, Meece, and Pintrich (2014) suggested that motivation can be explored through lens of
value, self-efficacy, mood, goal orientation, and attribution.  These possible underlying
psychological constructs based on the critical behaviors of the assumed influences of SEAPs
implemented by Field Faculty are examined.  
Value.  In 2008, Clark and Estes described values as what individuals believe will assist
them and refuse what they believe is a barrier.  There are three different types of values which
include, interest value – individuals are more apt to do what interests them the most and many
people with intrinsic value have the desire to master new skills to increase their expertise.  Skill
value – a number of people enjoy participating in a task that they believe is challenging to one of
their unique skills; and utility value – focuses on the benefit of completing a task regardless of
the interest or comfort about the means to carrying out the task to the end.  The discussion of the
value is organized by assumed influences drawn from the critical behaviors that includes Field
Faculty needing to value collecting data, comparing it with core competencies, and determining
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  51


the solutions in relation to student performance, need to value meeting with the Field Instructor
and student to implement a SEAP and establish a timeline for a student to demonstrate
improvement, and need to value collecting data from the Field Instructor to monitor the plan and
provide additional guidance to the student.
Field Faculty needs to value collecting data, comparing it with core competencies, and
determining the solutions according to student performance.  Utility value benefits the overall
goal no matter the interest relative to the process to complete the task.  Clark and Estes (2008)
insisted that understanding the benefits related to completing the task helps to obtain the overall
goal of student success in field education.  Basically, Clark and Estes was saying that despite
having a personal interest in the task, operating in the utility value promotes goal achievement.  
Field Faculty’s value in completing the task of collecting data, comparing it with the core
competencies, and determining the plan associated with student performance helps to avoid
continued unsuccessful student performance in field education.
Field Faculty needs to value meeting with Field Instructor and student to implement a
SEAP and establish a timeline for a student to demonstrate improvement.  Field Faculty’s value
beliefs can influence setting the goal to implement a SEAP and establish an expected date of
achievement for a student to exhibit improvement.  According to Schunk et al. (2014), views of
how important the goals are depends on their personal value beliefs.  Becoming self-aware of
one’s values are significant to consider during instruction.  Determining an established timeline
for a student to show improvement is an aspect of goal setting that is important to the
motivational process (Schunk et al., 2014).  Field Faculty needs to value meeting with the Field
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  52


Instructor and student to implement a SEAP and establish a timeline for a student to demonstrate
improvement in field education.
Field Faculty needs to value collecting data from the Field Instructor to monitor the plan
and provide additional guidance to the student.  Field Faculty’s value of providing a student with
direct communication regarding their progress towards goal achievement is most effective.  
Providing efficient feedback informs students where they are according to the goal to facilitate
the requirements to meet them (Ambrose et al., 2010).  In agreement with Clark and Estes
(2008), Ambrose et al. (2010) also emphasized providing specific-timely feedback is essential to
monitoring and guiding students.  Furthermore, an ideal time of feedback in terms of how often
and how soon is based on what would be best to support goal achievement.  Field Faculty
placing value on collecting data from the Field Instructor to monitor the plan and provide
additional guidance to the student for field education according to the social work core
competencies assist with student success in field education.
The motivation aspects discussed for Field Faculty to implement SEAPs need to value
collecting data, comparing it with core competencies, and determining the solutions in relation to
student performance, meeting with the Field Instructor and student to implement a SEAP and
determine a timeline for a student to show improvement, and monitoring the plan to provide
additional guidance to the student.  Placing value on the stated elements of SEAP
implementation increases the likelihood of goal achievement.  Assessing motivation and value
was presented in relation to Field Faculty implementing SEAP for student success in field
education.
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  53


Self-Efficacy.  In 1986, Bandura and Cervone defined self-efficacy as individuals
deciding on the amount of effort to exert on a task and how much time should be considered
when the task becomes difficult.  When people perceive their capabilities as confident to attain
the completion of a task at hand, they are less likely to become discouraged to pursue goal
achievement of task completion.  When an individual lacks confidence in their capabilities, they
become easily discouraged by failure; on the other hand, individuals who believe in themselves
increase their efforts when failing to reach a set goal and will continue until goal attainment.  
One’s substantial belief in the confidence and ability to complete a task increases perseverance
when faced with an impediment toward goal achievement.  
Field Faculty needs to have confidence in collecting data, compare it with core
competencies, and determine the solutions based on reported student performance.  Social work
educators becoming knowledgeable of their role as a gatekeeper may improve their position to
address student poor performance.  Sowbel (2012) documented that social work educators have
trouble with differentiating their roles as educators and clinical roles while gatekeeping.  This
point speaks to social work educators blurring the lines relative to the role of a clinician instead
of a social work educator with students.  Many Field Instructors approach addressing a poor
performing student from a strengths-based perspective and focus on the potential of a student
rather than their deficiencies when gatekeeping (Sowbel, 2012).  The essence of Field
Instructor’s focus on student’s strengths and avoidance of their poor performance prevents
improvement in areas that require growth.  Sowbel (2012) indicated that social work educators
need to have resolved their ambivalences before best practices of gatekeeping may be resolved.  
Field Faculty’s confidence in collecting data, comparing it with social work core competencies,
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  54


and determining the solutions based on reported student performance in the role as a gatekeeper
helps to support students in field education.
Field Faculty needs to be confident that they can implement a SEAP.  The ambivalent
feelings of social workers to effectively follow through with gatekeeping hampers their
capability to succeed with goal achievement.  Research found that social workers’ core values
consist of acceptance, non-judgmental, self-determination, and people have resources that allow
them the opportunity to change are factors that impede social work educators from addressing
student’s poor performance in field education (Sowbel, 2012).  The notion that providing
students necessary resources gives social work educators hope that students will improve their
performance in field education.  Sowbel (2012) also mentioned that new social work educators
may experience feelings of discomfort when providing constructive feedback to students.  Field
Faculty needs to be confident that they can implement a SEAP despite feeling uncomfortable or
conflicted.
Field Faculty needs to confidently establish a date for students to demonstrate
improvement.  Being aware of a set timeline to accomplish a goal contributes to increased
confidence to achieve the goal.  As per Conzemius and O’Neil (2009), motivation to work
towards goal achievement increases when realistic goals are set that are within a certain reach.  If
a goal presents unreachable, students are less motivated to achieve a set goal.  A targeted time
frame when goal setting is crucial to internal accountability and commitment to achieve the set
goal (Conzemius & O’Neil, 2009).  When setting a goal with established dates for students, Field
Faculty needs to feel confident in order to increase the likelihood for student success in field
education.
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  55


Field Faculty needs to feel confident about collecting data from the Field Instructor to
monitor the plan and provide additional guidance to the student.  Monitoring and providing
guidance to students involves social work educators’ enthusiasm to accomplish the set goal.  
Locke and Latham (2002) reported that confidently and enthusiastically expressing to a student
that there is belief that the goal can be attained, aids in student goal achievement.  Student beliefs
that they can accomplish a goal is increased when the goal is conveyed in an excited manner.  
Self-efficacy enhances goal commitment which consists of how strongly one is attached to the
goal, demonstrated excitement about the goal, or how willing they are to complete the goal
(Locke & Latham, 2002).  Field Faculty needs to feel confident about collecting data from the
Field Instructor to monitor the plan and provide additional guidance to the student in order to
increase the student success in field education.
Self-efficacy discussed Field Faculty in relation to feeling confident about collecting and
comparing to core competencies to determine the plan based on current student performance,
scheduling and conducting a meeting with Field Instructor and student, implementing a SEAP,
establishing a date for a student to demonstrate improvement, and collecting data from the Field
Instructor to monitor the plan and provide to the student.  Efficacious Field Faculty is essential
when promoting student success in field education through the implementation of a SEAP when
there are known student challenges.
Self-efficacy is discussed as an essential component of the motivational influences to
confidently accomplish set goals.  Mood is another motivational influence that will be explored
in correlation to Field Faculty implementing SEAPs.
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  56


Mood.  Schunk et al. (2014) described mood as feeling good or bad and possibly lacking
any awareness as to why those feelings are present.  In the instance of Field Faculty, mood
influences include feeling positive about collecting data to determine the student-performance
behaviors and expectations of the student, feeling positive when implementing a SEAP, and
feeling positive when providing additional guidance to the student.  
Field Faculty needs to feel positive about collecting data, comparing it to social work
core competencies, determining the performance behaviors, and expectations of the student.  
Feeling positive helps to generate positive cognition that impact learning and performance.  
Schunk (2012) conceded that cognitive overload and an impact on goal achievement may be
caused by emotions that occupy much of the working memory.  The likelihood that a goal will be
accomplished is less when emotions interfere with cognition.  According to Schunk et al. (2014),
negative feelings may affect cognitive processing which is required to achieve the set goal.  In
addition, the impact of emotions may also be associated with intrinsic and extrinsic motivation
which refers to either one’s genuine interest and enjoyment in performing a task may increase
intrinsic motivation or feelings of boredom or fear can decrease or increase extrinsic motivation
(Schunk et al., 2014).  Field Faculty needs to feel positive about collecting data, comparing it to
social work core competencies, determining the performance behaviors and expectations of the
student to prevent a possible barrier to goal achievement.
Field Faculty needs to feel positive about implementing a SEAP.  Goal implementation of
the SEAP will require positive feelings of Field Faculty.  Schunk et al. (2014) conceded that
goals are more likely to be achieved when feeling positive.  Feelings of positivity increases goal
achievement.  Positive feelings in turn make more of an effort to complete the set goal (Schunk
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  57


et al., 2014).  Feeling positive will help Field Faculty to achieve the goal of SEAP
implementation.  
Field Faculty needs to feel positive about collecting data from the Field Instructor to
monitor the plan and provide additional guidance to the student.  Positive feelings to carry out
the task increases the likelihood of goal achievement.  According to Schunk et al. (2014),
researchers agreed that aspects of student emotional worry need to be considered when assisting
students in performance improvement and decreasing anxiety.  Cognitive rehearsal, strategy
skills to help manage anxiety, self-regulation to challenge negative thoughts, and motivation help
students to achieve performance goals (Schunk et al., 2014).  Field Faculty’s demonstration of
positive feelings when monitoring the plan and providing guidance to the student helps students’
goal achievement field education.
The mood influences presented provides insight into Field Faculty feeling positive about
collecting data, competencies, determining the behavior and expectation of the student, feeling
positive about implementing a SEAP, and collecting data from the Field Instructor to determine
the support to provide the student.  Student success is likely when Field Faculty feel positive
about the implementation of SEAPs.  Value, self-efficacy, and mood were highlighted as
assumed influences when addressing
Field Faculty and the responsibility to implement a SEAP.  
Goal Orientation.  Schunk et al. (2014) referred to goal orientation as reasons why one
becomes involved in a particular task.  The most common goals are mastery – focus on learning,
self-improvement, trying to accomplish a challenging task, developing competence, and gaining
an understanding and performance goal; and – focus on how others will judge, wanting to be
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  58


recognized for high performance levels, and making great effort to be the best in the group or
class.  Goal orientation will be organized and discussed based on the critical behaviors of the
motivational influences.  
Field Faculty has mastery approach to field education and not doing the minimum and
will focus on reasonable student capabilities compared with the core competencies.  Providing
additional guidance beyond what is required to a student is essential when supporting a student
for field education success.  Developing mastery skills in teaching consists of a process that
requires learning which includes practice, feedback, and clear goals (Ambrose et al., 2010).  
Field Faculty mastering all components necessary to implement a SEAP is necessary to support a
student experiencing challenges in field education.  
Field Faculty will focus on mastery of their ability to guide student improvement,
learning, and progress.  Providing formative feedback to a student that received a SEAP
promotes success in goal achievement.  Schunk et al. (2014) documented elements of mastery
teaching include being deliberate, focused practiced, having an agenda, being clear when making
transitions between topics, reassessing the task, developing a plan, monitoring the progress,
evaluate, and adjust.  Field Faculty will focus on mastery of their ability to guide student
improvement and make adjustments as needed to support student success in their field
placement.
Field Faculty will help students to see current behaviors as opportunities for learning.  
Mastery goal orientation is a framework that when utilized can help students improve learning
opportunities.  Ambrose et al. (2010) suggested methods such as assessing students’ knowledge
to obtain feedback regarding their prior knowledge, administering self-assessment to cause
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  59


reflection on their own experience for improvement.  This framework allows for students to
participate in their own learning and growth in deficient areas.
Goal Orientation extrapolates on the Field Faculty performing at a mastery level when
providing support to students in field education as it related to SEAPs, students’ capabilities
compared to the core competencies, guide student learning and progress, and helping students to
see current behaviors as opportunities for learning.  When Field Faculty function at a mastery
level, students have an increased likelihood for field education success.
Attribution.  When referring to attribution, Schunk et al. (2014) explained that forming a
perception based on the causes of the outcome which may not have any evidence to decide.  
Individuals are interested in gaining knowledge of and making the world around them
predictable and controllable.  People perform at the mastery level when there is an attempt to
obtain reasons for an occurrence and why people do and say things.  The critical behavior as it
relates to attribution as an assumed motivation influence will be explored about Field Faculty
attributing student poor performance due to the lack of role understanding and not any fault of
Field Faculty.
Field Faculty attributes student poor performance to student lack of role understanding
and not the fault Field Faculty.  Student poor performance in field education is attributed to their
own lack which cause a barrier to success.  Kanno and Koeske (2013) acknowledged research
that reports students may experience low confidence to work with clients, role confusion, and
emotional pressure related to their internship.  Students lack of confidence when servicing clients
may impede their ability to perform well in field placement.  Empirical evidence has shown a
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  60


connection between student poor performance in field education is related to negative emotions,
lack of field preparedness, compassion fatigue, and burnout (Kanno & Koeske, 2013).  
Field Faculty attributes poor student field education to student anxiety.  Research has
shown that first-year master of social work students experience anxiety about starting field
education.  According to Gelman (2004), when students experience high anxiety, an interference
with processing occurs as the task irrelevant information which consist of worry, and task
relevance challenge one another for their place when attempting to process a performance task.  
Gelman (2004) reported that first-year students experience anxiety when entering field
placement, thus the ability to process becomes impacted as a result of anxious feelings.  
Viewing attribution from the lens of the motivation influence conveys information related
to Field Faculty understanding a student’s cause of their poor performance in field education by
their role confusion and anxiety.  

Table 3
Summary of Assumed Motivation Influences on Stakeholder’s Ability to Achieve the Performance
Goal
Assumed Motivation Influences Research Literature
Value  
FF needs to value collecting data,
comparing it with CC’s, and determining the
solutions according to student performance
Clark & Estes (2008)

 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  61


Table 3 (Cont’d.)  
Assumed Motivation Influences Research Literature
FF needs to value meeting with the FI and
student to implement a Student Educational
Agreement Plan performance plan and
establish a timeline for student to
demonstrate improvement.
Schunk et al. (2014)
FF needs to value collecting data from the
FI to monitor the plan and provide
additional guidance to the student.
Ambrose et al. (2010)
Self-Efficacy
FF needs to have confidence in collecting
data, compare it with CC’s, and determine
the solutions based on reported student
performance.

FF needs to be confident that they can
schedule and facilitate a meeting with the FI
and student.

FF needs to be confident that they can
implement a SEAP performance plan.

FF needs to confidently establish a date for
students to demonstrate improvement.

FI needs to feel confident about collecting
data from the FI to monitor the plan and
provide additional guidance to the student.

Sowbel (2012); Schunk et al. (2014);
Conzemius & O'Neill (2009); Locke & Latham
(2002)

Mood
FF needs to feel positive about collecting
data, comparing it with CC’s, determining
the performance behaviors and expectations
of the student.


Schunk et al. (2014);
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  62


Table 3 (Cont’d.)
Assumed Motivation Influences Research Literature
Mood
FF needs to feel positive and supported
about implementing a SEAP.

FF needs to feel positive about collecting
data from the FI to monitor the plan and
provide additional guidance to the student.


Goal Orientation
FF has mastery approach to their field work
and not doing the minimum and will focus
on reasonable student capabilities compared
with the CC’s

FF will focus on mastery of their ability to
guide student improvement, learning, and
progress

FF will help students to see current
behaviors as opportunities for learning.

Ambrose et al. (2010)
Attribution
FF attributes student poor performance to
student lack of role understanding and not
FF.

FF attributes poor student field education to
student anxiety

Kanno & Koeske (2013); Gelman (2004)

Organization
Organization is the last influence to be discussed relative to the assumed cause of the
performance gap.  Clark and Estes (2008) defined organizational gap as useful organizational
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  63


process, material resources, and the idea of value chains and value streams to achieve
performance goals.  Organizational goals that includes knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organization are essential to function successfully.  The work processes involve the way that
people, materials, and equipment connect to reach outcomes.  Material resources consists of
organizations having the necessary supplies and equipment for goal achievement.  Value streams
is referred to the way that departments and divisions interface to implement processes.  Value
chains is defined as how goals are achieved utilizing information from streams to recognize the
team process for internal and external customers.
Resources.  According to Clark and Estes (2008), resources relative to equipment and
specialized environments are highly relied upon to assist individuals to complete necessary
procedures for goal achievement.  Resources may also be identified as support received that the
organization provides in order to increase the performance.  The scope of organization regarding
resources will be organized and discussed by assumed influences taken from the critical
behaviors which include Field Faculty receiving the necessary resources in the form of support
and being provided with sample SEAPs to view for completion.
Field Faculty needs to be provided with support to assist with student success with
achieving the SEAP.  Research describes support provided by organizations to accomplish the
goal is essential.  When progress has been measured, clear goals and vision have been
communicated, and motivational support provided, which reflects achievement for everyone
associated to the goal (Clark & Estes, 2008).  In order for progress towards goal achievement, a
Field Faculty needs support and has an understanding of the goal.
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  64


Field Faculty needs to be provided with model sample of the SEAP to assist with efficient
completion of the plan to help meet the learning needs of the student.  Having available examples
of what is expected for task completion increases the likelihood of goal achievement.  Clark and
Estes (2008) documented that providing job aids to employees to assist with performing a task is
a self-help and guides them to independently perform the task.  Providing samples support
employees in achieving the set goal for the organization.  According to Clark and Estes (2008),
job aids can be used for both novices and experts.  Providing Field Faculty with a sample SEAP
may increase goal achievement and support student success in field education.
Field Faculty needs appropriate training on completing the SEAP.  Successful goal
completion requires proper training on the task necessary to aide in goal achievement.  Clark and
Estes (2008) defined training as any situation where individuals gain knowledge and skills on
“how to” as well as provide the opportunity to practice and receive feedback.  Providing space
for practice and given feedback helps to understand how to complete the task at hand to meet the
set goal.  According to Clark and Estes (2008), the purpose of the training must be centered
around performance and business goals and job retraining may assist with successful attempts to
accomplish the goal.  Thus, Field Faculty would require follow-up training and support to ensure
proper implementation of the SEAP.
Field Faculty needs support from administration when feeling overwhelmed with student
challenges and the implementation of the SEAP.  Support provided by the organization relative
to the task fosters positive change and improvement.  Clark and Estes (2008) noted that
necessary support including motivation for most organizational change process for performance
is essential to accomplish a set goal.  Feeling supported guides increased performance.  Field
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  65


Faculty receiving support from administration drives the success for the set goal to implement
SEAPs for student success.
Assessing the assumed organizational influences in terms of resources in providing Field
Faculty with support and sample SEAPs to assist with completion is vital.  The goal for Field
Faculty to employ SEAPs for students who experience challenges in field education has been
assessed and prone to goal achievement when provided resources.  Policies and procedures will
be assessed as they relate to organizational influences relative to assumed causes of the
performance gap.
Policies and procedures.  As cited by Clark and Estes (2008), policies and procedures
are effective when the organizational culture provides support for effective work processes or
procedures that are aligned throughout the organization.  Organization conflict can occur
between the organizational culture and performance goals when necessary resources are not
provided.
FSSW has policies and processes that align with the SEAP.  Policies and procedures
aligned with the goal of FSSW help to achieve the goal of SEAP implementation.  Clark and
Estes (2008) reminded us that performance problems can be expected when goals, policies, or
procedures go against the organizational culture.  Aligning policies and procedures with the
organizational culture is important to consider when setting a goal aimed at improvement and
student success at FSSW.
Organizational policy and procedures are resources that are beneficial to foster the
performance goals.  FSSW Field Faculty are more inclined to achieve the goal of employing
SEAPs when policies and procedures align with SEAPs.
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  66


Cultural setting.  A group of people who come together in various settings over time to
accomplish a task creates a cultural setting (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Rueda, 2011).  
Cultural settings are modeled by individuals and groups which can impact behavior.  
Additionally, cultural settings are comprised of the who, what, when, where, why, and how of
the everyday-life functionality.  FSSW will need to assess the cultural setting for assumed causes
that may contribute to performance gaps.
The FSSW recognizes and supports Field Faculty when needed to assist with student
success with achieving the goals of the SEAP.  Path-goal theory best describes the characteristics
of leadership in an organization to support goal achievement.  Northouse (2013) identified the
path-goal theory as the way leaders can assist subordinates while performing the task to reach the
goal according to the needs of the subordinate.  This leadership style caters to the needs of the
subordinate to support the goal achieved.  Supportive leadership is another goal that involves
being friendly and approachable, attending to the well-being and human needs of subordinates
while providing respect to their status.  Leadership styles can impact the success of FSSW Field
Faculty to assist students with successful SEAP goal achievement.
In the case of Field Faculty at FSSW, examining the path-goal leadership in the
organizational cultural settings lens category of the knowledge and skill, motivation, and
organization (KMO) is essential when exploring the assumed cause of the cultural setting.  The
cultural model will be discussed to further examine assumed influences of the performance gap
at FSSW.
Cultural models.  Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) defined cultural models as having
shared normative understandings of how the world works or should work.  Cultural models can
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  67


be utilized to describe organizations, business settings, classrooms, and individuals (Clark &
Estes, 2008).  Cultural models help to mold ways in which organizations are structured including
values, practices, policies, and reward structures.  With respect to Field Faculty at FSSW,
cultural models will be explored relative to the critical behaviors organized by the organizational
influences that may cause performance gaps.  
There is a culture of rewarding faculty by providing incentives that align with the goals
of implementing a SEAP.  Research implied that offering incentives can create confusion for
people holding to the belief that achievement of the goal is optional and may be avoided.  
According to Clark and Estes (2008), the implementation of incentives is most effective when
carefully employed.  The type of set goal determines whether an incentive should be considered.  
Clark and Estes (2008) suggested that incentives can be made an option when the goal is not
easily obtainable and should be challenging and realistic.  
Culture models were examined in the context of assumed influences regarding
performance gaps by assessing accountability for Field Faculty to employ SEAPs, alignment of
incentives to reward Field Faculty for employing SEAPS and providing guidance to students,
and clearly communicating expectations of faculty relative to implementing SEAPs.  The culture
model influences may increase goal achievement for Field Faculty to implement SEAPs.
 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  68


Table 4

Summary of Assumed Organization Influences on Stakeholder’s Ability to Achieve the
Performance Goal
Assumed Organization Influences Research Literature
Resources
FF needs to be provided with support to assist with student
success with achieving the student educational agreement
plan goal(s).

FF needs to be provided with model sample of the Student
Educational Agreement Plans to assist with efficient
completion of the plan to help meet the learning needs of
the student.

Clark & Estes, (2008)

Policies, Processes, & Procedures
FSSW has policies and processes that align with the
Student Educational Plan implementation.

Clark & Estes, (2008)

Culture Models

There is a culture of accountability for faculty’s
monitoring student performance and implementing a
SEAP.

FSSW incentives align with the goals of implementing a
Student Educational Agreement Plan.
FSSW clearly communicates its expectations of faculty
regarding the implementation of the Student Educational
Agreement Plan.

Elpers & FitzGerald, (2013);
Clark & Estes, (2008)




Summary
Tables 1-4 described the knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences that will
be used in Chapter Three to validate the data.    
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  69


CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to conduct a needs analysis in the areas of knowledge and
skill, motivation, and organizational resources essential to accomplish the goal by May 2018,
with Field Faculty implementing a Student Educational Agreement Plan for 100% of the
Franklin School of Social Work students experiencing field difficulties as reported by the Field
Instructor or Faculty.  
The questions that guided this gap analysis are    
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs necessary for the Franklin
School of Social Work Field Faculty to reach the goal of implementing Educational
Agreement Plans with 100% of students requiring them, to assist students with Field
Education success?
2. What are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions to those
needs?  
Conceptual and Methodological Framework  
Clark and Estes (2008) provided the framework for the gap methodology which
diagnoses the human causes underlying the performance gaps.  The framework is comprised of
eight steps that allows for an organization’s performance gap to be analyzed and determine a
performance goal to be accomplished.  The first step of this process entails identifying the larger
organizational goal relative to the current performance (Clark & Estes, 2008).  The second step
consists of identifying the current level of performance and the gap to determine the performance
goal.  Knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational barriers are three factors that are
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  70


assumed causes of the gap.  The next step is conducting research by gathering empirical
literature that addresses the assumed causes.  Next, the assumed causes of the gap are examined
and evaluated based on interviews, surveys, focus groups, data, and observations.  Once the
performance gaps have been determined, recommendations and solutions are investigated
relative to the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organization.  The process model for the
Gap Analysis is shown on Figure 1.  
 

Figure 1: Gap Analysis Process Model (Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 22)

Assessment of Performance Influences
The assumed causes of the performance gap of Field Faculty implementing SEAPs for
students who exhibit deficiencies in field education were drawn from the empirical literature
research which examined utilizing the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational
barriers.  
 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  71


Knowledge Assessment
The assumed knowledge and skills causes for Field Faculty implementing SEAPs to
students performing poorly in Field Education are described in Chapter Two as the source of
influences listed in Table 1.  
Declarative factual knowledge.  As seen in Table 5, Field Faculty’s factual knowledge
was examined based on whether they know all nine Council on Social Work Education Core
Competencies (2015b), knowing the appropriate solutions to each Core Competency, knowing
what SEAP is and its purpose, and knowing when to implement a SEAP.  
Factual knowledge was assessed using check-all-that-apply and closed-ended, multiple
choice items requiring that knowledge be recalled and recognized.  In addition, interview
participants were asked to describe knowledge in the form of needs, concepts, plans, and steps.  
Conceptual knowledge.  When looking at the conceptual knowledge, Field Faculty were
assessed based on their knowledge of the categories of the data compared to the Core
Competencies and their understanding of the relationship between Core Competencies and
solutions.  
Closed-ended survey items, ranked in order of importance and ranked in order the steps
to address student issues were used for participants to categorize and select best options in the
survey.  In the interview, participants were asked to explain the relationships.  The items for
conceptual knowledge are shown in Table 5.  
 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  72


Table 5
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Method Assessment
Assumed Knowledge
Influences Survey Item
Interview
Item
Declarative Factual  
FF needs to know what data to
collect.
Multiple Choice.  
Which of the following information is necessary in developing a
SEAP?
a) Feedback on student performance by the Field Instructor.
b) Feedback on student performance from the student.
c) A list of the Core Competencies expected of students
during their field placement.
d) All of the above*

FF needs to know the Core
Competencies.
Check all that apply
Identify which are the Social Work Core Competencies
for  Social Work field education?  
a) Demonstrate Ethical and Professional Behavior*
b) Engage in Practice-Informed Research and Research -
Informed Practice*  
c) Privacy and Confidentiality  
d) Engage Diversity and Difference in Practice*
 

FF needs to know the appropriate
solutions (plan) for addressing a
deficiency in each Core
Competency.
Multiple Choice
First-Year student Sandra has a deficiency in Core Competency
#4 - Engage in Practice-Informed Research and Research-
Informed Practice when providing services to her
clients.  Which of the following would be an appropriate plan?  
a) Have her read a required textbook about the importance of
research with clients.
b) Have her to discuss with her clients about which evidence
based interventions would work best for them.
c) Have the student to consult with her Field Instructor about
evidence based interventions. *
d) Have the student to utilize Motivational Interviewing or
Problem-Solving Therapy interventions when with her
clients.


*Indicates correct response
 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  73


Table 5 (Cont’d.)
Assumed Knowledge
Influences Survey Item Interview Item
FF needs to know the purpose of the
Student Educational Agreement Plan  

Rank in order of importance/priority, the
purpose of the SEAP:

The primary purpose of the Student
Educational Agreement Plan is to . . .  
a) Identify specific areas for the student to
improve to successfully complete the
MSW program.*
b) Sanction students who are experiencing
some challenges in field education.
c) Document the School’s decisions in the
event that a student is dismissed from
the MSW program.
d) Illustrate the amount of completed and
reviewed Reflective Learning Tools.
Tell me the purpose of the
Student Educational
Agreement Plan
FF needs to know when to
implement a Student  Educational
Agreement Plan

Multiple Choice. Complete the sentence.
The Student Educational Agreement Plan is
required at early onset when a student exhibits
signs of . . .
a) Adherence to NASW Code of Ethics
b) Timely submission of Reflective
Learning Tools.
c) Failure to develop proficiency in any of
the 9 Core Competencies.*
d) Failure to show up and participate in
class.
When do you implement
Student Educational
Agreement Plans?
Declarative Conceptual    
FF need to know the purpose of the
Student Educational Agreement Plan  

Rank in order of importance/priority, the
purpose of the SEAP:

The primary purpose of the Student
Educational Agreement Plan is to . . .  
a) Identify specific areas for the student to
improve to successfully complete the
MSW program.*
b) Sanction students who are experiencing
some challenges in field education.
c) Document the School’s decisions in the
event that a student is dismissed from
the MSW program.
d) Illustrate the amount of completed and
reviewed Reflective Learning Tools.
Tell me the purpose of the
Student Educational
Agreement Plan
*Indicates correct response
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  74


Table 5 (Cont’d.)
Assumed Knowledge
Influences Survey Item Interview Item
FF needs to know the alignment of
the categories of the data compared
to the Core Competencies.
Rank in order steps to address this situation:
The Field Instructor reports for the second time
in one month that Sandra, a first-year student,
consistently shows up late to supervision
unprepared and does not communicate
professionally in emails, I would . . .
a) Encourage the Field Instructor to speak
with the student regarding her
performance.*
b) Meet with the student and encourage her to
speak with her Field Instructor to share her
side of the report.
c) Ignore the situation
d) Gather information from student and Field
Instructor, begin to categorize the
information compared to the Core
Competency.

FF need to know the relationship
between Core Competencies and
solutions.
Choose the best option to complete the  
sentence.  Why is it important for Field Faculty
(FF) to know the challenges a student may be
experiencing at their internship?
a) Impact on student development.
b) Helps FF to personally know the student.
c) Allows FF to be compliant with
documentation expectations.
d) Aids in identifying Social Work Core
Competencies that will help increase
student achievement.*

Procedural    
FF needs to know how to:
Collect data and compare it to
expectations (the core competencies)
Determine the gap
Identify the solutions
How do you assess the
gap of the current
performance and
expectation of a
student?
*Indicates correct response

FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  75


Table 5 (Cont’d)
Assumed Knowledge
Influences Survey Item Interview Item
FF need to know how to:
Conduct the meeting with FI and
student

Multiple choice.

You learn during a field site visit that Sandra, a
first-year student, has not conducted any
assessments with Spanish-only speaking clients
at an adult day care as she is English speaking
only, despite her Field Instructor having twice
addressed her current performance.  
In the meeting with the Field Instructor and
student to discuss a SPIP, I would . . .
a) Speak with Sandra immediately and remove
her from the field placement until you can
resolve the issue.
b) Compare Sandra’s behavior to the Social
Work core Competency expectation,
schedule a meeting with her to discuss the
results; develop solutions together and
document the conversation.*
c) Schedule a meeting with Sandra; tell her
your plan for her to improve her
performance relative to the core
competencies.
d) Tell Sandra how she should improve her
performance and give her a deadline.

FF need to know how to:
Monitor the plan
Provide guidance to the student
Complete the sentence.
I should monitor the progress of a student on a
SEAP . . .
a) At no time
b) 1 Hour weekly *
c) 2-3 Hours weekly
d) 4-5 Hours weekly
e) 6-8 Hours weekly
f) 9-10 Hours weekly
g) 10+ Hours weekly

*Indicates correct response

 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  76


Table 5 (Cont’d.)
Assumed Knowledge
Influences Survey Item Interview Item
Students require at least bi-weekly support from
the Field Faculty when on a SEAP?
a) Every time*
b) Most of the time
c) Sometimes
d) Rarely
Students require support from both Field
Instructor and Field Faculty to be successful in
field education when on a SEAP.
a) Every time*
b) Most of the time
c) Sometimes
d) Rarely
 

Metacognitive    
Reflect on the process, their goal,
status and planning.
Multiple choice. Complete the sentence.
I spend time thinking about the effectiveness of
the process, student goal, and planning
a) Never
b) Monthly
c) Weekly*
d) Daily

Reflect on running a strength-based
meeting, implementation time frame
of the educational plan, and goal.
Multiple choice.  Complete the sentence.

When developing a SEAP, I spend time thinking
about conducting a strength-based meeting with
the Field Instructor and student.
a) every time*
b) most of the time
c) sometimes
d) rarely

*Indicates correct response
Procedural knowledge.  Field Faculty’s procedural knowledge was comprised of
exploring whether they know how to collect data and compare it to expectations of the Core
Competencies, determine the gap, and identify the solutions.  Another procedural knowledge is
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  77


for Field Faculty to know how to conduct a meeting with the Field Instructor and student, and
determine the date for the goal.  Furthermore, Field Faculty needs to know how to assess the
collected data, monitor the plan, and provide guidance to the student.  
As seen in Table 5, faculty was assessed on their procedural knowledge by selecting the
best response in multiple choice and describing the steps of the SEAP implementation process,
closed-ended, multiple choice questions relative to conducting a meeting with the Field
Instructor and student, and describe how to assess the collected data to monitor the plan and
provide guidance to the student.  
Metacognitive knowledge.  Respective to metacognitive knowledge, Field Faculty was
assessed on how they spend their time reflecting and evaluating the process, their goal, status,
and planning.  Additionally, focusing on Field Faculty’s ability to reflect on conducting a
strengths-based meeting and the implementation time frame of the educational plan, and goal
were assessed.  Effective Field Faculty reflected on the assessment of collected data and the
amount of guidance to provide the students.  
Faculty was assessed on their metacognitive knowledge by selecting multiple choice
based on their ability to reflect and evaluate on the SEAP implementation process.  Table 5
summarized the knowledge influences and method of assessing each.  
Motivation Assessment
There are various factors that constitute motivation-assumed influences for the
implementation of SEAPs by Field Faculty to students who have experienced challenges in field
education and have failed to meet satisfaction of the Core Competencies.  Field Faculty were
assessed as a result of completing a survey and interviews that focused on value, self-efficacy,
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  78


mood, attribution, and goal orientation.  Moore and Urwin (1990) emphasized that educators
must uphold standards to develop quality professional social workers and be without the
concerns of passing a student to avoid any legal issues.  
Value.  Schunk et al. (2014), defined value as the reason why one decides to participate
in a task based on their beliefs.  Field Faculty was surveyed and interviewed to assess the value
of collecting information, comparing it with Core Competencies, and determining the solutions
according to student performance.  Also, Field Faculty was evaluated based on whether they
value meeting with the Field Instructor to implement a SEAP and establish a timeline for a
student to demonstrate improvement.  Furthermore, assessing Field Faculty on how much they
value continuing to gather information from the Field Instructor to monitor the plan and provide
additional guidance to the student was explored.  In order to gather data related to Field Faculty
placing value on SEAP and the process, they were asked to rank in order, check all that apply,
and complete the sentence.  The interviews that focused on value consisted of questions that
examined whether Field Faculty value creating and monitoring a Student Educational Agreement
Plan (SEAP) and conducting a meeting with a Field Instructor to address a poor performing
student.  
Self-Efficacy.  According to Bandura and Cervone (1986), self-efficacy refers to the
level of confidence an individual may have that determines the amount of effort to exert to
complete the task.  Research acknowledges that social work educators also have a responsibility
to act on any student deficiencies despite desires to pass the student due to concerns of legal
issues (Moore & Urwin, 1990).  Field Faculty were assessed based on the sources of motivation
influences provided in Chapter Two.  The central element to evaluating Field Faculty and self-
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  79


efficacy was based on their level of confidence when implementing a SEAP.  Emphasis was
placed on Field Faculty having the confidence to gather, compare Core Competencies with
gathered student information, and determine the plan based on student current performance.  
Evaluating the confidence of Field Faculty related to scheduling and facilitating a meeting with
the Field Instructor and student and implementing a SEAP.  Another key aspect of self-efficacy
was to assess the confidence of Field Faculty to establish a date for the student to demonstrate
improvement and to continue collecting information from the Field Instructor and provide
additional support to the student.
Mood.  Schunk et al. (2014) describes mood as feeling good or bad and the possibility of
lacking any self-awareness of those feelings.  Research has provided evidence that students
experience difficulty to relate to people, thus creating a barrier to helping clients to cope with
emotional problems (Moore & Urwin, 1990).  Field Faculty was assessed regarding their mood
and whether they feel positive about implementing a SEAP for a student who demonstrates
deficiency in satisfactorily meeting the Core Competencies to lead to a positive effect on goals
(Schunk et al., 2014).  Evaluating Field Faculty’s feelings about gathering information from the
Field Instructor to compare with the Core Competencies and determining the performance
behaviors and expectation of the students were assessed.  Field Faculty were asked about their
feelings when implementing a SEAP, continuing to gather information from the Field Instructor,
and providing additional guidance to the student.
Goal orientation.  Mastery goal orientation when considering goal orientation will be the
focus of the motivation influences.  Schunk et al. (2014) referred to mastery goal orientation as
an emphasis on improving or developing competence and attempting to achieve something
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  80


challenging.  Field Faculty were assessed for mastery goal orientation by evaluating their
approach to their field work by exceeding the university’s expectations to support students’
learning and progress and motivating students to be involved in their current performance as
opportunities for learning.
Attribution.  The motivation influences referred to in Chapter Two identify attribution
theory as people having the desire to understand either their own or someone else’s behavior
(Schunk et al., 2014).  Field Faculty was assessed on whether they attribute student poor
performance to student lack of role understanding and not their own and attributing poor student
field education to student anxiety.  Table 6 summarizes the motivation influences, causes, and
method of assessing each.  

Table 6
Summary of Motivation Influences and Method of Assessment
Assumed Motivation Influences Survey Item Interview Item
Value



FF needs to value collecting data,
comparing it with Core Competencies
and determining the solutions according
to the current student performance.




There are many contributing factors to being a
good Field Faculty Instructor regarding to your
approach to teaching.  Please rank the following
statements in order of importance.  
● Allowing time to practice Evidence-Based
Practices in the classroom?
● Communicating to your students that you
believe they have the potential to be
successful. *
● Meeting with students individually to get to
know them personally.  
● Scheduling field site visits as early as
possible in the semester?
● Introduction and ongoing communication
with Field Instructor?
What motivates
you to teach in
Field Education?

What motivates
you to teach in
Field Education?
*Indicates correct response
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  81


Table 6 Cont’d.)

Assumed Motivation
Influences Survey Item Interview Item
● Orienting students to the field manual
and the Student Educational
Agreement Plan early in the Fall
semester?

FF needs to value meeting with the
FI and student to implement a
Student Educational Agreement
Plan and establish a timeline for
students to demonstrate
improvement.
Complete the sentence.  Upon retrieval of
information reported of a student’s poor
performance by the student’s Field
Instructor, I usually . . .
a) Allow the Field Instructor to problem-
solve with the student.
b) Implement a Student Educational
Agreement Plan and establish a
timeline for the student to demonstrate
improvement.
c) Gather information from the student
and proceed with scheduling a
meeting with the Field Instructor and
student.*
Describe a time when you
met with a Field Instructor
that was opposed to
implementing a Student
Educational Agreement
Plan.  How did you
intervene?

FF needs to value collecting data
from the FI to monitor the plan and
provide additional guidance to the
student.
When collecting data from the Field
Instructor relative to the student’s poor
performance, I usually . . . (check all that
apply)
a) Inquire about how much guidance the
Field Instructor will provide to help
student achievement of the Student
Educational Agreement Plan. *
b) Will provide bi-weekly
support/guidance to the student based
on the collected data for the Student
Educational Agreement Plan.
c) Communicate with the Field Instructor
bi-weekly regarding the progress of
the student
Describe the last time you
felt the value, if ever, in
monitoring the plan and
providing additional
guidance to the student.
Self-Efficacy
Rate your degree of confidence in doing the
following as of right now by recording a
number from 0 to 10 using the scale given
below:
0-10
Not confident at all to highly confident


*Indicates correct response
 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  82


Table 6 (Cont’d.)
Assumed Motivation
Influences Survey Item Interview Item
FF needs to have confidence in
collecting data, compare it with
Core Competencies, and determine
the solutions based on reported
current student performance.
Tell me about a time
when you felt confident
with respect to
addressing student
challenges in Field
Education?
FF needs to be confident that they
can schedule and facilitate a
meeting with the FI and student.
I can schedule and facilitate an effective
strengths-based meeting with the Field
Instructor and student.

FF needs to be confident that they
can implement a Student
Educational Agreement Plan.
I feel confident that I can complete an
effective Student Educational Agreement
Plan.
Submit the Educational Agreement Plan
correctly.

Update the Student Educational Agreement
Plans on the expected schedule.
Tell me about a time
you felt less confident
when implementing a
Student Educational
Agreement Plan.

FF needs to confidently establish a
date for students to demonstrate
improvement.
Establish effective timelines for students to
complete the expectations set for the
student to achieve.
 
FF needs to feel confident about
collecting data from the FI to
monitor the plan and provide
additional guidance to the student.
Collect the right data from the FI in order
to monitor the plan and provide additional
guidance to the student.

Mood
Likert scale:
Rate the extent to which you agree or disagree
with the following statements:
 
FF needs to feel positive about
collecting data, comparing it with
Core Competencies, determining the
current student performance and
expectations of the student.
I feel positive about collecting data,
comparing it with the Core Competencies,
determining the current student
performance and expectations of the
student.


*Indicates correct response
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  83


Table 6 (Cont’d.)
Assumed Motivation
Influences Survey Item Interview Item
FF needs to feel positive about
implementing a Student Educational
Agreement Plan.
I feel positive about the Student
Educational Agreement Plan being
available to help student success.
Describe how you feel
about implementing a
Student Educational
Agreement Plan.
Attribution
Likert scale:
Rate to the extent to which you agree or
disagree with the following statements:
 
FF attribute student poor
performance to student lack of role
understanding and not FF.  

My students’ challenge in field education is
often due to my lack of communication
relative to the program’s expectations of
them while in field.
Main Q: Why do you think
first-year MSW students
experience challenges in
field education?

Probing Q: What factors do
you feel contribute to their
challenges in field
education?
FF attribute poor student field
education to student anxiety

My students’ challenge in field education is
mostly due to their inability to engage
families, groups, organizations, and
communities.
 
Goal Orientation
Likert scale:

Rate to the extent to which you agree or
disagree with the following statements:

FF has mastery approach to their
field work and not doing the
minimum.
My goal is to exceed the university’s
expectations for supervision of field
education.

FF will focus on the mastery of their
ability to guide student
improvement, learning, and progress.
My goal is to  motivate students to see their
current performance as opportunities for
learning.  
a) exert as little effort as possible
b) meet minimum expectations
c) exceed expectations


*Indicates correct response    
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  84


Table 6 (Cont’d.)
Assumed Motivation
Influences
Source Item Interview Item
FF will help students to see current
performance as opportunities for
learning.
My goal is to motivate students to see their
current performance as opportunities for
learning

*Indicates correct response


Organization/Culture/Context Assessment  
The organization influences on Field Faculty was assessed which examined FSSW
resources, policies, processes, procedures, resources, recognition, and culture.  Field Faculty
were  assessed to validate resources as one of the assumed influences of organization by asking
survey and interview item questions surrounding whether FSSW provides Field Faculty with
sufficient support to assist with student success to achieve the goals of SEAP,  if job aids and
examples of SEAPs are available to Field Faculty to efficiently complete the SEAP, training and
follow-up training to implement SEAPs are provided to Field Faculty, and support is provided to
Field Faculty when overwhelmed feelings are expressed.  In relation to FSSW’s policies, Field
Faculty were asked about the extent of policies that align with the expected level of student
performance.  With regards to culture, FSSW Field Faculty were asked about the school’s value
of rewards and recognition for Field Faculty who implements a SEAP and provide additional
guidance to the student for success.  Recognition is another subcategory of culture that focus on
inquiring with Field Faculty as to whether FSSW values their efforts to improve student success
in field education.  Table 7 summarizes the summary of organization influences and method of
assessing each.

FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  85


Table 7
Summary of Organization Influences and Method of Assessment
Assumed Organization  
Influences Survey Item Interview Item
Resources
Likert scale:  
Rate the extent to which you agree
or disagree with the following
statements:
 
FF needs to be provided with sufficient
support to assist with student success to
achieve the goals of the Educational
Agreement Plan.
FSWW provides FF with sufficient
support to assist with student
success to achieve the goals of the
Student Educational Agreement
Plan.
What support, if any, does
FSSW provide FF to assist
student success to achieve the
goals of the Educational
Agreement Plan?
FF needs to be provided with model
sample of the Student Educational
Agreement Plans to assist with efficient
completion of the plan to help meet the
learning needs of the student.
My school provides the necessary
resources, like job aids and
examples for me to efficiently
complete the Student Educational
Agreement Plan.

FF needs appropriate training on
completing the Student Educational
Agreement Plan
FSSW provides Student Education
Agreement Plan training for
implementation to facilitate student
success in field education.

FF needs follow-up training and support to
ensure proper implementation of the
Educational Agreement Plan.
FSSW provides follow-up training
and support for the implementation
of the Educational Plan.

FF needs support from administration
when feeling overwhelmed with student
challenges and the implementation of the
Educational Agreement Plan.
FSSW administration supports me
when I verbalize overwhelmed
feelings.

 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  86


Table 7 Cont’d.)  
Assumed Organization  
Influences Survey Item Interview Item
Policies, Processes, &
Procedures
   
The Franklin School of Social Work
has policies and processes that align
with the educational plan
implementation.
FSSW has policies and processes
that align with the Educational
Agreement Plan.
What extent do the FSSW’s policies
align with your school’s expected
level of student performance
expectation?
Culture    
The Franklin School of Social Work
recognizes and supports FF when
needed to assist with student success
with achieving the Educational
Agreement Plan.
FSSW values, rewards, and
recognizes FF who implement a
Student Educational Agreement
Plan and provide additional
support to students for success.

The Franklin School of Social Work
holds faculty accountable for
monitoring student performance and
implementing an Educational
Agreement Plan.
   
Recognition    
The Franklin School of Social Work
incentives align with the goals of
implementing an Educational
Agreement Plan.
FSSW values my efforts to
improve student success in field
education.
Tell me about a time when you felt
valued in all your efforts to
implement and provide students
with additional support with efforts
to assist with student success.


Participating Stakeholders and Sample Selection
The stakeholder population of focus at the time of this study was 62 full-time on campus
and online Field Faculty/Instructors at FSSW and 101 part-time on campus and online
Instructors.
 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  87


Sampling  
The sample drawn from this population included both part-time and full-time Field
Faculty employed at FSSW for at least six months and, in addition, have taught the first-year
field seminar course. Purposeful sampling design using the typical sampling type was the criteria
utilized in this study.  Many scholars (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Palinkas et al., 2015) described
typical sampling as a type of purposeful sampling as deliberately selecting a population that are
knowledgeable or interested in the area of study.  All FSSW Field Faculty from the online and on
campus programs had the opportunity to complete the survey that they received via email.  The
survey contained demographic items that included the sample criterion to select the FSSW Field
Faculty/ Instructors that have been employed for at least six months and have taught a first-year
field seminar course.  
Recruitment  
The FSSW Field Education Office supplied emails of the 113 full- and part-time Field
Faculty.  This list was used to solicit participation in the survey using the language shown in
Appendix A.  
At the end of the survey, Field Faculty was provided the option to convey their
willingness to participate in an interview.  Also, Field Faculty, who may or may not have
completed the survey, were asked during the Field Faculty monthly meeting to participate in the
interview portion of the study.  Meetings for Field Faculty are held before the start of the Fall
semester and continue monthly thereafter to provide announcements, updates, and any changes
in the department.  A designated time during the Field Faculty meeting was provided to
introduce the study and request Field Faculty survey and interview participation.  The contact
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  88


information to participate in an interview was provided in the email survey sent to FSSW Field
Faculty.  
Instrumentation
The instrumentation used for this study included a survey, document analysis protocol,
and a semi-structured interview protocol instrument.  The use of multiple methods is referred to
as mixed-methods which Maxwell (2013) explained as both qualitative and quantitative methods.  
Survey Design
According to Creswell (2014), a study design provides quantitative descriptions of trends,
attitudes, or opinions of a population by examining a portion of that population.  The findings of
the survey were helpful in drawing a conclusion of Field Faculty.  To determine the performance
gap, survey items were developed utilizing Clark and Estes’ (2008) Knowledge and Skills (K),
Motivation (M), and Organizational (O) framework relative to Field Faculty SEAP execution.  
Derived from the literature review as seen in Tables 5, 6, and 7, based on the KMO are
influences required to perform the critical behaviors necessary for Field Faculty to achieve the
goal of implementing 100% SEAPs with 100% of students who require a successful field
education.  This survey (see Appendix A) was administered online to FSSW Field Faculty.  The
interview was qualitative and also comprised of questions driven by knowledge, motivation, and
FSSW Field Faculty’s feelings about organizational support relative to the implementation of
SEAPs for student success.  The survey was comprised of 36 items; 14 items to explore the
knowledge of Field Faculty related to SEAPs, 14 motivational items, and eight organizational
items.  The survey asked faculty to share demographic information regarding their primary
teaching location, department, selecting their academic title, length of time teaching at FSSW,
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  89


indicate gender identity, geographic location, indicate the first-year course taught, and how many
SEAPs they have implemented.  The survey was administered anonymously to promote honest
responses by Field Faculty.  
Knowledge and skills.  With efforts to examine Field Faculty’s knowledge and skills
relative to SEAPs in order to diagnose a possible gap, Anderson and Krathwohl’s (2001)
framework was utilized as seen in Table 5.  The survey items contained questions for each of the
four knowledge types – factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive.  Participants were
asked to respond to questions that assessed their overall knowledge of SEAPs.  An example of a
knowledge survey item consisted of “check all that apply.”  Identify which are the Core
Competencies for the field education? a) Demonstrate Ethical and Professional Behavior, b)
Engage in Practice-Informed Research and Research-Informed Practice, c) Privacy and
Confidentiality, and d) Engage Diversity and Difference in Practice.
Motivation.  When exploring the motivational influences of Field Faculty and the
implementation of SEAPs, survey items were created based on value, mood, self-efficacy,
attribution, and goal orientation.  When assessing Field Faculty in the context of value, check all
that apply, complete the sentence, and rank in order of importance were used to explore the
motivational influences.  In addition, the survey encompassed Field Faculty participants’
responses to both Bandura’s (2006) Self-Efficacy scale to assess self-efficacy and Likert scales
were utilized to examine mood, goal orientation, and attribution.  For instance, a self-efficacy
question asked of Field Faculty was comprised of them rating their degree of confidence utilizing
Bandura’s scale (from 0 = “No confidence” to 5 = “Moderately confident” and 10 = “Highly
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  90


confident”) in a response to the question “I am confident that I can schedule and facilitate an
effective strengths-based meeting with the Field Instructor and student” as shown in Table 6.
Organization.  To assess the organizational influences of the performance gap relative to
Field Faculty and SEAP implementation, survey items were established.  Survey items to assess
organizational influences which consisted of Likert scales.  The Likert scale explored, on a 5-
point scale (From 1 = “Strongly disagree” to 5 = “Strongly agree”), the support, resources,
policies, and procedures required to achieve the goal of SEAP implementation as shown in Table
7.
Interview Protocol Design
Open-ended, semi-structured questions were asked of Field Faculty during the interview.  
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) described semi-structured interviews as a list of guided questions or
issues to be explored, specific information to be asked of all respondents, and contains structured
questions.  As shown in Table 5, there were 11 primary questions and 4 follow-up questions
asked of Field Faculty relative to knowledge, motivation, and organization surrounding SEAPs.  
Field Faculty teaching first-year field seminar courses for at least six months were asked
questions in order to assess assumed causes of the gaps.  Field Faculty shared organizational
information based on four open-ended questions.  The literature review provided guidance to
develop questions relative to acknowledge gaps regarding knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organization.  All questions focused on the assumed causes of the gap and Field Faculty
implementing SEAPs to support student success (see Appendix B for the interview protocol).
 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  91


Document Analysis Design
Analyzing SEAP documents was another method of collecting data in qualitative
research to develop an understanding to first-year Master of Social Work students’ preparedness
for field education (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).  SEAPs were utilized to measure KMO of Field
Faculty regarding the accuracy of document completion based on Clark and Estes’s framework
(2008).  A checklist was constructed to assess the SEAP document in terms of whether Field
Faculty accurately completed the document, adhered to policies and procedures, and utilized
appropriate terminology on the document.    
Data Collection
Following Franklin School of Social Work Institutional Review Board’s (IRB) approval,
participants were solicited by verbal request for all Field Faculty to participate during the faculty
meeting held in the fall of 2017 and email request.
Surveys
The survey was distributed to all Field Faculty by email in November 2017.  Field
Faculty email addresses were retrieved from the Field Faculty listserv provided by
administration.  Field Faculty received a link to participate in a survey software by Qualtrics.  
Field Faculty participants’ survey responses were anonymous to ensure that no names were  
associated with the survey.  One reminder to complete the survey was sent one and a half weeks
following the original request.  The survey was in the field for three weeks.  The survey closed
mid-December 2017.  
 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  92


Interviews
The interviews were scheduled at least one week prior to conducting the interview.  
Confidential interviews took 20 minutes to complete and participants were provided with the
choice to be interviewed either face-to-face, on a virtual platform, or on the phone.  The
interviews were recorded with the interviewee’s permission utilizing a software that enabled the
responses to be transcribed.  According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), saturation occurs when
there is no new information to add to the study.  Interviews were conducted with all Field
Faculty that volunteered and the data reached saturation.  
Document Analysis  
SEAP documents implemented by Field Faculty were analyzed to gather information
relative to Field Faculty compared to policy and procedure, accuracy of completion, and
terminology.  Administration provided access to 12 SEAP documents in FSSW’s database for
analysis with efforts to improve student success in Field Education.
Data Analysis
Surveys
Quantitative data was obtained using the SEAP survey (see Appendix A). Survey items
were created to assess Knowledge and Skills (K), Motivation (M), and Organizational Factors
(O) related to each category.  Clark and Estes’ (2008) framework was followed to develop
survey items for each KMO category.  The survey items retrieved were analyzed utilizing the
mean and standard deviation scores.  The survey consisted of 38 items.  For each item, with the
exception of demographic information, participants responded to multiple choice, complete the
sentence, rank in order of importance, Bandura’s self-efficacy scale from 0 to 10 ranging from
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  93


“Not at all confident to moderately confident, to highly confident, and Likert scaled from 0 to 10
ranging from “strongly disagree to strongly agree.”  
For interviews, the participant responses were gathered from the transcription of the
interviews.  Tables 5, 6, and 7 were used to review and code the data from the interviews using
Clark and Estes’ (2008) KMO framework.  Any common themes or frequencies were
documented according to the four knowledge types.  The data gathered related to the
motivational influences were examined through the lens of value, mood, self-efficacy, goal
orientation, and attribution.  Furthermore, information shared relative to organization and
resources, policies and procedures, and support were also reviewed.
Documents
Clark and Estes’ (2008) recommended job aid, policies, processes, and procedures are
established for goal achievement.  There was 10% of SEAP data retrieved to be analyzed using
the KMO coding scheme to assess the alignment of the goal to the policy and procedures,
processes, terminology, and accuracy relative to knowledge and motivation on Tables 5 and 6.
Trustworthiness of Data
In order to maintain the credibility and trustworthiness of this study, the study was
conducted in an ethical manner by the way that the data was collected, analyzed, and interpreted,
and how the findings were presented (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).  The use of triangulation
consisted of multiple methods to collect data that is consistent and dependable that agrees with
the actual understanding of the participants of the study.  Triangulation was the method utilized
in this study to ensure trustworthiness and credibility.  
 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  94


Role of Investigator
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) indicated that the role of the investigator is to be responsible
for providing an explanation of a study involving participants.  The investigator in this study is a
Field Faculty member at FSSW and considered an expert social worker; a Clinical Assistant
Professor in the Field Education Department.  The author has experience working with both
online and on campus Master of Social Work programs at FSSW teaching field seminars for both
first- and second-year MSW students.  Additionally, this author is responsible for assigning first-
year students to community agencies for their internship as well as matching second-year
students to agencies on the terms of a mutual agreement between the student and agency.  This
study is beneficial to FSSW which is relative to the overall interest of improvement purposes.  
This author was mindful of the role as faculty and the impact on the relationships with other
Field Faculty throughout this study.  Transparency, privacy, and confidentiality were conveyed
to all participants.  
Limitations  
The limitations of this study were the findings were only limited to FSSW.  The results of
this study are not generalizable as only a sample of FSSW Field Faculty participated in this
study.  Bias is a factor to consider as the author is an employee at FSSW.  Also, additional
variables that examined student race and ethnicity, education-related Bachelor Degrees to
graduate Social Work, the number of students that earned a SEAP that is in the program on a
conditional status, and students that had social-work related experience were excluded to help
understand first-year MSW students in the MSW program field education.
 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  95


CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
The assumed influences identified in Chapter Three were examined using a mixed-
method approach which included both quantitative and qualitative methods.  Surveys and
interviews conducted provided quantitative and qualitative data.  Document analysis was another
method used to collect data.  The results reported in this Chapter are organized by the assumed
influences of knowledge, motivation, and organization.  Several quantitative and qualitative
sources of data were collected to validate the assumed influences.  In particular, survey,
interview, and document artifacts data were collected to understand the knowledge, motivation,
and organization at Franklin School of Social Work.
First, the surveys were disseminated to possible Field Faculty participants, to complete
the Qualtrics survey.  Second, participants volunteered to be interviewed upon following up
relative to the request provided within the survey.  Third, interviews were conducted with Field
Faculty once all interviewees were identified upon close to the end of the survey.  Finally,
document artifacts were reviewed last due to the timing in which administration provided the
SEAP document.
The Qualtrics survey was made available for Field Faculty on November 29, 2017
requesting participation to complete the anonymous survey.  The end of the survey consisted of
asking participants to consider being interviewed and provided email contact information to
schedule an interview.  A reminder email was sent to Field Faculty two weeks later on December
15, 2017, that expressed thanks to those participants for completing the survey, asked for
increased Field Faculty participation, and requested to interview participants.  The Qualtrics
survey ended on December 21, 2017.  Upon retrieval of emails from Field Faculty expressing
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  96


their willingness to be interviewed, 20-minute interviews were scheduled starting December 15,
2017 through December 21, 2017.  All interviews were conducted via telephone and/or virtually
utilizing free-conference call that allowed for transcriptions of the participant’s responses.  The
interviewees all agreed to be recorded with the understanding that the transcriptions would be
anonymous.  The document artifacts were provided by both campus and online programs upon
request for at least 10% of SEAPs implemented.  
Participating Stakeholders
Data were collected from 55 Field Faculty Instructors that have taught first-year field
seminar in the Masters of Social Work program at the FSSW to validate the assumed influences.  
Field Faculty participants were asked to respond to demographic questions before starting the
survey.  Possible participants to participate in the survey consisted of 20 full-time and 20-part-
time Field Faculty on campus.  There were a potential 12 full-time and 61 part-time online Field
Faculty to participate in the survey.  There were 20 full-time and 20 part-time Field Faculty on
campus during the time of data collections.  There were 42% of Field Faculty Instructors that
primarily teach online and 53% Field Faculty campus Instructors that completed the survey.  
Field Faculty survey participants were asked to participate in an interview upon completion of
the survey.  In the group of 55 Field Faculty that completed the survey, 11 volunteered to be
interviewed.  Table 8 shows the survey demographic characteristics of the Master of Social
Work Field Faculty participants.
 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  97


Table 8

Survey Results for Participant Demographic Characteristics
Demographic Characteristics Item   % N
Gender Identity Male
Female
Other
Prefer not to disclose
Total
16
84


100
9
46


55
Employment Status Full-Time
Part-Time
Total
51
49
100
28
27
55
Time in Field Education 1-2 Semesters
3-4 Semesters
3-5 Years
5-10 Years
11+ Years
Total
7
11
33
34.5
14.5
100
4
6
18
19
8
55
Primary Teaching Setting Online
On Campus
Total
47
53
100
26
29
55
Field Seminar Class Instructed 1st-Year MSW Students
2nd-Year MSW Students
Both
None
Total
24
7
65
4
100
13
4
36
2
55
Number of SEAPs Implemented None
1
2-3
4-5
6-9
10+
Total
7
9
18
20
11
35
100
4
5
10
11
6
19
55
 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  98


Table 8 (Cont’d.)
Demographic Characteristics Item   % N
6-8 Hours
9-10 Hours
10+ Hours
Total
6


100



52
Time Spent Weekly to Support a Student on a SEAP  Less than 1 Hour
1 Hour
2-3 Hours
4-5 Hours
6-8 Hours
9-10 Hours
10+ Hours
Total
26
42
28
4
100
14
22
15
2



53

Of the 112 Field Faculty from both online and on campus, 55 Field Faculty completed the
survey.  Participants were asked to voluntarily participate in an anonymous interview at the end
of the survey.  FSSW Administration provided six on-campus SEAPs and six online SEAPs for
document analysis.  The removal of student identifying information from the SEAP served the
purposes of student confidentiality.
Data Validation
Triangulation was utilized to promote credibility and trustworthiness (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016; Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2014).  Included in triangulation was the survey, interviews,
and document analysis.  Data was gathered from the survey to analyze Field Faculty members’
use and perception of employing SEAPs.  Information collected from the interviews provided a
narrative to questions that the survey would not otherwise give.  Documents analysis enhanced
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  99


the qualitative data by having the access to review actual SEAP documents.  Reviewing SEAP
documents helped to determine whether Field Faculty completed them correctly.  
The triangulation method involved collecting data from 55 Field Faculty, conducting 11
Field Faculty interviews, and analyzing a combination of 12 SEAP documents from on-campus
and online programs.  The results and findings from the survey, interviews, and document
analysis provided information on the assumed influences of Field Faculty implementing a SEAP
100% of the time.  Interviewing 11 volunteer participants allowed for the opportunity to gain the
perspective of Field Faculty on the implementation of SEAPs.  Interview items consisted of 14
primary and follow-up questions to examine the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences for SEAP implementation with efforts to guide students’ successful field education.  
Interviews occurred with 11 participants that volunteered.  Interviews occurred with 11
participants that volunteered.  Saturation became apparent when responses of the participants
were repetitive (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), and no further interviews were conducted.  In
addition to the survey and interviews, reviewing SEAP document analysis helped to provide
additional information relative to Field Faculty's knowledge and motivation to implement a
SEAP.  
Criteria for Validating Collected Data
Criteria by survey category.  Because the study used multiple sources of data, criteria
were created to determine when the data supported the presence of a gap individually, and how
conflicts between data sources were to be resolved.  These criteria are explained next.
Knowledge survey category.  The survey consisted of four types of knowledge – factual,
conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive.  Previous chapters included a discussion of the
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  100


assumed knowledge gaps with Field Faculty implementing SEAPs.  In the survey, participants
were asked to either rank in order, check all that apply, and multiple choice to assess Field
Faculty’s knowledge of SEAPs.  An accurate response of at least 75% to a knowledge question
showed that participants have appropriate knowledge of that item.  
Motivation survey category.  The survey assessed motivation by including statements
that focused on value, self-efficacy, mood, attribution, and goal orientation.  To examine the
assumed influence of value, participants ranked in order, check all that apply, and selected a
multiple-choice answer.  To determine whether there was a gap in Field Faculty participants’
self-efficacy, mood, and attribution of the motivation category, the standard deviation and means
of the Likert scale was used.  To explore self-efficacy, participants were asked to rate 0-10 using
the Likert scale which ranged from one feeling less confident to 10 feeling most confident in
response to assumed influences.  The assumed influence for a potential gap was validated when
participants responded with 7.4 or less that measured self-efficacy.  Additionally, the Likert scale
was used for mood and value which ranged from strongly agree, agree, neither agree or disagree,
disagree, and strongly disagree.  To measure goal orientation, Field Faculty selected an answer
from multiple-choice items and a Likert scale that encompassed possible responses from
participants that ranged from disagree, strongly agree, neither agree or disagree, agree, to
strongly agree.  Like knowledge, the gap of the assumed influence in motivation was not
validated if participant responses were at least 75% and above with a combination of strongly
agree and disagree for mood, attribution, and goal orientation.  Furthermore, mental effort and
active choice are two motivational indices that demonstrate the amount of energy applied to the
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  101


completion of the task.  Documents analysis served the purpose to examine Field Faculty's
mental effort and active choice to implement a SEAP.  
Organization survey category.  A Likert scale was used in a survey to determine whether
there was a gap in the organization influence.  The Likert scale ranged from strongly disagree,
disagree, neither agree or disagree, agree, to strongly agree.  A combination of strongly disagree
and agree responses need to be at least 75 or less to validate the assumed influence for the
organization items that used the Likert scale.  A response of at least 75% and above
demonstrated no gap in the assumed organization influence.  
Interviews.  Information gathered from the interviews provided the provision to explore
Field Faculty’s knowledge, motivation, and organization based on the assumed influences.  The
interview findings helped to validate the assumed influence by gathering the perspective of Field
Faculty's opinions, experiences, and knowledge.  The repetitive responses that were given by
Field Faculty during the interviews validated the assumed influence for the gaps.  Validation of
the assumed influences’ interviews consists of the common responses needed at least seven of
the 11 (77%) interview participants.  
Document analysis.  Another means used to triangulate the data to validate the assumed
influence was to conduct a document analysis.  Field Faculty was assessed based on knowledge
and motivation categories while reviewing the 12 documents’ analysis of the 2017-2018 SEAPs.  
At the time of document analysis, Field Faculty implemented 47 SEAPs on campus and 45 in the
online MSW program.  Thirteen percent of the SEAPs were analyzed from the on campus and
online MSW program at FSSW.  Moreover, the document analysis examined Field Faculty's
ability to complete the SEAPs accurately to measure knowledge and their ability to complete the
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  102


SEAPs completely to measure active choice and mental effort.  To validate the assumed
influence by document analysis, at least 85% of Field Faculty needed to complete the SEAPs
accurately.
Resolving conflicts in the data.  Since three sources to collect data was used, sometimes
the results revealed conflicts in the data.  The summary of each assumed influence explained any
conflicts found.  To resolve a conflict with inconsistent findings when the document analysis was
reviewed, the performance in the document analysis outweighs the recall of the declarative
knowledge.  Declarative knowledge becomes procedural when the knowledge is unconscious and
become unaware of what is known, thus becomes automatic.  The automation of declarative
knowledge occurs through the procedural use of that knowledge.  The inability to describe or
identify how to do something is often what transpires when procedural tasks are performed
(Ambrose et al. 2010).  However, the summary of each assumed influence explain any conflicts
found.
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes
The results and findings of the knowledge causes were reported by utilizing each
knowledge category and assumed influences.  The four knowledge types that were used to
examine each of the categories were declarative factual, conceptual, procedural, and
metacognitive knowledge.  The knowledge categories that identify the results and findings are
shown in Table (31).
 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  103


Factual Knowledge
Assumed knowledge influence #1: Field Faculty needs to know what data to collect.  
The underlying question is whether Field Faculty knew what data to collect.  
Survey results.  Participants were asked to check all that apply to the question – Which of
the following information is necessary in developing a SEAP?  The answer options included a)
Feedback on student performance by the Field Instructor, b) Feedback on student performance
from the student, c) A list of the core competencies expected of students during their field
placement, and d) All of the above.  The expected response was d) All of the above.  Although
the majority (66%) of Field Faculty survey participants answered the question correctly, the
results did not meet validation criteria of at least 75% indicating a gap in their knowledge of
what to collect.  Therefore, there is a knowledge gap according to the survey results.  Table 9
shows the item results for this influence.
Interview findings.  No interviews were conducted to collect data for this item.
Document analysis.  SEAP documents provided by FSSW Administration for review
demonstrated Field Faculty knew what data to collect to complete a SEAP.  This was evidenced
by reviewing the summary portion of all SEAP documents.  Out of 12 SEAPs that were
analyzed, 100% of the SEAP documents analyzed were completed correctly by Field Faculty.

 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  104


Table 9
Survey Results for Factual Knowledge of Data to Collect
# Factual Knowledge Item % Count

Which of the following information is necessary in developing a SEAP?
 
1 Feedback on student performance by the Field Instructor 12 7
2 Feedback on student performance from the student 10 6
3
A list of the Social Work Core Competencies expected of students during
their field placement 12 7
4 All of the above* 66 38

Total 100 58
*Indicates correct response

Summary.  There is a conflict in the results.  Overall, data collected from the survey
revealed that Field Faculty did not know what data to collect.  However, the document analysis
showed that Field Faculty did know what data to collect.  As much as the survey and document
analysis conflict, the documents’ analysis demonstrated there is no gap due to the positive
performance of Field Faculty accurately completing the SEAP (13% who were sampled and who
all responded correctly).  
Assumed knowledge influence #2: Field Faculty needs to know the Social Work
Core Competencies.  The underlying question is whether Field Faculty knew the Social Work
Core Competencies.
Survey results.  There was no knowledge gap for Field Faculty knowing the Social Work
Core Competencies as evidenced by the survey.  Participants were asked to check all that apply
to identify three of the nine Social Work Core Competencies for Social Work Field Education
and one code from the NASW Code of Ethics.  The correct response was that items 1 through 3
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  105


would be selected.  As seen in Table 10, 31% and 33% of participants selected all three
competencies.  The correct responses would be that 75% or more of participants would respond
to items 1 through 3.  Thus, there is no knowledge gap for the Social Work Core Competencies.  
Table 10, shows the item results for this influence.  

Table 10
Survey Results for Factual Knowledge of SW Core Competencies
# Factual Knowledge Item % Count

Identify which are the Social Work Core Competencies for Social Work Field
Education.  
1 Demonstrate Ethical and Professional Behavior* 33 41
2
Engage in Practice-Informed Research and Research - Informed Practice*
31 39
3 Engage Diversity and Difference in Practice* 31 39
4  Privacy and Confidentiality 5 7

Total 100 126
*Indicates correct response

Interview findings.  No interviews were conducted to collect data for this item
Document analysis.  In the SEAP document analysis, 11 out of 12 (92%) SEAP
documents reviewed revealed that Field Faculty knew the Social Work Core Competencies.  
Thus, there is no knowledge gap for Field Faculty knowing the Social Work Core Competencies
based on the document analysis.
Summary.  Data collected from the survey and document analysis indicated conflicting
findings of Field Faculty knowing the Social Work Core Competencies.  While the survey shows
that Field Faculty did not know the Social Work Core Competencies, the document analysis
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  106


suggest that Field Faculty did know the Social Work Core Competencies.  In this instance, more
weight is given to the document analysis as the review of the SEAPs demonstrate that Field
Faculty show positive performance results which outweighs the survey results.  Hence, there is
no knowledge gap of Field Faculty knowing the Social Work Core Competencies.
Assumed knowledge influence #3: Field Faculty needs to know the appropriate plan
for addressing a deficiency in each Social Work Core Competency.  The underlying question
is whether Field Faculty knew the appropriate plan for addressing in each Social Work Core
Competency.  
Survey results.  The knowledge gap was validated for Field Faculty knowing the
appropriate plan for addressing a deficiency in each Social Work Competency according to the
survey results.  Participants were asked to check all that apply to a scenario that addressed a first-
year MSW student deficiency in Social Work Core Competency #4 (Engage in Practice -
Informed Research and Research - Informed Practice).  As seen in Table 11, 43% displayed
knowing how to address a students’ deficiency according to the Social Work Core Competency.  
As the criterion for this item is 75%, the survey results show a knowledge gap for Field Faculty.  
Table 11 shows the results for this item.  
Interview findings.  No interviews were conducted to collect data for this item.
Document analysis.  While analyzing SEAP documents to determine whether Field
Faculty knew the appropriate plan for guiding a student who is deficient in a Social Work Core
Competency, it was noted that all 12 SEAPs demonstrated that Field Faculty knew how to
address student’s poor performance as it aligns with the Social Work Core Competency based on
the document analysis.  
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  107


Table 11
Survey Results for Factual Knowledge of Developing a Plan
# Factual Knowledge Item % Count

First-Year student Sandra, has a deficiency in Core Competency #4 -  
Engage in Practice-Informed Research and Research-Informed Practice  
when providing services to her clients.  

1
Have her read a required textbook about the importance of research with
clients. 15 14
2
Have her to discuss with her clients about which evidence based-
interventions would work best for them. 16 15
3
The student to consult with her Field Instructor about evidence-based
interventions.* 43 40
4
Have the student to utilize Motivational Interviewing or problem Solving
Therapy interventions when with her clients. 26 24

Total 100           93
*Indicates correct response


Summary.  When comparing the survey item and SEAP documents, the findings for
Field Faculty knowing how to address a students’ deficiency in each Social Work Core
Competency were inconsistent.  Forty survey participants (43%) identified the correct response
which shows this knowledge gap was validated.  On the other hand, the reviewed SEAP
documents indicated that 100% of Field Faculty knew how to address students’ deficient
performance that aligns with the Social Work Core Competency.  Given the inconsistencies with
the survey and document analysis, the document analysis shows actual positive performance
results which outweigh the survey results.  Therefore, the knowledge gap was not validated due
to the document analysis showing a better measurement of Field Faculty knowing how to address
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  108


student deficiency according to the Social Work Core Competencies.  Table 11 shows the item
results for this item.  
Assumed knowledge influence #4: Field Faculty needs to know when to implement a
Student Educational Agreement Plan.  The underlying question is whether Field Faculty knew
when to implement a Student Educational Agreement Plan.  
Survey results.  The results of this survey item demonstrated that Field Faculty knew
when to implement a SEAP for poor performing students in field education.  Table 12 displays
the analysis results of 31 of 41 (75%) participants that responded to this question answered
correctly.  Seventy-six% selected “Failure to develop proficiency in any of the nine Social Work
Core Competency”.  Thus, the survey results showed that there is no knowledge gap for Field
Faculty knowing when to implement a SEAP.  
Interview findings.  When conducting interviews, seven of the 11 participants responded
to the question of knowing when to implement a SEAP.  However, Field Faculty online
interview participants responded according to the curriculum designed for first-year MSW
students during their first semester in field education.  Of the seven Field Faculty online
participants, two responded according to the field seminar course taken during the students first
semester in field Education.  Participant #1 reported to implement a SEAP during first-year
students’ first semester in field “When a student is two weeks behind and in danger of not
completing 83% of the work.  Or when a student has shown a need for improvement in core
competency areas in the classroom.”  Participant #5 agreed and indicated “When a student is two
weeks behind” in response of when to implement a SEAP.  Field Faculty on campus and the
other Field Faculty online who responded demonstrated knowing when to implement a SEAP.  
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  109


Field Faculty on campus report implementing a SEAP “Upon learning that a student is not
meeting the required expectations” as per participant #9.  In addition, participant #11 stated
“Having a problem with the nine competencies.”  Field Faculty on campus and online alike,
illustrated knowing when to implement a SEAP.  In summary, the participants who were
interviewed knew when to implement a SEAP, and thus the gap was not validated.

Table 12

Survey Results for Factual Knowledge of Knowing when to Implement a SEAP
# Factual Knowledge Item % Count

The Student Educational Agreement Plan is required at early onset when a
student exhibits signs of . . .    
1 Lack of adherence to National Association of Social Workers Code of Ethics 17 7
2 Lack of timely submission of Reflective Learning Tools
 
3
Failure to develop proficiency in any of the nine Social Work Core
Competencies* 76 31
4  Failure to show up and participate in Integrative Field Seminar 7 3

Total 100       41
*Indicates correct response


Interview findings.  No interviews were conducted to collect data for this item.
Document analysis.  No document analysis was conducted to collect data for this item.
Summary.  The data collected by the survey and interviews clearly and consistently
showed that Field Faculty knew when to implement a SEAP.  Therefore, there is no knowledge
gap.
 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  110


Conceptual Knowledge
       Assumed knowledge influence #1: Field Faculty needs to know the purpose of the
Student Educational Agreement Plan.  The underlying question is whether Field Faculty knew
the purpose of the SEAP.
Survey results.  This survey item required Field Faculty to rank, in order of importance,
the primary purpose of a SEAP.  Overall, Field Faculty indicated that the most important purpose
of a SEAP was to identify specific areas for student improvement to successfully complete the
MSW program.  Field Faculty indicated that the least important purpose was to illustrate the
amount of completed and reviewed Reflective Learning Tools.  While the prompt for Field
Faculty participants was to rank in order, to validate this assumed influence, at least 75% of Field
Faculty must select (a) identify specific areas for the student to improve to complete the MSW
program.  The majority of Field Faculty participants (92%) selected (a), thus Field Faculty knew
the purpose of the SEAP from the survey.  Complete results of Field Faculty’s primary purpose
of a SEAP can be found in Table 13.  

Table 13
Survey Results for Conceptual Knowledge of Knowing the Purpose of the SEAP
# Conceptual Knowledge Item 1

2

3

4

Total

Rank in order of importance, the purpose of the SEAP: The primary purpose of the SEAP is
too . . .
1
Identify specific areas for the student
to improve to successfully complete
the MSW program* 92% 33 8% 3
   
36
2
Sanction students who are
experiencing some challenges in field
education
 
14% 5 56% 20 31% 11 36
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  111


Table 13 (Cont’d.)          
# Conceptual Knowledge Item 1

2

3

4

Total
3
Document the lack of Social Work
Core Competencies leading to student
dismissal 8% 3 56% 20 25% 9 11% 4 36
4
Illustrate the amount of completed and
reviewed Reflective Learning Tools
 
22% 8 19% 7 58% 21 36
*Indicates the correct response


Interview findings.  Based on the results from the interview question examining Field
Faculty’s knowledge of the SEAP’s purpose, Field Faculty knew the purpose of the SEAP.  All
interview participants demonstrated knowing the purpose of the SEAP.  For instance, participant
#10 reported “It is a support document to help students identify some of the deficiencies in
meeting the CSWE [Council on Social Work Education] Core Competencies.  The document
spells out the kind of supports we’re going to give them to be successful in the program.”  There
were two Field Faculty members to also indicate that the document serves as a formal notice.  
For example, participant #4 stated the SEAP  
serves as an academic warning and provides a paper trail for the student who is deficient
in the core competencies.  It also serves as a tool to provide specific guidelines and
expectations.  Everyone knows their roles and ways in which they will support the
student.  

Participant #7 mentioned the SEAP  
helps students be successful.  It’s twofold.  It’s geared towards immediate and long-term
success.  Understanding the direction that we want them to be headed in as social
workers.  Provide feedback.  Nice tool for Field Liaisons and Field Instructors to team
together to support the students to have that structure.”  

 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  112


Document analysis.  No document analysis was conducted to collect data for this item.
Summary.  The survey and interview data was used to gather information to determine
whether the conceptual knowledge gap was validated for this influence.  The results of the data
from the survey and interview were consistent.  The data collected from the interview
demonstrated that Field Faculty knew the purpose of the SEAP.
Assumed knowledge influence #2: Field Faculty needs to know the alignment of the
categories of the data compared to the Social Work Core Competencies.  The underlying
question is whether Field Faculty knew the alignment of the categories of the data compared to
the Social Work Core Competencies.  
Survey results.  This survey item required Field Faculty to rank in order the steps to
address a first-year MSW student who consistently shows up late for supervision and
communicates unprofessionally in emails.  In the final analysis, Field Faculty provided evidence
that the first step to address this student issue was to encourage the Field Instructor to speak with
the student regarding her performance.  Field Faculty reported the last step was to ignore the
situation.  The survey item requested for Field Faculty participants to rank in order.  To validate
this assumed influence, at least 75% of Field Faculty must select a) encourage the Field
Instructor to speak with the student regarding her performance.  The majority of Field Faculty
participants (82%) selected a).  Thus, there is no knowledge gap for Field Faculty knowing the
alignment of the categories of the data compared to the Social Work Core Competencies from
the survey.  Table 14 provides result of Field Faculty needing to know the alignment of the
categories of the data compared to the Social Work Core Competencies.  
 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  113


Interview findings.  No interviews were conducted to collect data for this item.
Document analysis.  Upon analyzing the SEAP documents, it was noted the majority of
Field Faculty knew the categories of the data compared to the Social Work Core Competencies.  
Out of 12 SEAPs that were reviewed, only one Field Faculty member failed to identify a Social
Work Competency on the SEAP.  The Field Faculty member described the importance of
knowing the Social Work value instead of identifying a Social Work Core Competency.  While
Field Faculty demonstrated knowing the categories of the Social Work Core Competencies, there
were inconsistencies with labeling the sub Social Work Core Competencies.  There was no
knowledge gap of Field Faculty knowing the alignment of the categories of the data compared to
the nine Social Work Core Competencies; therefore the gap was not validated in review of the
document analysis.

Table 14
Survey Results for Conceptual Knowledge of Knowing the Categories of the Data Compared to
the SW Core Competencies

# Conceptual Knowledge Item 1

2

3

4

Total

Rank in order steps to address this situation: The Field Instructor reports for the second time
in one month that Sandra, a first-year student, consistently shows up late to supervision
unprepared and does not communicate professionally in emails, I would . . .

1
Encourage the Field Instructor to
speak with the student regarding
her performance* 82% 31 16% 6 3% 1
 
38
2
Meet with the student and
encourage her to speak with the her
Field Instructor to share her side of
the report
 
63% 24 37% 14
 
38
3 Ignore the situation
     
100% 38 38
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  114


Table 14 (Cont’d.)          
# Conceptual Knowledge Item 1

2

3

4

Total
4
Gather information from the
student and Field Instructor, begin
to categorize the information
compared to the Social Work Core
Competency and develop a SPIP 18% 7 21% 8 61%
 
38
*Indicates the correct response

Summary.  A review of the survey and document analysis shows that Field Faculty knew
the data to categorize and compared it to the Social Work Core Competencies, thus the
knowledge gap was not validated.
Assumed knowledge influence #3: Field Faculty needs to know the relationship
between Social Work Core Competencies and solutions.  The underlying question is whether
Field Faculty knew the relationship between Social Work Core Competencies and solutions.  
Survey results.  The results of this survey item displayed that Field Faculty lack
knowledge of the relationship between Social Work Core Competencies and solutions.  Survey
participants were asked about the importance to know the challenges that a student may be
experiencing at their internship.  As seen in Table 15, 73% selected the correct answer of “aids in
identifying Social Work Core Competencies that will help increase student
achievement.”  Therefore, the knowledge gap was validated for Field Faculty knowing the
relationship between Social Work Core Competency and solutions based on the survey.        
 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  115


Table 15
Survey Results for Conceptual Knowledge of Knowing the Relationship between Social Work
Core Competencies and Solutions

# Conceptual Knowledge Item % Count

Why is it important for Field Faculty to know the challenges a student
may be experiencing at their internship?  
1 Impact on student development  24 10
2 Helps Field Faculty to personally know the student 3 1
3 Allows Field Faculty to be compliant with documentation expectations
 
4
Aids in identifying Social Work Core Competencies that will help
increase student achievement*
73 30

Total 100 41
*Indicates correct response

Interview findings.  No interviews were conducted to collect data for this item.
Document analysis.  In review of the SEAP documents to examine whether Field Faculty
knew the relationship between Social Work Competencies and solutions, it was noted that all 12
documents demonstrated that Field Faculty knew how to determine the expectation of the student
based on the Social Work Competency.  Thus, there was no knowledge gap for Field Faculty
knowing the Social Work Core Competency and the solutions.  
Summary.  The data collected from the survey and document analysis indicated
inconsistent results.  The percentage for Field Faculty knowing the relationship between Social
Work Competencies and solutions fell just below 75% in the survey.  Therefore, the gap was
validated according to the survey.  However, there was no knowledge gap in review of the
document analysis.  While the survey indicated a validated gap, the document analysis revealed
no validated gap.  To determine whether there was a gap based on the assumed influences, more
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  116


emphasis was placed on the document analysis as this demonstrated the performance of Field
Faculty completing the SEAPs and knowing the relationship between Social Work Competencies
and solutions.  Therefore, there was no knowledge gap for Field Faculty knowing the
relationship between Social Work Competencies and solutions.  
Procedural Knowledge
Assumed knowledge influence #1: Field Faculty needs to know how to collect data
and compare it to the nine Social Work Core Competencies to assess the gap.  The
underlying question is whether Field Faculty knew how to collect data and compare it to the
Social Work Core Competencies to assess the gap.
Survey results.  There was no knowledge gap for Field Faculty knowing how to collect
data and compare it to the Social Work Core Competencies to assess the gap from the survey.  
The survey item examined the steps that Field Faculty used to determine whether a student was
meeting the Social Work Core competencies in the form of a student scenario.  As seen in Table
16, 88% of Field Faculty selected the correct response, thus there was no gap for this knowledge
influence.

 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  117


Table 16

Survey Results for Procedural Knowledge of knowing how to Collect Data and Compare it to the
SW Core Competencies to Assess the Gap

# Procedural Knowledge Item % Count

You learn during a field site visit that Sandra, a first-year student, has not conducted any
assessments with Spanish-only speaking clients at an adult day care as she is English
speaking only, despite her Field Instructor having twice addressed her current performance.  
You should:  

1
Speak with Sandra immediately and remove her from the field
placement until you can resolve the issue
 
2
Compare Sandra’s behavior to the Social Work Core Competency
expectation; schedule a meeting with her to discuss the results, develop
solutions together, and document the conversation* 88% 35
3
Schedule a meeting with Sandra, tell her your plan for her to improve
her performance relative to the Social Work Core Competencies 10% 4
4
Tell Sandra how she should improve her performance and give her a
deadline 2% 1

Total 100% 40
*Indicates correct response


Interview findings.  From interviews with Field Faculty, it was found that they did know
how to determine the gap of the current performance and the expectation of a student.  For
example, participant #1 responded in reference to the first semester field education online class,
reporting “easy to assess the gap due to its structure.  Observing student performance behavior in
class.  Falling asleep, poor attendance, failure to submit timely assignments and incomplete
asynchronous assignments.  Grid to show the progress of the students.”  Participant #4 reported
“the online class is structured and students are required to complete at least 83% of their work
and SEAPs are implemented when students are behind two weeks in their work.  In Community
Based Placements, communication with the field instructor and preceptor to gather information
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  118


and align it with the CSWE Core Competencies and NASW Code of Ethics is essential.  It’s
difficult when Field Instructors are comparing students against each other.  According to Field
Faculty on campus, participant #3 indicated “contact by the Field Instructor, conduct a meeting
with the student and the Field Instructor, discuss specific competency areas not met, brainstorm
ways to support and benchmark ways for student to remain in field and credit.”  Another Field
Faculty on campus, participant #2 reported “conversation to contact with the student as well as
with the Field Instructors.  Classroom behavior can be indicative of issues and concerns in the
field and notes are compared with the Field Instructor upon contacting them.”  In summary, the
participants who were interviewed knew how to determine the gap of the current performance
and the expectation of a student, thus there was no knowledge gap based on the interviews.
Document analysis.  In review of the SEAPs, it showed that Field Faculty knew how to
determine the gap of the current performance and the expectation of the student.  For instance, all
SEAP documents identified the expectation according to the concerns described in the summary
section of the SEAP.  Therefore, there was no knowledge gap according to the document
analysis.
Summary.  There were consistent findings from the survey and document analysis.  
Therefore, there was no gap found for Field Faculty knowing how to determine the gap for the
current performance and the expectation of the student.  
Assumed knowledge influence #2: Field Faculty needs to know how to monitor the
plan and provide guidance to the student.  The underlying question is whether Field Faculty
knew how to monitor the plan and provide guidance to the student.
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  119


Survey results.  As shown in Tables 17 and 18, there was no knowledge gap for Field
Faculty knowing how to monitor the plan and provide guidance to the student.  A large portion
of Field Faculty demonstrated knowing how to monitor the plan and provide guidance to the
student.  Field Faculty report spending at least one hour weekly monitoring and providing
guidance to students.  It is assumed that the needs of the student determine the amount of time
spent on each student.  For instance, the survey shows that one Field Faculty member spends
more that 10 hours monitoring the progress of a student on a SEAP.  According to the survey
results, there was no knowledge gap.

Table 17
Survey Results for Procedural Knowledge of Knowing how to Monitor the Plan and Provide
Guidance to the Student

# Procedural Knowledge Item % Count

I should monitor the progress of a student on a SEAP . . .
 
1 At no time
 
2 1 Hour Weekly* 98 40
3 2-3 Hours Weekly
 
4 4-5 Hours Weekly
 
5 6-8 Hours Weekly
 
6 9-10 Hours Weekly
 
7 10+ Hours Weekly 2 1

Total 100 41
*Indicates correct response.






FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  120


Table 18

Survey Results for Procedural Knowledge of Knowing how to Monitor the Plan and Provide
Guidance to the Student

# Procedural Knowledge Item % Count

Students require support from both the Field Instructor and Field Faculty to
be successful in field education when on a SEAP  
1 Every time* 85 35
2 Most of the time 12 5
3 Sometimes 3 1
4 Rarely
 

Total 100 41
*Indicates correct response.

Interview findings.  No interviews were conducted to collect data for this item.
Document analysis.  The reviewed SEAPs demonstrated that Field Faculty knew how to
monitor the plan and guide the student.  Field Faculty identified their roles and planned to
support the student in the SEAPs.  Therefore, there was no knowledge gap based on the
document analysis.  
Summary.  Data collected from the survey and document analysis revealed that Field
Faculty knew how to monitor the plan and guide the student.  Survey results showed that 98%
Field Faculty spend one hour weekly supporting students on a SEAP.  The SEAP documents
indicated that Field Faculty stated the plan and time frame to monitor a student on a SEAP.  
Therefore, there was no knowledge gap for Field Faculty knowing how to monitor the plan and
guide the student.  
 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  121


Metacognitive Knowledge
       Assumed knowledge influence #1: Field Faculty needs to reflect on the process, the
goal, status, and planning.  The underlying question is whether Field Faculty reflect on the
goal, status, and planning.  
Survey results.  The findings from the survey showed that 62% of Field Faculty spend
time weekly thinking about the effectiveness of the plan when developing a SEAP.  Only 3%
reported to never reflect on the process to develop a SEAP.  Therefore, there was a knowledge
gap for reflecting on the process, goal, status, and planning based on the survey results for
metacognitive knowledge.  Table 19 shows the results for this item.

Table 19
Survey Results for Metacognitive Knowledge of Reflecting on the Process, Goal, Status, and
Planning  

# Metacognitive Knowledge Item % Count

I spend time thinking about the effectiveness of the plan when
developing a SEAP    
1 Never 2 1
2 Monthly 13 5
3 Weekly*  62 24
4 Daily 23 9

Total 100      39
*Indicates the correct response

Interview findings.  No interviews were conducted to collect data for this item.
Document analysis.  No document analysis was conducted to collect data for this item.
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  122


Summary.  The collected data from the survey reveals that Field Faculty did not reflect
on the goal, status, and planning of the SEAP.  Therefore, there was a knowledge gap.  
Assumed knowledge influence #2: Field Faculty needs to reflect on conducting a
strength-based meeting, implementation time frame of the SEAP, and goal.  The underlying
question is whether Field Faculty reflect on conducting a strength-based meeting,
implementation time frame of the SEAP, and goal.  
Survey results.  The results of this survey item demonstrated that Field Faculty did not
reflect on conducting a strength-based meeting, implementation, time frame of the SEAP, and
goal.  Table 20 displays that 73% of Field Faculty reflect every time about conducting a strength-
based meeting with the Field Instructor and student.  Thus, there is a knowledge gap for Field
Faculty reflecting on a strength-based meeting with the Field Instructor.

Table 20
Survey Results for Metacognitive Knowledge of Knowing to Reflect on Conducting a Strength-
Based Meeting, Implementation Time Frame of the SEAP, and Goal  

# Metacognitive Knowledge Item % Count

When developing a SEAP, I spend time thinking about conducting a
strength-based meeting with the Field Instructor and student  
1 Every time* 73% 30
2 Most of the time 20% 8
3 Sometimes 7% 3
4 Rarely
 

Total 100% 41
*Indicates correct response.

 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  123


Interview findings.  No interviews were conducted to collect data for this item.
Document analysis.  No document analysis was conducted to collect data for this item.
Summary.  Data collected by survey only shows that the gap was validated for this
knowledge influence.  In order to improve the knowledge gap, Field Faculty needs to reflect on
conducting a strength-based meeting with the Field Faculty and the student.
Results and Findings for Motivation Causes
Value
Assumed value influence #1: Field Faculty needs to value collecting data, comparing
it with Social Work Core Competencies, and determining the solutions according to the
students’ performance.  The underlying question was whether Field Faculty valued collecting
data, comparing it with Social Work Competencies, and determining the solutions according to
the students’ performance.
Survey results.  This survey item required Field Faculty to rank in order of importance
their teaching approach.  Field Faculty (50%) reported to value communicating to students their
beliefs that they have the potential to be successful as the most important approach to teaching
which was the expected first order in ranking.  Participants indicated that the least important
teaching approach was to allow time for students to practice evidence-based practices in the
classroom.  Since, 75% of Field Faculty did not select the correct response, this showed that
there is a motivation gap as the gap was validated for Field Faculty to value collecting data,
comparing it with Social Work Competencies and determining the solutions according to the
students’ performance.  Table 21 shows the results for Field Faculty valuing to collect data,
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  124


compare it with Social Work Core Competencies, and determining the solutions according to the
current student performance.  

Table 21
Survey Results for Value Motivation to Collect Data, Compare it with the SW Core
Competencies, and Determine the Solutions  

#
Value
Motivation
Item 1

2

3

4

5

6

Total

Regarding your approach to teaching, please rank the following statement in order of
importance

1
Allowing time
to practice
Evidence-
Based Practices
in the
classroom   5% 2 16% 6 8% 3

15 32% 12 38
2
Communicating
to your students
that you believe
they have the
potential to be
successful 50% 19 5% 2 13% 5 13% 5 16% 6 3% 1 38
3
Meeting with
student
individually to
get to know
them personally 13% 5 24% 9 21% 8 11% 4 16% 6 16% 6 38
4
Scheduling
field site visits
as early as
possible in the
semester 3% 1 8% 3 11% 4 26% 10 24% 9 29% 11 38
5
Introduction
and ongoing
communication
with the Field
Instructor 13% 5 39% 15 21% 8 24% 9 3% 1   38
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  125


Table 21 (Cont’d.)
#
Value
Motivation
Item 1

2

3

4

5

6

Total
6
Orienting
students to
the field
manual and
the Student
Educational
Agreement
Plan early in
the Fall
semester 21% 8 18% 7 18% 7 18% 7 3% 1 21% 8 38
*Indicates correct response.

Interview findings.  Results from the interview were utilized to examine Field Faculty’s
motivation to teach in Field Education in order to assess the assumed value motivation gap.  The
interview findings showed that Field Faculty value collecting data, comparing it to the Social
Work Core Competencies, and determining the solutions according to the current student
performance.  For example, participant #5 stated,  
field education is the heart of social work.  This is where we see issues come across.  
Students with high GPAs perform mediocre to poor at best.  We have an obligation to
protect our clients as well.  Love our colleagues but there have been some that were
negligent to put these students on SEAPs their first year.  Not putting a student on a
SEAP does them a disservice and students recognize this and have said that they have
been pushed along.  

Participant #1 reported  
Heart of Social Work and where the rubber meets the road.  The field is much more
exciting due to the variety which makes it more enjoyable.  This is where students can
really apply their skills because a student may do well academically and unable to
perform well in field.  

FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  126


In summary, the interview results demonstrated that Field Faculty value collecting data,
comparing it with Social Work Core Competencies, and determining the solutions according to
the current student performance.  Therefore, there was no motivation gap for Field Faculty
valuing to collect the data, comparing it with Social Work Competencies, and determining the
solutions according to the students’ performance.  
Document analysis.  No document analysis was conducted to collect data for this item.
Summary.  Data collected from the survey focused on Field Faculty ranking in order of
importance their teaching approach in Field Education.  While the survey indicated results that
show a motivation gap, the interview demonstrated no motivation gap.  The data shows
inconsistent results that were resolved by the survey due to a higher percentage of participants
opposed to the interview.  Therefore, there is a motivation gap for Field Faculty knowing the
importance relative to their teaching approach related to Field Faculty collecting data, comparing
it with Social Work Core Competencies, and determining, the solutions according to the
students’ performance.  
Assumed value influence #2: Field Faculty needs to value meeting with the Field
Instructor and student to implement a Student Educational Agreement Plan.  The
underlying question is whether Field Faculty valued meeting with the Field Instructor and
student to implement a SEAP and establishing a timeline.  
Survey results.  Findings from the survey revealed that Field Faculty valued meeting with
the Field Instructor and student to implement a SEAP.  As seen in Table 22 75% of Field Faculty
responded indicating to value meeting with the Field Instructor as the expected response was c)
gather information from the student and proceed with scheduling a meeting with the Field
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  127


Instructor and student.  Therefore, the survey found no motivation gap for Field Faculty meeting
with the Field Instructor and student to implement a SEAP.  

Table 22
Survey Results for Value Motivation to Meet with the FI to Implement a SEAP and Establish a
Timeline  

# Value Motivational Item % Count

Upon retrieval of information reported of a student’s poor performance by
the student’s Field Instructor, I usually . . .  
1
Allow the Field Instructor to problem-solve with the student 25% 10
2
Implement a Student Educational Agreement Plan and establish a timeline
for the student to demonstrate improvement
 
3
Gather information from the student and proceed with scheduling a meeting
with the Field Instructor and student*
75% 30

Total 100% 41
*Indicates correct response.

Interview findings.  Participants for the interview item were asked to describe a time
when they met with a Field Instructor that was opposed to implementing a SEAP.  The interview
findings show that six participants experienced meeting with a Field Instructor that was opposed
to implementing a SEAP.  Participant #7 reported  
I have proceeded with a SEAP without the involvement of the Field Instructor because I
knew it was needed.  But I didn’t necessarily have the support or honestly, need the
support, and those are rare, few and far between, but where it’s really focused on my own
interaction with the student or my own observation of their shortcomings.  

Participant #6 stated “It’s more common than not, but it’s definitely common.  I have
encountered a few times where a Field Instructor was like, well let’s just give her another chance
and I proceed with a SEAP anyway.”  Participant #11 stated “A Field Instructor evaluated a
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  128


student which indicated the student passed all competencies, however, the feedback was not
reflective of the evaluation.  There were concerns about the students’ writing emails and
presenting herself to others in the office during meetings.  The Field Instructor felt like there
wasn’t really a need for a plan because they were already working on the issue.  In summary,
Field Faculty seemed to value meeting with the FI and student to implement a Student
Educational Agreement Plan.  Therefore, there was no motivation gap for Field Faculty meeting
with the Field Faculty and student to implement a SEAP according to the interview.  
Document analysis.  No document analysis was conducted to collect data for this item.
Summary. The survey and interview findings demonstrate that Field Faculty value
meeting with the Field Instructor and student to implement a Student Educational Agreement
Plan.  The survey results illustrated that most Field Faculty value meeting with the Field
Instructor to address a student’s poor performance in Field Education.  Despite the opposition of
the Field Instructor to implement a SEAP, all six interviewed participants reported having
proceeded with a SEAP.  Thus, there was no motivation gap for Field Faculty valuing to meet
with the Field Instructor and student to implement a SEAP.  
Assumed Value Influence #3: Field Faculty needs to value collecting data from the
Field Instructor to monitor the plan and provide additional guidance to the student.  The
underlying question is whether Field Faculty value collecting data from the Field Instructor to
monitor the plan and provide additional guidance to the student.
Survey results.  There is a motivation gap for Field Faculty collecting data from the Field
Instructor to monitor the plan and guide the student based on the survey results.  As seen in
Table 23. 39% of Field Faculty demonstrated to value collecting data from the Field Instructor to
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  129


monitor the plan and guide the student.  As seen in Table 23, 28-39% of participants selected all
three responses relative to value for collecting data from the Field Instructor to address the
student’s poor behavior.  Field Faculty needed to respond with at least 75% or more to determine
whether there is a gap.  Therefore, the gap was validated.

Table 23

Survey Results for Value Motivation to Collect Data from the Field Instructor to Monitor the
Plan and Provide Additional Guidance to the Student  

# Value Motivation Item % Count

When collecting data from the Field Instructor relative to the student’s poor performance, I
usually. . .  
1
Inquire about how much guidance the Field Instructor will provide to help student achievement
of the SEAP* 39 31
2
Will provide bi-weekly support/guidance to the student based on the collected data for the
SEAP* 28 22
3 Communicate with the Field Instructor bi-weekly regarding the progress of the student* 34 27

Total 100 80
*Indicates correct response.

Interview findings.  The interview findings informed us that Field Faculty value
collecting data from the Field Instructor to monitor the SEAP plan and provide additional
guidance to the student.  For instance, participant #2 reported  
Anytime you’re able to come together to take a solution-focused approach to an initial
concern, gives me value.  It’s something that stimulates communication dialogue and it’s
how I present with a student that it’s not punitive and its part of the learning experience
that students can acknowledge and take control.  I feel value when students are able to
learn from their experience.  I have an international student who has learned from her
experience.  

Participant #4 indicated  
I feel a sense of value and I think the students feel a sense of value as well.  
SEAPs are almost equivalent to mandated reporting.  You know that there is a lot of work
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  130


that needs to go into writing a SEAP and you know that you need to address the issues
and so I write a SEAP.  I have had quite success with implementing SEAPs and really
feel a sense of value when students thank me in the end when they see improvement.  

Participant #7 stated  
There are times where I kind of cringe and don’t want to write them.  Benefits outweighs
the hard work required but also the confrontation required some time.  I don’t love that
part of it but I definitely do feel a sense of value and that I’m holding students
accountable, that we’re not just pushing students through because they’re you know
uploading the documents that are required and moving on but that we’re really looking at
what we expect from students.  

Based on the interview findings, there was no motivation gap for Field Faculty to value
collecting data from the Field Instructor, to monitor the plan, and provide additional guidance to
the student.  
Document analysis.  No document analysis was conducted to collect data for this item.
Summary.  The survey and interview results show inconsistencies in that Field Faculty
exhibited value based upon the interview results and the interview results showed that Field
Faculty valued collecting data from the Field Instructor to monitor the plan and provide
additional guidance to the student.  Less than 75% of Field Faculty selected the expected value
response which led to the determination of a gap for motivation based on the survey.   The
interview findings indicated that Field Faculty felt a sense of value through the creation and
monitoring of the SEAP despite the amount of work required for implementation.  To determine
whether there is a gap for value motivation, more weight was given to the survey due to a higher
percentage of participants than the interviews.  Thus, there is a value motivation gap for Field
Faculty collecting data from the Field Instructor to monitor the plan, and provide additional
guidance to the student.
 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  131


Self-Efficacy
Assumed self-efficacy influence #1: Field Faculty needs to feel confident about
scheduling and facilitating an effective strengths-based meeting with the Field Instructor
and student.  The underlying question is whether Field Faculty felt confident about scheduling
and facilitating a strengths-based meeting with the Field Instructor and student.  
Assumed self-efficacy influence #2: Field Faculty needs to feel confident to complete
an effective SEAP.  The underlying question is whether Field Faculty felt confident about
completing an effective SEAP.
Assumed self-efficacy influence#3: Field Faculty needs to feel confident about where
to submit a completed SEAP.  The underlying question is whether Field Faculty felt confident
about where to submit a completed SEAP.  
Assumed self-efficacy influence #4: Field Faculty needs to feel confident about their
ability to update the SEAP on the expected timeline.  The underlying question is whether
Field Faculty felt confident in their ability to update the SEAP on the expected timeline.  
Assumed self-efficacy influence #5: Field Faculty needs to confidently establish a
date for students to demonstrate improvement.  The underlying question is whether Field
Faculty felt confident about establishing a date for students to demonstrate improvement.  
Assumed self-efficacy influence #6: Field Faculty needs to feel confident about
collecting data from the Field Instructor to monitor the plan and provide additional
guidance to the student.  The underlying question is whether Field Faculty felt confident to
collect data from the Field Instructor to monitor the plan and provide additional guidance to the
student.
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  132


Survey results.  As shown in Table 24, the value category based on the mean of all the
scores showed that Field Faculty felt confident in collecting data, comparing it to Social Work
Core Competencies, and determining the solutions based on reported current student
performance.  Field Faculty responded to the self-efficacy motivation item by rating their degree
of confidence on the Likert scale ranging from 0 (feels less confident) and 10 (feeling most
confident).  The highest mean score of 8.5 revealed that Field Faculty felt most efficacious about
knowing where to submit a SEAP.  There was no gap for the majority of Field Faculty feeling
efficacious to schedule and facilitate an effective strengths-based meeting with the Field
Instructor and student (8.35), complete an effective SEAP (7.85), where to submit a completed
SEAP (8.5), ability to update the SEAP on the expected timeline (7.71), establish effective
timelines for students to complete the expectations outlined in the SEAP (8.15), and to collect
data from the Field Instructor in order to monitor the plan (8.20).  There was no knowledge gap
found for self-efficacy motivation according to the survey.

Table 24
Survey Results for Self-Efficacy Motivation of Student Educational Agreement Plan
#
Self-Efficacy Motivation
Item Minimum Maximum Mean
Standard
Deviation Variance Count
Using the scale below, please rate your degree of confidence in the following from 0 to 10.  
1
Schedule and facilitate an
effective strengths-based
meeting with the Field
Instructor and student 3.00 10.00 8.35 1.56 2.43 40
2
Complete an effective
SEAP 4.00 10.00 7.85 1.57 2.47 41
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  133


Table 24 (Cont’d.)
#
Self-Efficacy Motivation
Item Minimum Maximum Mean
Standard
Deviation Variance Count
3
Where to submit a
completed SEAP 5.00 10.00 8.50 1.61 2.60 40
4
Ability to update the SEAP
on the expected timeline 2.00 10.00 7.71 1.86 3.48 41
5
Establish effective timelines
for students to complete the
expectations outlined in the
SEAP 2.00 10.00 8.15 1.79 3.20 41
6
Collect data from the Field
Instructor in order to
monitor the plan 3.00 10.00 8.20 1.71 2.94 41

Interview findings.  During the interview, participants were asked to tell about a time
when they felt high and low confidence to examine participants’ feeling of confidence when
addressing student challenges in field education.  Participant #9 reported to feel confident when  
a student last year who was terminated for an infraction that she didn’t know was an
infraction.  I think in that case it was because the Field Instructor also was pretty good at
identifying her strengths and what she did well and taking some responsibility for what
didn’t go well on the agency side.  She was a student who had a lot of good skills but
kind of got caught up in the agency not being prepared for her and her being reticent and
shy.  

Participant #11 shared a time when there was a feeling of high confidence “when a
student did not follow through with being encouraged with Office for Students with Disabilities
for special accommodation.”  Only one out of the 11 interview participants indicated to seldom
feel confident and participant #5 stated “There are rare times where I feel completely confident
in the direction I’m going that it’s not very often because it’s very rare that it’s Black and
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  134


White.”  Interview findings revealed that six of the 11 Field Faculty experienced low confidence
in addressing student challenges when mental health issues are involved.  For instance,
participant #9 reported “autism spectrum issues and the student was opposed to the SEAP and
the student raised the roof about it.”  Participant #2 indicated “mental health issues and being in
their second placement in less than two and a half months and then terminated.  I feel confident
to employ a SEAP but not confident that the student will be successful.”  In addition to Field
Faculty feeling low confidence to address challenges due to student mental health issues,
interviews showed that low confidence is experienced when there is a lack of support provided
by the Field Instructor.  For example, participant #4 reported “Personality conflicts between the
field Instructor and student.  Also when the Field Instructor is unable/struggle to provide
sufficient data and documentation in order to address a student who is not meeting the
educational marks to be successful in field.” Participant #8 reported  
When I don’t have a Field Instructor that is forthcoming or you know sort of wishy
washy or vague on where the issues that we still need to implement this process then I feel a lack
of confidence in my own process but that I’m faced with writing a SEAP because I want to do
right by the students.  I want to have integrity in the process but that I’m faced with writing a
SEAP.  Overall, less teamwork brings about less confidence.  

In summary, for the interview results, Field Faculty were efficacious in their ability to
address student challenges in field education.  
Document analysis.  No document analysis was conducted to collect data for this item.
Summary.  The survey results and interview findings demonstrated that Field Faculty felt
confident about implementing SEAPs and addressing student challenges.  The interview findings
from Field Faculty revealed they felt most confident to address student challenges when the Field
Instructor was supportive in providing information.  Low confidence in dealing with a student
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  135


experiencing difficulties in field education is when a student has mental health issues and
personality conflicts between student and Field Instructor.  Based on the overall findings from
the survey and interviews, there was no self-efficacy motivation gap for Field Faculty feeling
efficacious about addressing student challenges in field education.  
Summary of Validated Influences
In summary, the survey results revealed the following for each Influence pertaining to
Field Faculty:
1. Field Faculty felt confident to schedule and facilitate an effective strengths-based
meeting with the Field Instructor and student
2. Field Faculty felt confident about where to submit a completed SEAP.  
3. Field Faculty felt confident about completing an effective SEAP.
4. Field Faculty felt confident in their ability to update the SEAP on the expected timeline.  
5. Field Faculty felt confident about establishing a date for students to demonstrate
improvement.  
6. Field Faculty felt confident to collect data from the Field Instructor to monitor the plan
and provide additional guidance to the student.
Mood
Assumed mood influence #1: Field Faculty needs to feel positive about collecting
data.  The underlying question is whether Field Faculty felt positive about collecting data.
Assumed mood influence #2: Field Faculty needs to feel positive about comparing
the data with the Social Work Core Competencies.  The underlying question is whether Field
Faculty felt positive about comparing the data with the Social Work Core Competencies.  
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  136


Assumed mood influence #3: Field Faculty needs to feel positive about determining
the performance of the student.  The underlying question is whether Field Faculty felt positive
about determining the student performance.
Assumed mood influence #4: Field Faculty needs to feel positive about determining
the student expectations.  The underlying question is whether Field Faculty felt positive about
determining the student expectations.  
Assumed mood influence #5: Field Faculty needs to feel positive about implementing
a SEAP to help student success in field education.  The underlying question is whether Field
Faculty felt positive about the implementation of a SEAP to help student success in field
education.
Survey results.  Based on the assumption that there is a lack of Field Faculty feeling
positive about addressing student challenges, participants were asked to rate the extent to which
they agree or disagree with statements seen in Table 25.  Overall, the survey results revealed that
Field Faculty range between 88% and 98% between agreeing and strongly agreeing of feeling
positive about addressing student challenges.  Thus, there was no mood motivation gap found
based on the survey result.
 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  137


Table 25
Survey Results for Field Faculty Feeling Positive to Address Students with Challenges in Field
Education

#
Mood
Motivation
Item
Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Neither
Agree or
Disagree

Agree

Strongly
Agree

Total
1
I feel positive
about
collecting data 2% 1   10% 4 22% 9 66% 27 41
2
I feel positive
about
comparing the
data with the
Social Work
Core
Competencies     5% 2 29% 12 66% 27 41
3
I feel positive
about
determining
the
performance
of the student     2% 1 37% 15 61% 25 41
4
I feel positive
about
determining
the student
expectations      2% 1 39% 16 59% 24 41
5
I feel positive
about
implementing
a SEAP to
help student
success in
field
education     5% 2 39% 16 56% 23 41

FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  138


Interview findings.  To explore Field Faculty's mood, they were asked to describe their
feelings about implementing a SEAP.  The interviews show that Field Faculty's ranges from
feeling challenged, to fine, to very comfortable with SEAP implementation.  In particular,
participant #1 reported  
I feel very comfortable with it.  Good tool to use with students.  Not meant to be punitive.  
Listed in the field manual as the first academic warning.  Feel that it's going to be an
adversarial process although it's not meant to be.  However, students take it as such.  

Participant #4 reported  
It's a necessary tool, and it can be a challenge to introduce no matter how much I try to
introduce the SEAP in a strength-based manner, students perceive the SEAP as negative.  
It becomes a balancing act when trying to gather information from the Field Coordinator
and coordinate meeting, getting the document signed, and making sure that the student's
performance and expectations reflect the SEAP (Confidence vs. conviction).  I want to
feel confident in knowing that I did the right thing which is to address the student
behavior and instead of never addressing a student's lack of performance in field and feel
convicted knowing that I did the student and the profession a disservice.  

Participant #5 indicated  
I have come to feel very comfortable.  However, they come across as punitive.  It is a
benefit to students although it does not seem that way.  We learn from our mistakes.  And
I think most of our students really do learn from their mistakes and do come to realize
that for a lot of our students this is the first time they've been put in a professional setting.

Participant #9 stated “I feel fine about it but, concerns are logistical at this point.  It's a much
better process than it was.  The biggest challenge is the coordination and signing.  Suggest
DocuSign.”  Participant #7 reported  
It's not my favorite experience.  They are a lot of work; coordination of the meeting with
the student, ongoing upkeep and maintenance of the process.  I don't love it because we're
all busy and it's time constraint.  It's 51% on a good day I do feel like you know that I do
feel the process is worthwhile and helps to provide support to the students by becoming
more clear and concrete about the expectations.  Don't want to find myself at the end of
the semester realizing that I should have put the student on a SEAP.  It feels good for our
profession to know that students’ poor performance is being addressed.

FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  139


The interview findings demonstrated that the gap was not validated for the assumed
mood motivation influence.  
Document analysis.  No document analysis was conducted to collect data for this item.
Summary.  According to the collected data from the survey results and interview
findings, Field Faculty felt positive, comfortable, and challenged about addressing student
challenges and implementing a SEAP.  Despite the substantial amount of work that is required to
implement a SEAP, the interview findings demonstrated that Field Faculty continue to employ a
SEAP to help with student success in Field Education.  Field Faculty felt confident and
comfortable implementing SEAPs.  Thus, there was no mood motivation as Field Faculty
demonstrated feeling positive when addressing student challenges in field education.  
Summary of Validated Influences
In summary, the survey results revealed the following for each Influence pertaining to
Field Faculty:
1. Field Faculty felt positive about collecting data.
2. Field Faculty felt positive about comparing the data with the Social Work Core
Competencies.  
3. Field Faculty felt positive about determining the student performance.
4. Field Faculty felt positive about determining the student expectations.  
5. Field Faculty felt positive about the implementation of a SEAP to help student success in
field education.
 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  140


Attribution
Assumed attribution influence #1: Field Faculty attribute student poor performance
to student lack of role understanding and not Field Faculty.  The underlying question is
whether Field Faculty attribute student challenges in field education to their lack of
communication.
Assumed attribution influence #2: Field Faculty attribute poor student performance
in field education to student anxiety.  The underlying question is whether Field Faculty
attribute student poor performance to themselves
Survey results.  Field Faculty was asked to rate the extent to which they agreed or
disagreed with statements related to attribution.  Field Faculty scored the highest (97%) between
agreeing and strongly agreeing when responding their goal is to motivate students to see their
current performance as opportunities for learning.  Also, many Field Faculty (81%) responded
between agree and strongly agree to their goal of exceeding the university’s expectations for
supervision of field education.  Therefore, there is a motivation gap for the attribution assumed
influences.  However, a large portion of Field Faculty (86%) responded between strongly
disagree and disagree to not attributing students’ challenges in field education to their lack of
communication relative to the program’s expectation of them while in field education.  Also,
Field Faculty (39%) agreed that students’ experienced challenges in field education is mostly due
to their inability to engage.  Therefore, there is a motivation gap for the attribution assumed
influences.  See Table 26 for complete results.  
 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  141


Table 26
Survey Results for Field Faculty Attribution of Student Challenges in Field Education
#
Attribution
Motivation
Item
Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Neither
Agree
or
Disagree

Agree

Strongly
Agree

Total
1
My students’
challenge in
field education
is often due to
my lack of
communication
relative to the
program’s
expectation of
them while in
field 69% 28 17% 7 10% 4 2% 1 2% 1 41
2
My student’s
challenge in
field
education is
mostly due to
their inability
to engage 2% 1 22% 9 37% 15 39% 16   41

Interview findings.  From the interviews with Field Faculty to examine attribution,
participants were asked their thoughts about why first-year MSW students experience challenges
in field education.  Of the 11 participants, eight Field Faculty indicated that first-year students
lack professionalism.  For example, participant #3 reported "immaturity, lack of professionalism,
lack of work experience, unrealistic expectations, struggles to take direction from their Field
Instructor."  Participant #5 stated "professionalism, not grasping the therapeutic skill, unable to
engage appropriately, intervene accordingly, submitting timely documentation, not realizing that
their internship is a professional job."  Field Faculty shared additional thoughts about first-year
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  142


MSW students in their challenge in field education.  Participant #2 reported fear factor, anxious,
and afraid to meet with clients."  Participant #10 conveyed "having no concept whatsoever of
what social work is all about.  The learning curve is really quite a leap for them.  A lack of life
experience as well."  
In summary, Field Faculty reported attribution to first-year MSW students’ challenges are
professionalism, time management, lacking knowledge of the social work profession, limited life
experience, communication, and confidence issues.  Thus, the interviews showed there is a
motivation gap for Field Faculty attribution for student challenges in field education.
Document analysis.  No document analysis was conducted to collect data for this item
Summary.  The findings from the survey showed that Field Faculty do not attribute
student difficulties in field education to their lack of classroom instruction.  In fact, the survey
results also showed that Field Faculty strongly agreed that their goal is to motivate students to
see their current performance as opportunities for learning.  The majority of Field Faculty
reported during the interviews that student attribution of challenges in field education is due to a
lack of professionalism.  The survey and interview data results were consistent in that the Field
Faculty did not attribute any of the students challenges to themselves.  Therefore, there is a
motivation gap for Field Faculty attribution relative to student challenges in field education.
Summary of Validated Influences
In summary, the survey results revealed the following for each Influence pertaining to
Field Faculty:
1. Field Faculty did not attribute student challenges in field education to their lack of
communication.
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  143


2. Field Faculty did not attribute student poor performance to themselves.
Assumed attribution influence #3: Field Faculty needs to attribute student
challenges to their ability to collect data, compare it with Core Competencies, and
determine the solutions based on reported current student performance.  The underlying
question is whether Field Faculty believe they can influence their students’ academic
achievement.
Survey results.  As seen in Table 27 the attribution category based on the mean score
showed that Field Faculty to not attribute themselves to influence student academic achievement.  
Field Faculty needed to respond with a score of at least 7.5 or more to the assumed influence.  
There was a mean of 7.05 for Field Faculty attributing themselves to influence student academic
achievement.  Therefore., there is a motivation gap for attribution.

Table 27
Survey Results for Attribution of Student Academic Success
#
Attribution
Motivation Item Minimum Maximum Mean
Standard
Deviation Variance Count
Using the scale below, please rate your degree of attribution with your student in the
following from 0 to 10.  
1
Influence my
students’
academic
achievement 3.00 10.00 7.05 1.72 2.97 41
 
Interview results.  No interviews were conducted to collect data for this item.
Document analysis.  No document analysis was conducted to collect data for this item.
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  144


Summary.  The survey results demonstrated that Field Faculty do not attribute
themselves to influence student academic achievement.  Thus, there is a motivation gap for Field
Faculty attributing student challenges to their ability to collect data, compare it to the Social
Work Core Competencies, and determine the solutions based on the student’s current
performance.  
Goal Orientation
Assumed goal orientation influence #1: Field Faculty has a mastery approach to
their field work and not doing the minimum.  The underlying question is whether Field
Faculty had a mastery approach to their field work and not doing the minimum.  
 Assumed goal orientation influence #2: Field Faculty focus on the mastery of their
ability to guide student improvement, learning, and progress.  The underlying question is
whether Field Faculty had a mastery approach in their ability to guide student improvement,
learning, and progress.  
Assumed goal orientation influence #3: Field Faculty help students to see student
current performance as opportunities for learning.  The underlying question is whether Field
Faculty has the mastery approach in their role to guide and help students to see learning
opportunities at their current performance.  
Survey results.  As seen in Table 28, a Likert scale was used to assess the goal
orientation of Field Faculty.  The Likert scale consisted of a range of strongly agree, agree,
neither agree or disagree, disagree, and strongly disagree to assumed influences that addressed
the goal orientation of Field Faculty.  Field Faculty scored the highest (97%) between agreeing
and strongly agree when responding that their goal is to motivate students to see their current
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  145


performance as opportunities for learning.  Also, many Field Faculty (81%) responded between
agree and strongly agree to their goal of exceeding the university’s expectations for supervision
of field education.  Of the items examining goal orientation related to motivation in Table 29,
many participants (88%) reported to "exceed expectations" when providing support to a student.  
Notably, no Field Faculty reported to "exert as little effort as possible."  Based on the survey
findings in Table 28 and 29, there was no gap validated for the goal orientation motivation
influence.  

Table 28
Survey Results for Goal Orientation to Provide Student Support
#
Goal
Orientation
Motivation
Item
Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Neither
Agree
or
Disagree

Agree

Strongly
Agree

Total
1
My goal is to
exceed the
university’s
expectations
for
supervision
of field
education   5% 2 15% 6 27%* 11 54%* 22 41
2
My goal is to
motivate
students to
see their
current
performance
as
opportunities
for learning 2% 1     7%* 3 90%* 37 41

FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  146


Survey results.  Of the items examining goal orientation related to motivation in Table
29, a majority of participants (88%) reported to "exceed expectations" when providing support to
a student.  Notably, Field Faculty reported to "exert as little effort as possible."  Based on the
survey findings in Table 28 and 29, the is no gap for the goal orientation motivation influence.  

Table 29
Survey Results for Orientation Motivation Influence
# Goal Orientation Motivation Item % Count

When I provide support to a student, I often find that I. . .
 
1 Exert as little effort as possible  
2 Meet minimum expectations 12 5
3 Exceed expectations* 88 36

Total 100           41
*Indicates correct response


Interview findings.  No interviews were conducted to collect data for these items.
Document analysis.  No document analysis was conducted to collect data for these items.
Summary.  The survey findings reveal that Field Faculty exceed the university’s
expectation for supervision of field education, motivates students to see their current
performance to see opportunities for learning, and goes beyond meeting minimum expectations
when supporting a student.  Thus, there is no goal orientation motivation gap.  
Summary of Validated Influences
In summary, the survey results revealed the following for each Influence pertaining to
Field Faculty:
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  147


1.  Field Faculty had a mastery approach to their field work and not doing the minimum.  
2. Field Faculty had a mastery approach in their ability to guide student improvement,
learning, and progress.  
3.  Field Faculty had the mastery approach in their role to guide and help students to see
learning opportunities at their current performance.
Results and Findings for Organization Causes
Cultural  
Assumed resource influence #1: Field Faculty needs to be provided with sufficient
support to assist with student success to achieve the goals of the SEAP.  The underlying
question is whether Field Faculty received sufficient support to assist with student success to
achieve the goals of the SEAP.  
Assumed resource influence #2: Field Faculty needs to be provided with model
samples of the SEAPs to assist with efficient completion of the plan to help meet the
learning needs of the student.  The underlying question is whether Field Faculty were provided
with model samples of the SEAP to assist with efficient completion of the plan to help meet the
learning needs of the student.
Assumed resource influence #3: Field Faculty needs appropriate training on
completing the SEAP.  The underlying question is whether Field Faculty were provided
appropriate training to complete a SEAP.
Assumed resource influence #4: Field Faculty needs follow-up training and support
to ensure proper implementation of the SEAP.  The underlying question is whether Field
Faculty received follow-up training to implement a SEAP.
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  148


Assumed resource influence #5: Field Faculty needs support from administration
when feeling overwhelmed with student challenges and the implementation of the SEAP.  
The underlying question is whether Field Faculty received support from administration when
feeling overwhelmed with student challenges and the implementation of the SEAP.
Assumed policies, and processes, and procedures influence #6: The Franklin School
of Social Work has policies that align with the Student Educational Assessment Plan
implementation.  The underlying question is whether FSSW has policies that align with the
SEAP.  
Assumed cultural settings influence #7: FSSW recognizes and supports Field
Faculty when needed to assist with student success with achieving the SEAP.  The
underlying question is whether FSSW recognizes and supports Field Faculty to assist with
student success to achieve the SEAP.
Assumed recognition influence #8: The Franklin School of Social Work incentives
align with the goals of implementing a SEAP.  The underlying question is whether Field
Faculty received incentives that align with the goals of implementing a SEAP.  
Survey results.  As seen in Table 30, the survey results we examined Field Faculty and
the organization.  The survey results revealed a combination of validated and gaps that were not
validated based on the assumed influences in the organization category.  The highest ratings
were in providing Field Faculty with sufficient support to assist with student success to achieve
the goals of the SEAP, where, 47% and 37% (84% combined) of the responses were "agree" and
"strongly agree."  Field Faculty responded with a combination of 77% between agree (31%) to
strongly agree (46%) to FSSW providing necessary resources to efficiently complete a SEAP.  
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  149


Moreover, Field Faculty responded between 33% (agree) to 44% (strongly agree) with a
combination of 77% to the school has policies and processes that are consistent with the creation
of the SEAP.  Thus, the gap was not validated based on the organization assumed influences.  Of
the survey items in assessing whether FSSW provides trainings and follow-up trainings; support
when Field Faculty express overwhelmed feelings; values, rewards, and recognizes Field Faculty
who implement a SEAP; and values Field Faculty’s efforts to improve student success, the
results show a range from 41% to 72% (combination of agree and strongly agree) of Field
Faculty’s responses to organization assumed influences.  Based on the survey results, most the
items assessed fell below the 75% threshold.  Therefore, the gap was validated for the
organization assumed influence.  

Table 30

Survey Results for Organization
#
Cultural
Organization
Item
Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Neither
Agree or
Disagree

Agree

Strongly
Agree

Total
1
Provides Field
Faculty with
sufficient support
to assist with
student success
to achieve the
goals of the
SEAP. 5% 2 3% 1 8% 3 47% 18 37% 14 38
2
My school
provides the
necessary
resources, like
job aids and
examples for me
to efficiently
complete the
SEAP. 3% 1 8% 3 13% 5 31% 12 46% 18 39
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  150


Table 30 (Cont’d.)
#
Cultural
Organization
Item
Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Neither
Agree or
Disagree

Agree

Strongly
Agree

Total
3
Provides SEAP
training for
implementation
to facilitate
student success
in field. 3% 1 18% 7 16% 6 37% 14 26% 10 38
4
Provides follow-
up training and
support for the
SEAP. 3% 1 24% 9 13% 5 39% 15 21% 8 38
5
Administration
supports me
when I verbalize
overwhelmed
feelings. 3% 1 15% 6 23% 9 33% 13 26% 10 39
6
The school has
policies and
processes that are
consistent with
the creation of
the SEAP. 3% 1 10% 4 10% 4 33% 13 44% 17 39
7
Values, rewards,
and recognizes
Field Faculty
who implements
a SEAP and
provide
additional
support to
students for
success. 5% 2 10% 4 44% 17 26% 10 15% 6 39
8
Values my
efforts to
improve student
success in field
education. 5% 2 3% 1 21% 8 23% 9 49% 19 39

FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  151


Interview findings.  All participants reported feeling supported by the FSSW when
implementing a SEAP during the interviews.  Field Faculty mentioned having received support
from SEAP mentors, sample SEAP's, templates, and having the option to consult.  For instance,
participant # 9 reported, "consultation meetings and consulting with colleagues.  Having a more
formalized mechanism is supportive.  The templates and policies are helpful."  Participant # 5
"FSSW provides templates, rules, policies, and support Field Faculty very well."  Participant # 3
stated, "yes SEAP mentors and being able to consult with colleagues."  Overall, the interview
findings that examined the cultural organization and Field Faculty feelings supported by FSSW
demonstrated that the gap was not validated.
The interview findings to assess policies, processes, and procedures showed that there
may be some discrepancies with policy and processes and what happens in reality.  For example,
participant #3 stated, "written policies align very well and tend to support the SEAP.  However,
what really happens is different when students are graduating and have not met the requirements
to close a SEAP and are not ready to enter the social work profession."  Participant #6 indicated,  
I think there may be some gaps because I think you know the policies of meeting all nine
competencies and you know that students are struggling to meet let's see competency
number one and even though they were there on a SEAP and they graduate they may not
have fully developed.  The policy of FSSW is that we're following the NASW Code of
Ethics and professionalism and meeting all nine competencies so I think there is a gap.  

Participant #1 reported,  
there is a gap.  Students are receiving credit and earning degrees, and they have not
completed the SEAP after the student has appealed the no credit.  Lots of time and work
and the student does not suffer the consequences either.  
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  152


In summary, the interview findings show that the gap is validated for the cultural
organization in policies, processes, and procedures.  Field Faculty interview findings
demonstrated their feelings of value by the FSSW organization to support students with
challenges in field education.  For instance, participant #4 reported “there is not a moment when
I don't feel supported.  I always feel supported."  Participant #10 indicated  
dealing with a student close to termination with mental health issues.  Felt valued when
making others who worked with the student aware of my experiences with the student
and that there should be an opportunity to support the program and was able to coordinate
the student with support to complete the program and coordinated a Field Instructor with
similar experiences and the student was able to complete the program successfully.  
Administration freely gives praises.  However, the disadvantage is being assigned the
difficult students which can feel overloaded and overwhelming.  

According to participant #9, "when I have students who escalated to administration, and
they understand the dynamics of some of our students that some of them are consumers and they
don't get sucked into it, and that is very supportive."  Overall, the interviews show that Field
Faculty feel supported by FSSW.  According to the interviews, the gap was not validated for this
item which assessed the culture of the organization and Field Faculty feelings value when
providing support to students experiencing challenges in field education.  
Document analysis.  No document analysis was conducted to collect data for this item.
Summary.  The data collected from the survey and interviews demonstrated that Field
Faculty feel supported and valued.  While, the results in the area of Field Faculty feeling
supported, having sufficient job aides, and feeling valued for their efforts to support students on
a SEAP meet the 75% threshold, other results indicated a need for improvement in policies,
training, recognition, and support when feeling overwhelmed did not meet the threshold.  The
interview findings and the survey results showed that cultural organization can be improved.  
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  153


The inconsistencies in the survey and interview results are resolved by the validation of more
than half of the organization-assumed influences in the survey which also had a higher
percentage of participants that responded to the organization items.  
Summary of Validated Influences
In summary, the survey results revealed the following for each Influence pertaining to
Field Faculty:
1. Field Faculty did receive sufficient support to assist with student success to achieve the
goals of the SEAP.  
2. Field Faculty were provided with model samples of the SEAP to assist with efficient
completion of the plan to help meet the learning needs of the student.
3. Field Faculty were not provided with appropriate training to complete a SEAP.
4. Field Faculty did not receive follow-up training to implement a SEAP.
5. Field Faculty did not receive support from administration when feeling overwhelmed
with student challenges and the implementation of the SEAP.
6. FSSW had policies that align with the SEAP.  
7. FSSW does not recognize and support Field Faculty to assist with student success to
achieve the SEAP by valuing, rewarding, and recognizing Field Faculty who
implemented a SEAP.
8. Field Faculty received incentives that align with the goals of implementing a SEAP.  
Knowledge  
Through the use of survey, interviews, and document analysis, there were gaps found in
six of the 11 assumed knowledge influences.  Table 31 shows a summary illustrating each of the
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  154


categories in the assumed knowledge influences.  Recommendations to improve each validated
gap will be included in Chapter Five.

Table 31
Summary of Assumed Knowledge Gaps Validated
Assumed Knowledge Influences Gap Validated?
Declarative Factual
Field Faculty needs to know what data to collect      No  
Field Faculty needs to know the Social Work Core Competencies   No  
Field Faculty needs to know the appropriate solutions (plan) for addressing  No  
a deficiency in each Social Work Core Competency

Field Faculty needs to know when to implement a SEAP     No

Declarative Conceptual
Field Faculty needs to know the purpose of the SEAP     No
Field Faculty needs to know the alignment of the categories of the data   No  
compared to the Social Work Core Competencies
Procedural
Field Faculty needs to collect data and compare it to Social Work Core   No
Competency to assess the gap
Field Faculty needs to know how to monitor the plan and provide guidance  No
to the student
Metacognitive
Reflect on the process, their goal, status, and planning     Yes
Reflect on running a strength-based meeting, implementation time   Yes
frame of the educational plan, and goal.
______________________________________________________________________________
 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  155


Motivation
The survey, interviews, and document analysis, showed there were five out of 15 gaps
found in the motivation assumed influences.  Table 32 illustrates the results that consist of the
assumed motivation influences.  Recommendations to improve each validated gap will be
included in Chapter Five.

Table 32
Summary of Assumed Motivation Causes Validation
Assumed Knowledge Influences Gap Validated?
Value
Field Faculty needs to value collecting data, comparing it with Social  Yes  
Work Core Competencies, and determining the solutions according to  
the current student performance

Field Faculty needs to value meeting with the Field Instructor and student   No
to implement a Student Educational Agreement Plan and establish a timeline
for students to demonstrate improvement

Field Faculty needs to value collecting data from the Field Instructor to  Yes  
monitor the plan and provide additional guidance to the student

Self-Efficacy
Field Faculty needs to have confidence in collecting data, comparing it  No  
with the Social Work Core Competencies, and determine the solutions
based on reported current student performance

Field Faculty needs to be confident they can implement a SEAP   No

Field Faculty needs to confidently establish a date for students to    No
demonstrate improvement

Field Faculty needs to feel confident about collecting data from the Field   No
Instructor to monitor the plan and provide additional guidance to the student

 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  156


Table 32 (Cont’d.)
Assumed Knowledge Influences Gap Validated?
Mood
Field Faculty needs to feel positive about collecting data, comparing it with No
Social Work Core Competencies, determining the current student performance,
and expectations of the student

Field Faculty needs to feel positive about implementing a SEAP   No

Attribution
Field Faculty attribute students’ lack of role understanding and not    Yes  
Field Faculty

Field Faculty attribute poor student field education to student anxiety  Yes  

Field Faculty needs to attribute student challenges to their ability to collect  Yes
data, compare it with SW Core Competencies, and determine the solutions
based on the reported current student performance.

Goal Orientation
Field Faculty has mastery approach to their field work and not doing the   No
minimum

Field Faculty will focus on the master of their ability to guide student  No
improvement, learning, and progress  

Field Faculty will help student to see current performance as opportunities  No
for learning
______________________________________________________________________________


Organization
The survey, interviews, and document analysis, showed there were gaps found in five of
eight of the assumed organization influences.  Table 33 illustrates the results that consist of the
assumed organization influences.  Recommendations to improve each validated gap will be
included in Chapter Five.  
 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  157


Table 33
Summary of Assumed Organization Causes Validation
Assumed Knowledge Influences Gap Validated?
Resources  
Field Faculty needs to be provided with sufficient support    No
to assist with student success to achieve the goals of the SEAP
Field Faculty needs to be provided with a model sample of the    No
SEAP to assist with efficient completion of the plan to help meet the
learning needs of the student    
Field Faculty needs adequate training on completing the SEAP   Yes
Field Faculty needs follow-up training and support to ensure proper  Yes
implementation of the SEAP  

Field Faculty needs support from administration when feeling overwhelmed Yes
with student challenges and the implementation of the SEAP  

Policies, Processes, and Procedures    
FSSW has policies and processes that align with the SEAP    No  
Culture Settings
FSSW recognizes and supports Field Faculty when needed to assist with   Yes
student’s success with achieving the SEAP

Recognition
FSSW incentives align with the goals of implementing a SEAP   Yes
______________________________________________________________________________

Recommendations and an analysis of suggested solutions for each validated gap will be
included in Chapter Five.  Empirically based evidence recommendations will be utilized to guide
proposals for each solution.  FSSW Field Faculty and Administration will receive proposed
solutions.  

 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  158


CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS AND EVALUATION  
Purpose of the Project and Questions
 The purpose of this study was to conduct a needs analysis in the areas of knowledge,
skill, and motivation, and organizational resources essential to accomplish the goal that by May
2018, 100% of Field Faculty will implement SEAPs with 100% of students who require a
successful field education.  While a complete needs analysis would focus on all stakeholders,
Field Faculty were the focus in this analysis.
The questions that guided this study were:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs necessary for Franklin
School of Social Work Field Faculty to reach the goal of implementing SEAPs with
100% of students requiring them, to assist students with Field Education success?
2. What are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions to those
needs?
Recommendations to Address Knowledge, Motivation, and  
Organization Influences
The Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis Process was the framework identified to assist
the FSSW organizational goal for Field Faculty to implement a SEAP 100% of the time for
students that demonstrate deficiencies in the Social Work Core Competencies in field education.  
The framework consisted of three elements that contribute to performance gaps in an
organization (Clark and Estes, 2008).  According to Clark and Estes, knowledge and skills,
motivation to accomplish the set goal, and organizational barriers are the three elements used to
assess performance gaps.  A review of the empirical literature aided in developing questions for
the survey and interview questions to determine whether a gap existed at FSSW.  A review of the
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  159


empirical literature aided in developing questions for the survey and interview questions to
determine whether a gap existed at FSSW.  With document analysis, the SEAPs assisted in
validating a potential gap centered on Field Faculty accurately completing the document.  A
table for each KMO will provide a summary of validated causes listed by priority to accomplish
the performance results which includes the assumed influence, high or low priority, evidenced-
based principles that support the recommendation, and a recommendation for each cause derived
from the evidence-based principles.
Knowledge Recommendations
        Introduction.  The use of a survey, interviews, and document analysis validated the
assumed knowledge and skills gap of Field Faculty at FSSW.  As cited by Clark and Estes
(2008), knowledge and skills consist of four categories, which are declarative factual, declarative
conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge.  Table 34 lists the causes, priority,
principle, and recommendations.  Following the table, a comprehensive discussion for each high-
priority cause and recommendation and the literature reinforcing the recommendation is
provided.  The knowledge influences were used to achieve the FSSW’s goal of SEAP
implementation and was validated based on Field Faculty scoring 75% and below on survey
items that examined the four domains in the knowledge and skills categories.  Additionally,
when much of Field Faculty responded similarly to the same question, the gap was either
validated or not validated based on the assumed influence.  According to Krathwohl (2002), the
knowledge influences examine the what, conceptual addresses the interrelationships of key
components within a larger structure to work together, procedural consists of knowing how to do
something, and metacognitive addresses the self-awareness and knowledge of one’s thinking.  As
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  160


shown in Table 34, there were two metacognitive knowledge gaps that were identified a high
priority for Field Faculty goal achievement.  A list of the recommendations identified for the
validated assumed influence constructed from the evidence-based principles can be found in
Table 34.

Table 34
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Knowledge
Influence
Priority
High
Low Principle and Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Metacognitive      
Reflect on the process,
their goal, status, and
planning
HP  The use of metacognitive
strategies facilitates learning
(Baker, 2006)
Field Faculty to consult
with colleagues and/or the
SEAP representative
relative to the goal, status,
and planning of the SEAP.
Reflect on running a
strength-based
meeting,
implementation time
frame of the
educational plan, and
goal.
HP  Information learned
meaningfully and connected
with prior knowledge is stored
more quickly and remembered
more accurately because it is
elaborated with prior learning
(McCrudden, Schraw, &
Hartley, 2006).
Field Faculty to coordinate
the facilitation of a
strength-based meeting
with the student to discuss
the implementation of the
SEAP.  
 
Declarative knowledge solutions.  There were no gaps found in the declarative
knowledge type.  
Procedural knowledge solutions.  There were no gaps found in the procedural
knowledge type.  
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  161


Conceptual knowledge solutions.  There were no gaps found in the conceptual
knowledge type.  
Metacognitive knowledge solutions.  Field Faculty needs to reflect on the process, their
goal, status, and panning, and Field Faculty needs to reflect on running a strength-based meeting,
implementation time frame of the educational plan, and goal.  According to Krathwohl (2002),
metacognitive refers to self-awareness of one’s own cognition.  Mayer (2011) cited
metacognitive refers to the use of strategies and knowing when to apply them as self-regulated
learners.  Thus, the recommendation is for Field Faculty to consult with colleagues and/or SEAP
representative relative to the goal, status, and planning of the SEAP.  Field Faculty may consult
with peer during weekly consultations about a students’ poor performance to gather feedback.  
Moreover, at FSSW, SEAP representatives are available to consult with Field Faculty based on
their departments to discuss students who are not meeting expectations in field education.
When analyzing the process of completing a task, assessment of a task and planning are
two significant stages of the process (Ambrose et al., 2010).  Metacognitive knowledge is the
main element of strategic behavior in problem solving and takes into consideration knowing
when and why to decide on doing something (Rueda, 2011).  When realistic goals are set for
students, being transparent and sharing similar experiences of possible frustration as a student
helps students to have a sense of accurate ambitions about themselves (Ambrose et al., 2010).  At
the same time, Moore and Urwin (1990) conceded that students need to be willing to critically
examine themselves and change especially when their performance is poor and they must be
motivated and have the capacity to grow and change.  Ambrose et al. (2010) provided research
that implies students will generally require support in learning and integrating metacognitive
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  162


skills.  When meaningful information is learned and tied to prior knowledge, the information is
more accurately recalled due to prior learning (McCrudden et al., 2006).  Based on the literature,
it seems that the increase in Field Faculty’s reflection and self-awareness would promote the
facilitation of a strength-based meeting with the student to discuss the implementation of the
SEAP.  
Motivation Recommendations
Introduction.  Schunk et al. (2014) defined motivation as the “process whereby goal-
directed activity is instigated and sustained” (p. 5).  Motivation determines the amount of effort
to exert to complete a task (Clark & Estes, 2008).  Scholars agreed that there are three different
motivational indexes or types that are recognized as either opportunities or a problem that
involves the work environment – active choice, mental effort, and persistence (Clark & Estes,
2008; Schunk et al., 2014).  Active choice was defined by Clark and Estes (2008) as people
either choosing to or failing to choose to pursue a work goal.  According to Rueda (2011),
mental effort refers to the mental work required to develop new learning and knowledge.  Lastly,
persistence occurs when there is a decision to continue working towards goal achievement
despite any barriers or distractions (Schunk et al., 2014).
Table 35 lists the motivation causes, priority, principle. and recommendations.  
Following the table, a detailed discussion for each high priority cause and recommendation and
the literature supporting the recommendation is provided.

 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  163


Table 35  
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Motivation
Influence
Priority
High
Low Principle and Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Value    

Field Faculty needs to value
collecting data, comparing
it with Core Competencies,
and determining the
solutions according to the
current student
performance.

HP

Rationals that include a
discussion of the
importance and utility
value of the work or
learning can help learners
develop positive values
(Durik, Vida, & Eccles,
2006; Pintrich, 2003).

Provide rationales as to the
importance or utility value of Field
Faculty collecting data, comparing
it with SW Core Competencies,
and determining the solutions
according to the current student
performance.

Field Faculty needs to value
collecting data from the
Field Instructor to monitor
the plan and provide
additional guidance to the
student.

HP

Feedback as well as
actual success on
challenging tasks
positively influences
people’s perceptions of
competence (Borgogni
et al., 2011).

SEAP representatives are Field
Faculty who experience student
challenges and can foster positive
values.  

Attribution
 

Field Faculty attribute
student poor performance to
student lack of role
understanding and not Field
Faculty.

HP

Provide feedback that
stresses the process of
learning including the
importance of effort,
strategies, and potential
self-control of learning
(Anderman &
Anderman, 1999).

Field Faculty meet with students
individually in the beginning of
each semester to support the
student and reinforce their role of
a student learner.

Field Faculty attribute poor
student field education to
student anxiety.

HP

Learning and motivation
are enhanced when
individuals attribute
success or failures to
effort rather than ability
(Anderman & Anderman,
1999).

Field Faculty to conduct a prior
knowledge assessment and
encourage success by the amount
of exerted effort in field education
when meeting individually with
students.
 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  164


Table 35 (Cont’d.)
Assumed Motivation  
Influence
Priority
High
Low Principle and Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation

Field Faculty needs to
attribute student success to
their ability to collect data,
compare it with Social
Work Core Competencies,
and determine the solutions
based on reported current
student performance.

HP

Adaptive attributions and
control beliefs motivate
students (Pintrich, 2003)

SEAP representatives to build self-
efficacy and enhance Field Faculty
motivation


Value solutions.  Field Faculty needs to value collecting data, comparing it with Core
Competencies, and determining the solutions according to the current student performance and
value collecting data from the Field Instructor to monitor the plan and provide additional
guidance to the student.  Schunk et al. (2014), defined value as one’s beliefs as to the cause to
become involved in a particular task.  Utility value seems to align best with FSSW Field Faculty
employing SEAPs.  Clark and Estes (2008) referred to utility value as despite any challenges
with task completion, the focus is on the final product despite choosing to complete a task based
on interest.  Hence, the recommendation is to provide rationales as to the importance or utility
value of Field Faculty collecting data, comparing it with SW Core Competencies, and
determining the solutions according to the current student performance.  
When analyzing value in relation to motivation to achieve a goal, Ambrose et al. (2010)
indicated that perceived value directly impacts motivation.  Thus, a lack of value causes low
motivation which is likely to produce less than desirable results for goal achievement.  
Motivation is high among individuals who attain a set goal when the value is high (Ambrose et
al., 2010).  At the same time, Schunk et al. (2014) conceded that value depends on the interest to
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  165


engage in tasks.  According to Clark and Estes (2008), utility value centers around the benefits of
completing a task and recommended providing practical benefits of achieving the goal or the
threat to refraining from goal completion.  For example, Leadership can explain to Field Faculty
that employing a SEAP is a means of early intervention which may assist students to be
successful in field education when given ample time to improve.  Field Faculty failing to employ
a SEAP to poor performing students can cause a disservice which may, in turn, place
clients/patients, families, and communities at risk for safety.  
Albert Bandura's (2001) Social Cognitive Theory stressed the importance of learning to
transpire in a social context through observation which has been utilized to understand classroom
motivation, achievement, and learning (Denler, Wolters, & Benson, 2014).  Social Cognitive
Theory suggests that peer modeling can increase self-efficacy and motivation to achieve the set
goal (Bandura, 2011; Schunk et al., 2014).  For example, Field Faculty serve as SEAP
representatives who identify as peer models to help maximize goal achievement of Field Faculty
implementing SEAPs to every student demonstrating poor performance in field education.  In
sum, social cognitive theory support SEAP representatives who are Field Faculty who
experience student challenges and can foster positive values.  
Attribution solutions.  Field Faculty needs to value collecting data, comparing with SW
Core Competencies, and determining the solutions according to the current student performance.  
Rueda (2011) defined attribution as the beliefs that one may have that focuses on the amount of
control and factors that involve the success or failure of impacting.  Stability, locus, and control
are three dimensions of Attribution (Rueda, 2011).  The stability dimension of attribution focuses
on whether the reason is temporary or consistent, locus dimension looks at the attribution cause
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  166


being either internal and external, and controllability dimension refers to one having control over
the cause (Rueda, 2011).  
According to Anderman and Anderman (1999), increased learning and motivation to
accomplish a set goal or task is increased when effective feedback is provided and when effort
instead of ability is attributed to success.  In addition to providing effective feedback, Field
Faculty needs to conduct a prior knowledge assessment of students.  Researchers Dochy, Segers,
and Buell (1999) defined prior knowledge assessment as the knowledge, skills, and ability that
students bring to learn.  Thus, it is recommended that Field Faculty meet with all students
individually the beginning of each semester to support the student and reinforce their role of a
student learner.  Additionally, Field Faculty needs to conduct a prior knowledge assessment and
encourage success by the amount of exerted effort in field education when meeting individually
with students.  Field Faculty’s awareness of students’ prior knowledge helps to provide effective
feedback to students.  
Organization Recommendations

Introduction.  The organizational influences are essential in examining the performance
gaps and needs (Clark & Estes, 2008).  A discussion of the assumed organizational influences
that includes four areas that encompasses cultural models, cultural settings, policies and
procedures, and resources will follow.  The cultural model consists of one validated gap that is
also considered low priority.  There was one validated gap found in the cultural settings area
which was considered high priority.  There was a high priority placed on the validated gap found
in the policies and procedures area.  The resources type was found to have three validated gaps
and two are considered high priority and one low priority.  Table 36 lists the organization causes,
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  167


priority, principle, and recommendations.  Following the table, a detailed discussion for each
high priority cause and recommendation and the literature supporting the recommendation is
provided.

Table 36  
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Organization
Influence
Priority
High
Low
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Cultural Models    
FSSW needs to have incentives that
align with the goals of
implementing a Student Educational
Agreement Plan.

L Behavior that is
reinforced is
strengthened (Daly,
Martens, Skinner, &
Noelle, 2009).

Field Faculty that have implemented
a SEAP will be acknowledged at
monthly Faculty meetings.
Cultural Settings    
FSSW needs to recognize and
support Field Faculty when needed
to assist with student success related
to achieving the Student Educational
Agreement Plan.

L Positive emotional
environments support
motivation (Clark &
Estes, 2008)
Field Faculty to request support of
the SEAP representative and
Assistant Dean for support as needed
to assist with student success to
achieve the SEAP.
Resources    
Field Faculty needs appropriate
training on completing the SEAP.
H Targeting training and
instructions between
the individual’s
independent
performance level and
their level of assisted
performance promotes
optimal learning
(Scott & Palinscar,
2013).
Administration to facilitate SEAP
training before the start of the Fall
semester of each academic calendar
by use of vignettes for practice
purposes.
 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  168


Table 36 (Cont’d.)
Assumed Organization
Influence
Priority
High
Low
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation

Field Faculty needs follow-up
training and support to ensure
proper implementation of the
Student Educational Agreement
Plan.

H

Learning task that are
similar to those that
are common to the
individual’s familiar
cultural setting will
promote learning and
transfer (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001).  

Field Faculty will receive follow- up
training as a refresher and to provide
guidance in applying what they have
learned back to the job.

Field Faculty needs support from
administration when feeling
overwhelmed with student
challenges and the implementation
of the Student Educational
Agreement Plan.

L

Higher expectations
for success and
perceptions of
confidence can
positively influence
learning motivation
(Durik et al., 2006).

Administration to provide
encouragement and acknowledge
Field Faculty’s effort to support
students who are deficient in meeting
field education experience.  Students
who experience challenges in field
education will be enrolled in all Field
Liaisons field seminar class instead
of being assigned to the Field Faculty
member that is considered capable to
handle challenging students.

Cultural model solutions.  FSSW needing to have incentives that align with the goals of
implementing a Student Educational Agreement Plan is a low priority assumed influence cause
of the validated gap.  The cultural models describe what is valued and how things should be for
individuals (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001).  Cultural models are based on shared ways of
thinking and responding to challenges which usually go unnoticed because of its familiarity
(Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001).  Clark and Estes (2008) argued that there are conflicting
messages when providing incentives to individuals for reaching performance goals.  Individuals
may perceive performance goal as optional when tied to an incentive (Clark & Estes, 2008).  
Intangible incentives in the form of acknowledgement provide information on how to be
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  169


successful (Clark & Estes, 2008).  Thus, those Field Faculty that have implemented a SEAP will
be acknowledged at monthly Faculty meetings.
Cultural settings solutions.  FSSW to recognize and support Field Faculty when
providing assistance with student success related to achieving the Student Educational
Agreement Plan is a low priority validated gap found based on the assumed organizational
influence.  Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) described cultural settings as the accomplishment
of something as a result of two people coming together.  Scholars believed that both cultural
models and settings together shape organizational culture (Gallimore & Goldebberg, 2001).  A
good relationship between individuals and the organization is conducive to both as individuals
find meaningful work and organizations get the energy necessary to succeed (Bolman & Deal,
2008).  Field Faculty to request support of the SEAP representative and Assistant Dean for
support as needed to assist with student success to achieve the SEAP.  
Policies and procedures solutions.  FSSW needs to have policies and processes that
align with the SEAP educational plan implementation is considered a high priority validated gap
found based on the assumed organizational influence.  Wayne (2004) suggested policy
recommendations for field education that includes a clearly articulate process for dismissal that
is followed by faculty at FSSW.  Scholars Gillis and Lewis (2004) cited that gatekeeping
involves admission procedures, review procedures for continuing students in academic programs,
and legal issues related to admission and termination of students.  Therefore, understanding and
knowing the guidelines for developing policies is paramount for Social Workers who experience
challenges with gatekeeping (Gillis & Lewis, 2004).  The conflict between organizational culture
and performance goals are the causes of the work goal or policy receiving no support by the
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  170


work process (Clark & Estes, 2008).  Thus, the recommendation for this validated gap is for
FSSW to adhere to policies related to academic warnings of students that receive SEAPs relative
to student dismissal from the MSW program.  The transfer of knowledge and skills is essential to
transfer after receiving training and education (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011).  
Resources solutions.  Field Faculty needs appropriate training on completing the SEAP
and Field Faculty needs follow-up training and support to ensure proper implementation of the
Student Educational Agreement Plan are considered high priority validated gaps found as a result
of the assumed organizational influence.  Additionally, Field Faculty needs support from
administration when feeling overwhelmed with student challenges and the implementation of the
Student Educational Agreement Plan is considered a low priority validated gap found from the
assumed organizational influence.  Clark and Estes (2008) conceded that material resources are
necessary to achieve the performance goals of the organization.  
Research has shown that training proves effective to teach a new skill to achieve a
performance goal.  The use of training is appropriate to accomplish a job task (Clark & Estes,
2008).  Administration to facilitate SEAP training before the start of the Fall semester of each
academic calendar by use of vignettes for practice purposes.  A means of support is to motivate
individuals with efforts to increase performance goals (Clark & Estes, 2008).  Administration to
provide encouragement and acknowledge Field Faculty’s effort to support students who are
deficient in meeting field education experience.  Students who experience challenges in field
education will be enrolled in all Field Liaisons field seminar classes instead of being assigned to
the Field Faculty member that is considered capable to handle challenging students.
 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  171


Summary of Knowledge, Motivation and Organization Recommendations

In summary, recommendations for Knowledge of the KMO are based on validated gaps
from assumed influences for Field Faculty at FSSW that encompass providing job-aids,
information, coordination with the student Field Instructor, gathering information from the Field
Instructor, consulting with colleagues and/or SEAP representative, and facilitating a strength-
based meeting with the student and Field Instructor.  No gaps were validated for motivation of
the KMO.  Furthermore, recommendations for organization of the KMO consist of validated
gaps derived from the assumed organizational influences that are comprised of the
acknowledgement of Field Faculty at monthly faculty meetings, Field Faculty to request support
from the SEAP representative and Assistant Dean to assist with student success to achieve the
SEAP, policy adherence relative to student dismissal, SEAP training and follow-up training, and
Administration to refrain from overloading Field Faculty with students who are experiencing
challenges in field due to being considered capable of handling challenging students.  The
summarization of the recommendations will support the knowledge and organizational needs to
achieve the proposed knowledge and organization goals (see Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick Level: 2
– Learning).
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations
The mission, goal, and problem of the organization must be considered when
implementing an evaluation plan for improvement.  Field Faculty is the identified stakeholder
group for this study.  The establishment of stakeholder goals for Field Faculty promote the
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  172


development of useful resources.  While other stakeholders can be the focus of this study, Field
Faculty is solely responsible for accomplishing the goal of the organizational mission.
As mentioned in the beginning of this chapter, the purpose of this study was to conduct a
needs analysis in the areas of knowledge and skill, motivation, and organizational resources
essential to accomplish the goal that by May 2018, Field Faculty will implement SEAPs 100%
with 100% of students who require a successful field education.  The problem the school of
social work is facing is the uneven implementation of the intervention, the SEAP, which can
result in the sometimes avoidable dismissal of students from the program.  Comparably,
untimely implementation of SEAPs, and inconsistent faculty deployment of SEAPs are all
emerging as obstacles to the effectiveness of this intervention in assisting student success in field
education.  This evaluation will bring knowledge about implementation of the SEAP with an
emphasis on early intervention for students who experience challenges early in the semester to
encourage student field education success.
Implementation and Evaluation Framework  
The New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) provides guidance
to ensure that the implementation and evaluation plan is most effective.  There are four
evaluation levels associated with the New World Kirkpatrick Model which are planned in
reverse order beginning with, Level 4 Results – evaluates the outcomes and their relationship to
the training; Level 3 Behavior – measures the level of application of what learners ascertained
from the course; Level 2 Learning – measures the magnitude of the knowledge, skills, and
attitude, confidence, and commitment obtained to utilize new learned information; and Level 1
Reaction – the organization measures participants’ level of satisfaction, engagement, and
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  173


relevance with the course or training (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).  The New World
Kirkpatrick Model integrates new aspects that disproves the belief that the cost associated with
Levels 3 and 4 are too costly or challenging to evaluate, the model plans the evaluation in reverse
order from Level 4 to Level 1, and corrects the misinterpretations and misuse of the model
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Level 4 Results of the New World Kirkpatrick Model analyzes the effectiveness of the
training designed to achieve the stakeholders goal (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).  For the
purposes of the FSSW program, the targeted outcome is to teach Field Faculty the skills of
gatekeeping, specifically, completing the SEAP.  This discussion will focus on the proposed
Level 4 Results and leading indicators in the form of outcomes, metrics, and methods for both
external and internal outcomes for FSSW as shown in Table 37.

Table 37

Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes

Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
Increase program reputation and
ranking
Graduate school ranking U.S. News and World
Report
Internal Outcomes
Increase in student achievement as
evidence by the Social Work Core
Competencies.

Performance and evaluation data and
ratings.  
Field Instructor reports
Improved student stability in field
placement.

Number of replacements and
terminations from internship
School records

FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  174


Table 37 (Cont’d.)
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
Improved student evaluations in
field courses.
An increase of student course
evaluation scores.
Review course
evaluations at every mid
and end semester and
provide faculty
development when scores
are below a 3 based on a
scale of 1-5.

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors.  Level 3 Behavior refers to the ability for one to transfer learned
knowledge through training opportunities upon the return to the job (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016).  Level 3 provides the chance to observe the integration of newly acquired knowledge and
skills.  For many years, organizations have found Level 3 Behavior to be challenging which is
also considered one of the most important levels (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).  Table 38
consists of critical behaviors that are comprised of metrics, methods, and timing to evaluate these
critical behaviors (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).

Table 38

Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
Field Faculty introduction to the
students Field Instructor will
occur within the first week of
the student reporting to their
field placement.  

Email introduction will be
uploaded in
documentation system.
Administration to review
introduction letters in
documentation system and provide
feedback to Field Faculty.
Per semester
basis
   
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  175


Table 38 (Cont’d.)
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
SEAP representatives to hold
consultation meetings for Field
Faculty to address student
concerns.
Record the amount of
meetings and attendance
taken during each weekly
consultation meeting.
SEAP representatives to schedule
weekly consultation meetings to
provide feedback to Field Faculty
regarding student challenges in
field education.

Weekly
Field Faculty to implement a
SEAP for students
demonstrating poor
performance in field education.

SEAP representatives to
record Field Faculty
consultation and SEAP
review.
SEAP representatives will review
SEAPs
Ongoing and
throughout
the semester.

Required drivers.  In order to accomplish the goal set for stakeholder outcomes in Level
3 Critical Behaviors, The New World Kirkpatrick Model suggests required drivers to reinforce,
reward performance, monitor, and encourage participants (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).  
The drivers are a key element to the achievement of critical behaviors on the job.  At FSSW, the
knowledge and organizational influences that are required to achieve outcomes include
reinforcement of SEAP implementation and the process, encouragement to support student
success in field education, and monitoring.  Table 39 identifies the drivers to assist with
reinforcing, encouraging, rewarding, and monitoring desired clinical behaviors (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016).  

 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  176


Table 39  
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical
Behaviors
Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing  
Email Introduction to the students’ Field Instructor  Within the first week of the
student reporting to their field
internship.

1
SEAP consultation meetings to discuss poor
performing students in field education.

Weekly 2 &3
Job aid: blank SEAP with instructions by each
prompt.  

Ongoing  3
Job aid: sample SEAP to provide guidance for
completion.

Ongoing 3
Encouraging  
Collaboration with colleague during course
consultation.

Weekly 2 & 3
SEAP representative to provide feedback and
coaching.

Ongoing 2 & 3
Rewarding  
Acknowledgement during faculty meetings.  

Ongoing 1, 2, & 3
Pedagogical strategies to address student
challenges in field education for Annual
Performance Review (APR).

Annually 1, 2, & 3
Monitoring    
Self-monitor their guidance and support required
to assist student success in field education.
Ongoing 3

Organizational support.  The new Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) model determines
the degree in which organizations provide support apart from observation.  FSSW can support
Field Faculty’s critical behaviors by providing supportive resources, accountability with policies
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  177


and procedures, equal distribution of challenging students among Field Faculty, and effective
communication.
Level 2: Learning
The New World Kirkpatrick Model refers to Level 2 Learning as participants ascertaining
the knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment according to their engagement in
training (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).  In other words, Level 2 Learning assesses new
information acquired from an activity, discussion, or lecture in a class or training.  
Learning goals.  The learning goals explain the expectations of what the learners should
be able to do upon completion of training to accomplish the goal of the critical behaviors.  
Following the completion of the recommended solutions, in particular the training
sessions, Field Faculty should be able to:
 Know what data to collect from the FI relative to the students’ poor performance at their
field internship.  (F)
1

 Field Faculty will know the Social Work Core Competencies.  (F)
1

 Field Faculty will know the appropriate plan to address a specific deficiency in each
Social Work Core Competency.  (F)
1

 Field Faculty will know the connection of the categories of the data compared to the
Social Work Competencies.  (C)
1

 Reflect on the process, their goal, status, and planning.  (M)
1

 Reflect on facilitating a strength-based meeting and implementation time frame of the
educational plan, and goal.  (M)
1
 
                                               
1
Factual Knowledge; Conceptual Knowledge; Metacognitive Knowledge
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  178


Program.  The above listed learning goals will be accomplished by training.  The
training for Field Faculty to discuss the process and implementation of the SEAP will occur at
the two-day Field Faculty retreat at the end of the academic calendar.  Due to Field Faculty
having prior knowledge, the training will be administered for four hours at the Field Faculty
retreat.  Adjunct Field Faculty that are unable to participate will have access to view the training
through a recording.  Field Faculty will develop the knowledge necessary to transfer the learned
skills required to effectively and efficiently complete and implement a SEAP.  The training will
include a discussion about the importance of gatekeeping, overview of timeline to contact the
Field Instructor by the students’ first week at their field internship, review of the Social Work
Core Competencies, steps to address a poor performing student in field education, roles and
responsibilities, field practicum policies and procedures, and organizational structure for SEAP
implementation.  
Evaluation of the components of learning.  An essential aspect to evaluating the degree
to which participants achieved the learning goals is to evaluate their knowledge, skills, attitude,
self-efficacy, and commitment on the basis of the learners’ participation in training (Kirkpatrick
& Kirkpatrick, 2016).  Table 40 provides a list of the methods to be used to evaluate the learning
goals.  

 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  179


Table 40
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”  
Knowledge checks through elbow partner and large group discussion.

Multiple times during the
training.
Discussion of key takeaways from the training

Multiple times during the
training
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”  
A demonstration of the job aid to complete a SEAP

During the training
Field Faculty with complete a SEAP based on a case vignette exercise
to assess the application of the learned knowledge and skills.

Trainer will review the SEAP
during the training to facilitate
understanding and accurate
completion.
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”  
Pre- and post-test of participants toward SEAP implementation.

Before and after completion of
the SEAP training
Small group discussion regarding the role of a gatekeeper and the
relevance of the training.

During the training
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”  
Pre- and post-tests of participants’ self-efficacy to apply learned
knowledge from the training to gather information and complete a
SEAP.

Before and after the SEAP
training
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”  
Participants will receive a survey post training to evaluate continued
self-efficacy relative to SEAP implementation.
One month after the training

Level 1: Reaction  
Level 1 Reaction of the New World Kirkpatrick Model focuses on the reaction of the
participants training experience relative to their ability and motivation to transfer new skills
learned at the training (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).  Table 41 consists of methods that will
be used to determine the reaction of participants to the training.  

 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  180


Table 41
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement  
Trainer will observe the level of participant engagement,
interest, and/or distraction during the training.

Throughout the duration of the training
and during breaks.
Relevance  
Assessment of the training after each segment related to the
relevance and request feedback to allow for any adjustments
as needed.

Assessment of the training will occur
after each segment during the training.
Customer Satisfaction  
A request for participants to complete a survey to assess
knowledge and skills learned and customer satisfaction.
Immediately after the seminar and
again one month later.

Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation.  The New World Kirkpatrick
Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) allows the use of a useful evaluation immediately
following and a delayed evaluation tools.  As per Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), an
immediate evaluation tool is useful to assess participants shortly after the training and the
delayed evaluation tool is appropriate when assessing participants’ application of the learned
knowledge and skills to the job from the training.  Participants of the training will receive a
survey evaluation tool to assess Level 1 (Reaction) and Level 2 (Learning) after the training
during the Field Faculty retreat.  Close to the end of the training with 10 minutes remaining,
participants will receive a request to complete the survey (Appendix C).  The use of the New
World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) provides a guide to the development
of both the immediate and delayed evaluation tool use after training.  The survey evaluation tool
examines participants’ interest, participation, knowledge, opportunity to utilize learned
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  181


knowledge and skills, and whether they feel the training is worthwhile.  The use of the New
World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) provides a guide to the development
of both the immediate and delayed evaluation tool use after training.  
The immediate survey evaluation tool includes five Likert-scale questions and two open-
ended questions.  The seven point Likert-scale allow participants to identify their feelings from
strongly disagree to strongly agree.  The use of Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) Level 1 –
Reaction and Level 2 – Learning guide the development of the survey evaluation of the training.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation.  One month after the
training, a four-question survey will be circulated to Field Faculty (Appendix D).  The utilization
of the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) principle guides the
development of a four-question survey which incorporates Level 1 (Reaction) and Level 2
(Learning).  Level 1 – Reaction questions examine the relevance of the training for job
application, successes with acquired knowledge from the training, and how have the skills been
applied the job.  
Data Analysis and Reporting
The New World Kirkpatrick Model is comprised of data and analysis to determine the
value of a program or training (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).  Level 4 – Results of the
training will provide Field Faculty with an analysis of an evaluation tool immediately following
the training and a delayed evaluation tool after the training.  The utilization of standard methods
for the quantitative data and the open-ended questions for the qualitative data will allow for data
analysis to determine the effectiveness of the training.  The results will be made available
through email and shared in the subsequent Field Faculty meeting after the training.  
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  182


Summary of the Implementation and Evaluation
Social Work educators in academic institutions across the nation experience students
performing poorly in field education.  Emphasis is on early identification and intervention is
essential to support a student who is not meeting the Social Work Competencies.  The New
World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) is an ideal tool that may serve to
provide an assessment of the training developed to support Field Faculty.
The training for Field Faculty will be implemented in fall 2018.  The New World
Kirkpatrick Model can provide a substantial foundation for the training by analyzing the four
levels which comprise results, behavior, learning and reactions (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016).  Moreover, the utilization of the model with the first training will present an opportunity
to pinpoint strengths as well as areas for improvement.  The use of the four-level evaluation will
grant space for continuous improvement with the trainings according to the participants
experience.  The proposal for the training is expected to yield positive organizational support.  
Currently, the organization expresses a strong desire to address poor performing students and are
open to strategies to assist student success in field education.  The training will offer the
possibility for Field Faculty to receive continuing education and certificates of completion as a
way to incentivize Field Faculty.  
Limitations and Delimitations
The identification of limitations is common in research.  There are several limitations to
this study.  It is important to note that this researcher became a SEAP representative for the
Children and Family department in the middle of this study.  The SEAP representative is
responsible for consultation, review the SEAP, and provide colleagues with feedback.  As a
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  183


result, this researcher was unable to review document analysis for the Children and Family
department.  A major limitation of this study is the sample size and the inability to generalize the
findings in a broader context to other Social Work academic institutions.  Additionally, one
School of Social Work was the focus of the study which does not allow for the results and
findings to generalize across other Social Work academic institutions.  Furthermore, this study
focused on Field Faculty as the primary stakeholder; therefore, the perspective from the other
stakeholders is void.
Recommendations for Future Research
Chapter One provided a description of all stakeholders including leadership and the
school administration as having the potential to achieve the goal to implement SEAPs 100% of
the time with students who experience challenges with satisfactorily meeting expectations of the
Social Work Core Competencies.  While, the primary focus of this particular study was Field
Faculty as the stakeholder, the recommendation is to identify leadership and the school
administration as the stakeholders.  This study may expand to gain an understanding as to the
demographics of the students who receive a SEAP that consists of a possible acceptance into the
MSW program on a conditional status, race and ethnicity, and a comparison of SEAPs for first-
year and second-year students.  Further research may also conduct a comparison study based on
admissions of the social work schools including a change in criteria that includes work and life
experiences along with a web based video recording of the applicant responding to interview
questions and a student who was accepted in the traditional process.  
 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  184


Conclusion

Academic institutions across the United States continue to experience challenges in
dealing with students who are performing poorly in field education.  Field Instructors are
ambivalent to address the poor behavior due to fear of legal consequences thus making
gatekeeping secondary in respect to protecting clients and the profession.  This study sought to
address first-year MSW preparedness for field education and to address any knowledge,
motivation, or organizational gaps.  
The results and findings of this study indicates that no declarative, procedural, or
conceptual gaps were found in knowledge.  Value and attribution gaps were noted in motivation.  
There were not gaps for self-efficacy and mood in motivation gaps as Field Faculty responded in
the survey and interviews to feel confident and positive to address a poor performing student in
field education.  Despite some Field Faculty feeling overwhelmed when implementing a SEAP,
monitoring, and supporting the student, they continue to complete and implement a SEAP to
prevent causing a disservice to the student.  While some gaps were found in organization, no
gaps were found with other assumed influences in organization.
The implications of this study can generate discussions at various Social Work academic
institutions to strategize ways in which to address first-year MSW preparedness for field
education.  The initial Field Instructor trainings can address the importance of gatekeeping,
addressing, and providing honest and professional feedback to poor performing students.  
Recommendations to address first-year MSW students’ preparedness for field education
include strategies for the role and responsibilities for Field Faculty.  The design of a four-hour
training for Field Faculty will provide knowledge and skills to complete and implement a SEAP
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  185


for poor performing students in field education.  Field Faculty will be recognized at monthly
meetings to acknowledge the support and monitoring poor performing students in field
education.  SEAP representatives will provide weekly consultation meetings to offer support to
Field Faculty that require assistance to review a SEAP and/or consult as to whether the
implementation of a SEAP is appropriate.  Furthermore, the pedagogy of the Field Faculty will
be connected to their annual performance review to receive an incentive.  The overall evaluation
of this study is to improve the current organizational structure relative to addressing poor
performing students in field education.  

 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  186


References
Allen, K. N., & Friedman, B. D. (2010). Affective learning: A taxonomy for teaching social
work values. Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics, 7(2), 1-12.
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., Di Pietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How
learning works: Seven research based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco, CA:
John Wiley & Sons.
Anderman, L. H., & Anderman, E. M. (1999). Social predictors of changes in students'
achievement goal orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24(1), 21-37.
Anderson, L. K., & Krathwohl, R. D. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing:
A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. London: Pearson.
Baker, L. (2006). Developmental differences in metacognition: Implications for metacognitively
oriented reading instruction. In Metacognition in literacy learning (pp. 83-102).
Routledge.
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. S. Urdan
(Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307-337).
Bandura, A. (2011). Social cognitive theory. Handbook of social psychological theories, 2012,
349-373.
Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1986). Differential engagement of self-reactive influences in
cognitive motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38(1),
92-113.
Beck, A. T. (Ed.). (1979). Cognitive therapy of depression. Guilford press.
 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  187


Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: artistry, choice, and leadership
(4th ed.) San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Borgogni, L., Dello Russo, S., & Latham, G. P. (2011). The relationship of employee perceptions
of the immediate supervisor and top management with collective efficacy. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(1), 5-13.
Brekke, J. S., Ell, K., & Palinkas, L. A. (2007). Translational science at the National Institute of
Mental Health: Can social work take its rightful place? Research on Social Work
Practice, 17(1), 123-133.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
Cole, B. S., & Lewis, R. G. (1993). Gatekeeping through termination of unsuitable social work
students: Legal issues and guidelines. Journal of Social Work Education, 29(2), 150-159.
Conzemius, A., & O’Neill, J. (2009). The power of SMART goals: Using goals to improve
student learning. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Council on Social Work Education. (1967). Undergraduate programs in social welfare: A guide
to objectives, content, field experience, and organization. New York, NY: Author.
Council on Social Work Education. (1982, March). Curriculum policy for the master’s degree
and baccalaureate degree programs in social work education. Social Work Education
Reporter, (5-12).
Council on Social Work Education. (2015a). Accreditation Standards for Baccalaureate and
Master’s Social Work Programs.  Commission on Accreditation, Commission on
Educational Policy, 18.
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  188


Council on Social Work Education. (2015b). 2015 Educational policy and accreditation
standards for baccalaureate and master’s social work programs. Alexandria, VA: Author.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Daly III, E. J., Martens, B. K., Skinner, C. H., & Noell, G. H. (2009). Contributions of applied
behavior analysis. The handbook of school psychology, 84-106.
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2014). Social cognitive theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/social-cognitive-theory/
Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Buell, M. M. (1999). The relation between assessment practices and
outcomes of studies: The case of research on prior knowledge. Review of Educational
Research, 69(2), 145–186.
Durik, A. M., Vida, M., & Eccles, J. S. (2006). Task values and ability beliefs as predictors of
high school literacy choices: A developmental analysis. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 98(2), 382.
Elpers, K., & FitzGerald, E. A. (2013). Issues and challenges in gatekeeping: A framework for
implementation. Social Work Education, 32(3), 286-300.
Fortune, A. E., & Kaye, L. (2003). Learning opportunities in field practica: Identifying skills and
activities associated with MSW students' self-evaluation of performance and
satisfaction. The Clinical Supervisor, 21(1), 5-28. https://doi.org/10.1300/J001v21n01_02
Friedman, B. D. (2008). How to teach effectively: A brief guide. Lyceum Books.
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  189


Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45-56.
Gambrill, E. (2012). Social work practice: A critical thinker's guide /. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Gelman, C. R. (2004). Anxiety experienced by foundation-year MSW students entering field
placement: Implications for admissions, curriculum, and field education. Journal of
Social Work Education, 40(1), 39-54.
Gelman, C. R. (2011). Field instructors’ Perspectives on foundation year MSW students’
preplacement anxiety. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 31(3), 295-312.
Gerdes, K. E., & Segal, E. (2011). Importance of empathy for social work practice: Integrating
new science. Social Work, 56(2), 141-148.
Gillis, H., & Lewis, J. S. (2004). Addressing the issue of psychiatric disability in social work
interns: The need for a problem-solving framework. Journal of Social Work
Education, 40(3), 391-402.
Grady, M. D. (2010). The missing link: The role of social work schools and evidence-based
practice. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 7(5), 400-411.
Grady, M. D., Powers, J., Despard, M., & Naylor, S. (2011). Measuring the implicit curriculum:
Initial development and results of an MSW survey. Journal of Social Work Education,
47(3), 463-487.
Haley, J. (1987). Problem-solving therapy (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  190


HumanServicesEdu.org. (2018). Human services edu: Educating to better the lives of others.
Retrieved from HumanServicesEdu.org
Kanno, H. & Koeske, G. (2013). MSW students’ satisfaction with their field placements: The
role of preparedness and supervision quality. Journal of Social Work Education, 46(1),
23-38.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Talent Development.
Koerin, B., & Miller, J. (1995). Gatekeeping policies: Terminating students for nonacademic
reasons. Journal of Social Work Education, 31(2), 247-260.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into
practice, 41(4), 212-218.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and
task motivation. A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705-717.
Lopez, S. J., & Louis, M. C. (2009). The principles of strengths-based education. Journal of
College and Character, 10(4). doi:10.2202/1940-1639.1041
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
ed.). Los
Angeles: Sage Publications.
McCracken, S. G., & Marsh, J. C. (2008). Practitioner expertise in evidence-based practice
decision making. Research on Social Work Practice, 18(4), 301-310.
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  191


McCrudden, M. T., Schraw, G., & Hartley, K. (2006). The effect of general relevance
instructions on shallow and deeper learning and reading time. The Journal of
Experimental Education, 74(4), 291-310.  https://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.74.4.291-310
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.) San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A method
sourcebook. CA, US: Sage Publications.
Moore, L., & Urwin, C. (1990). Quality control in social work, Journal of Teaching Social Work,
4(1), 113-128
National Association of Social Workers. (2017). NASW Types of Social Work. Washington, DC:
NASW Press.
Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015).
Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method
implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 42(5).
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of educational Psychology, 95(4), 667.
Raskin, M. S., Wayne, J., & Bogo, M. (2008). Revisiting field education standards. Journal of
Social Work Education, 44(2), 173-188.
Redmond, M. (2010). Safe space oddity: Revisiting critical pedagogy. Journal of Teaching in
Social Work, 30(1), 1-14.
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  192


Rollnick, S., & Miller, W. R. (1995). What is motivational interviewing? Behavioural and
Cognitive Psychotherapy, 23(4), 325-334.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning theories an educational perspective (6th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Schunk, D. H., Meece, J. R., & Pintrich, P. R. (2014). Motivation in education: Theory, research,
and applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Higher Ed.
Scott, S., & Palincsar, A. (2013). Sociocultural theory. Education.com.
Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52-59.
SocialWorkLicensure.org. (n.d.). Social work licensure requirements. Retrieved from
SocialWorkLicensure.org
Sowbel, L. R. (2011). Gatekeeping in field performance: Is grade inflation a given? Journal of
Social Work Education, 47(2), 367-377.
Sowbel, L. R. (2012). Gatekeeping: Why shouldn’t we be ambivalent? Journal of Social Work
Education, 48(1), 27-44.
U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor and Statistics. (2017, March 26). Social workers
occupational outlook handbook, 2016-2017 Edition. Retrieved from
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/community-and-social-service/social-workers.htm.
Wayne, R. H. (2004). Legal guidelines for dismissing students because of poor performance in
the field. Journal of Social Work Education, 40(3), 403-414.
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  193


Wayne, J., Bogo, M., & Raskin, M. (2010). Field Education is the signature pedagogy of social
work education. Journal of Social Work Education, 46(3). 327-339.
 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  194


Appendix A
Survey Questionnaire
Thank you for your participation in this survey that examines the implementation of
Student Educational Agreement Plan (SEAPs) in Field Education at the Franklin School of
Social Work.  This survey is being conducted by Umeka Franklin and this 10-20 minute
survey is part of my dissertation requirement.  Participation in this survey is completely
voluntary and you may choose to discontinue this survey at anytime.  This survey is
anonymous and all information obtained relative to this study will be kept confidential.  

Demographic Information
o Gender (Male/Female/ Other)
o Employment Status at Franklin School of Social Work Full-time/ Part-time)
o Time in Field Education (1-2 semesters, 3-4 semesters, 3-5 years, 5-10 years, 11 years or
more)
o How many SEAPs have you implemented (1, 2-3, 4-5, 6-8, 10 or more)
o Please indicate where you primarily teach: (On-line or On Campus)
o Which of the integrative seminar classes have you instructed? (1
st
year MSW students,
2
nd
Year MSW students, both, none)
o How much time on average do you spend on developing a SEAP document? (30 minutes,
1 hour, 2-3 hours, 4-5 hours, 6-8 hours, 9-10 hours, 10+ hours)
o How many hours (on average), do you spend each week supporting a student on a SEAP?
(Less than 1 hour, 1 hour, 2-3 hours, 4-5 hours, 6-8 hours, 9-10 hours, 10+ hours)
1)  Check all that apply.
Which of the following information is necessary in developing a SEAP?  
a)  Feedback on student performance by the Field Instructor.
b)  Feedback on student performance from the student.
c)   list of the Core Competencies expected of students during their field placement.
d)  All of the above
e)  Items (a) and (b)

FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  195


2)  Check all that apply
Identify which are the Core Competencies for the field education?  
a)  Demonstrate Ethical and Professional Behavior
b)  Engage in Practice-Informed Research and Research-Informed Practice  
c)  Privacy and Confidentiality  
d)  Engage in Diversity and Difference in Practice

3)  First-Year student Sandra has a deficiency in Core Competency #4 - Engage in
Practice-Informed Research and Research- Informed Practice when providing services to
her clients.  Which of the following would be an appropriate plan?  Multiple Choice
a. Have her read a required textbook about the importance of research with clients.
b. Have her discuss with her clients about which evidence-based interventions would work best
for them.
c. Have the student consult with her Field Instructor about evidence-based interventions.
d. Have the student utilize Motivational Interviewing or Problem-Solving Therapy interventions
with her clients.

4) Multiple Choice. Rank in order of importance/priority. The purpose of the SEAP:
The primary purpose of the Student Educational Agreement Plan is to . . .
                 
 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  196


5)  Multiple Choice. Complete the sentence.
The Student Educational Agreement Plan is . . . a)     A written warning for Field Instructors who
do not satisfy expectations of their role.
b)    An academic warning for students who fail to make satisfactory progress in field education.
c)     A commitment by Field Instructors to support failing students.  
d)    Developed when students are proficient in the Core Competencies.


6)  Multiple Choice. Complete the sentence.
The Student Educational Agreement Plan is required at early onset when a student exhibits
signs of . . .
a)  Adherence to NASW Code of Ethics
b)  Timely submission of Reflective Learning Tools.
c)  Failure to develop proficiency in any of the 9 Core Competencies.
d)  Failure to show up and participate in class.

7)  Rank in order steps to address this situation:
The Field Instructor reports for the second time in one month that Sandra, a first-year student,
consistently shows up late to supervision unprepared and does not communicate professionally in
emails, I would . . .
a)  Encourage the Field Instructor to speak with the student regarding her performance.
b)  Meet with the student and encourage her to speak with her Field Instructor to share her side
of the report.
c)   Ignore the situation
d)  Gather information from student and Field Instructor, begin to categorize the information
compared to the Core Competency.

 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  197


8)  Multiple choice.  Choose the best option to complete the sentence.
Why is it important for Field Faculty (FF) to know the challenges a student may be
experiencing at their internship?
a)  Impact on student development.
b) Helps FF to personally know the student.
c)  Allows FF to be compliant with documentation expectations.
d) Aids in identifying Core Competencies that will help increase student achievement.

9)  Multiple choice.  What steps do you use to determine if student is meeting all the Core
Competencies?
You learn during a field site visit that Sandra, first-year student, has not conducted any
assessment with Spanish-only speaking clients at an adult day care as she is English
speaking only, despite her Field Instructor having twice addressed her current
performance. You should:
a)  Speak with Sandra immediately and remove her from the field placement until you can
resolve the issue.  
b) Compare Sandra’s behavior to the Core Competency expectation; schedule a meeting with
her to discuss the results; develop solutions together and document the conversation.
c)  Schedule a meeting with Sandra; tell her your plan for her to improve her performance
relative to the Core Competencies.
d) Tell Sandra how she should improve her performance and give her a deadline

10)  Complete the sentence.
In the meeting with the Field Instructor and student to discuss a SEAP, I would . . .  
a)  Mention in the beginning that the Student Educational Agreement Plan is an academic
warning.
b)  Indicate that the standard goal is achieved within three weeks.
c)  Inform them that the purpose of the meeting is to help the student to be successful in field
education and the timeline for completion will be based on the student’s current performance.
 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  198


d)  Tell the student that implementing a Student Educational Agreement Plan is useless because
the goal will never be achieved.

11)  Multiple Choice.
I should monitor the progress of a student on a SEAP.
a) At no time
b) 1 Hour Weekly
c) 2-3 Hours Weekly
d) 4-5 Hours Weekly
e) 6-8 Hours Weekly
f) 9-10 Hours Weekly
g) 10+ Hours Weekly


12)  Multiple Choice
Students require at least bi-weekly support from FF when on a SEAP?
a) Every time
b) Most of the time
c) Sometimes
d) Rarely

13)  Multiple Choice
Students require support from both Field Instructor and FF to be successful in field
education when on a SEAP?
a) Every time
b) Most of the time
c) Sometimes
d) Rarely

14)  Multiple choice. Complete the sentence.
I spend time thinking about the effectiveness of the process, student goal, and planning
a. Never
b. Monthly
c. Weekly
d. Daily
 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  199


15)  Multiple choice.  Complete the sentence.
When developing a SEAP, I spend time thinking about conducting a strength-based
meeting with the Field Instructor and student.
a)  Every time
b)  Most of the time
c)  Sometimes
d)  Rarely
16)  There are many contributing factors to being a good Field Faculty Professor.  Please
rank the following statement in order of importance:  
●  Allowing time to practice Evidence-Based Practices in the classroom?
●  Communicating to your students that you believe they have the potential to be successful.
●  Meeting with students individually to get to know them personally.  
●  Scheduling field site visits as early as possible in the semester?
●  Introduction and ongoing communication with Field Instructor?
●  Orientating students to the field manual and the Student Educational Agreement Plan early in
the Fall semester?


17)  Upon retrieval of information reported of a student’s poor performance by the
student’s Field Instructor, I usually…
a)  Allow the Field Instructor to problem-solve with the student.
b)  Implement a Student Educational Agreement Plan and establish a timeline for the student to
demonstrate improvement.
c)  Gather information from the student and proceed with scheduling a meeting with the Field
Instructor and student.

18)  Check all that apply

When collecting data from the Field Instructor relative to the student’s poor performance,
I usually

a) Inquire about how much guidance the Field Instructor will provide to help student
achievement of the Student Educational Agreement Plan.

 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  200


b)  Will provide bi-weekly support/guidance to the student based on the collected data for the
Student Educational Agreement Plan.

c) Communicate with the Field Instructor bi-weekly regarding the progress of the student


19)  Rate your degree of confidence in doing the following as of right now by recording a
number from 0 to 10 using the scale given below:

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10  
Not confident at all       Highly confident  

● Influence my students’ academic achievement.
● Schedule and facilitate an effective strengths-based meeting with the Field Instructor and
student.
● Can complete an effective Student Performance Improvement Plan.
● Can submit the Student Performance Improvement Plan correctly.
● Can update the Student Educational Agreement Plans on the expected schedule.
● Can establish effective timelines for students to complete the expectations set for the
student to achieve.
● Collect the right data from the FI in order to monitor the plan and provide additional
guidance to the student.

20)  Using the scale below, rate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following
statements regarding the SPIP:
1   2       3                    4        5
Strongly       Disagree       Neither Agree  Strongly            Agree
Disagree                or Disagree                Agree  

● I feel positive about collecting data, comparing it with the Core Competencies,
determining the current student performance and expectations of the student.
● I feel positive about implementing a Student Educational Agreement Plan to help student
success.  
 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  201


21)  Using the scale below, rate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following
statements regarding the SPIP:
1   2       3                    4        5
Strongly       Disagree       Neither Agree  Strongly            Agree
Disagree                or Disagree                Agree  

● My students’ challenge in field education is often due to my lack of communication
relative to the program’s expectations of them while in field.
● My students’ challenge in field education is mostly due to their inability to engage
families, groups, organizations, and communities.
● My goal is to exceed the university’s expectations for supervision of field education.
● My goal is to motivate students to see their current performance as opportunities for
learning.

22) When I provide support to students, I often find that that I . . .  
a)  exert as little effort as possible
b)  meet minimum expectations
c)  exceed expectations

23)  Using the scale below, rate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following
statements regarding the schools’ SPIP implementation:  
1   2       3                    4        5
Strongly       Disagree       Neither Agree  Strongly            Agree
Disagree                or Disagree                Agree  

● The school provides Field Faculty with sufficient support to assist with student success to
achieve the goals of the SEAP.
● The school provides the necessary resources, like job aids and examples for me to
efficiently complete the SEAP.
● The school provides SEAP training for implementation to facilitate student success in
field education.
● The school provides follow-up training and support for the SEAP.
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  202


● Administration supports me when I verbalize overwhelmed feelings.
● Policies and processes align with the SEAP.
● The school values, rewards, and recognizes Field Faculty who implement a SEAP and
provides additional support to students for success.
● The school values my efforts to improve student success in field education.

Thank you for your feedback

I would also like to schedule a follow-up interview with you.
Participation is voluntary and your responses will be kept confidential.  
Please email me by clicking on the email link: to provide your name and email to volunteer
to be interviewed
● Name:
● Email:


Thank you,
Umeka Franklin


 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  203


Appendix B
Interview Questions

PQ: Primary Questions
FQ: Follow-Up Questions

Knowledge

PQ: Tell me the purpose of the Student Performance Improvement Plan.  

FQ: How do you assess the gap of the current performance and the expectation of a student?  
PQ: At what point do you implement a Student Performance Improvement Plan?

Motivation
Value
PQ: Describe if ever you felt a sense of value through the creation and monitoring of the plan.  
PQ: Describe a time when you met with a field instructor that was opposed to implementing a
SPIP.
FQ: How did you intervene?
PQ: What motivates you to teach in Field Education?  

Self-Efficacy
PQ: Tell me about a time when you felt confident with respect to addressing student challenges
in Field Education?  
FQ: Tell me about a time when you felt less confident when implementing a SPIP.

Mood

PQ: Describe how you feel about implementing a SPIP.
 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  204


Attribution

PQ: Why do you think your first-year MSW students experience challenges in field education?
FQ: What factors do you feel contribute to first-year SW students challenges in field education?

Organization

PQ: What support, if any, does FSSW provide Field Faculty to assist with the SPIP?
FQ: What kind of support would be ideal for you?

Policies, Processes, & Procedures
PQ: To what extent do the FSSW policies align with the school’s expected level of student
performance?

Culture
PQ: Tell me about a time when you felt valued for your efforts to support students with
challenges in field education with ongoing support during their field experience.


 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  205


Appendix C
Participant Survey for use Immediately after Training
      Please circle the number that represents your level of agreement about statements 1-5:

      Strongly   Strongly
      Disagree   Agree
1. The trainers’ enthusiasm held my interest.      1      2      3       4       5      6       7  
2. I was encouraged to participate                                1      2       3       4       5      6       7
during the training.
3. What I learned in the training will help me               1       2       3       4       5      6       7                    
as Field Faculty.

4. I am clear about what is expected of me in                1       2       3       4       5      6       7    
5. in the classroom.
6. I believe that it is worthwhile for me to apply            1       2      3       4       5      6       7              
learned knowledge from the training.
7. What are the major concepts that you learned during this training?
8. How can the training be improved?






 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  206


Appendix D
Participant Survey for use One Month after Training
1. What information from the training has been the most relevant to your role as Field Faculty?
2. What has helped you to implement what you learned?
3. How have you used what you learned in training on the job?
4. How has the training led to success with being able to address poor performance in field
education?

















 
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  207


Appendix E
Recruitment Letter
Dear Colleagues,
 
I am pursuing a Doctoral degree at USC Rossier School of Education.  My dissertation study
examines the implementation of Student Educational Agreement Plans (SEAPs) in Field
Education at FSSW.  I am asking you to participate in this study by completing an anonymous
survey which will take approximately 10 minutes to complete.  This survey is completely
voluntary and you may choose to discontinue at any time.  This survey will remain open until
December 1, 2017 at 11:59 pm.

Please click the link below to access the survey:

 
If you have any questions or concerns, you may contact me or my faculty advisors:
Drs. Kenneth Yates and Melora Sundt, or Steve Hydon.
 
Thank you very much for your time and support.

Sincerely,
Umeka Franklin

Informed Consent/Information Sheet
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Pkwy, Los Angeles CA, 90089

Student Performance in Field Education a Gap Analysis
You are invited to participate in a research study.  Research studies include only people who
voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information about this study. You should
ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This study aims to examine the implementation of the Student Educational Agreement Plan in
Field Education.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to take a 10-minute survey.  At the end
of the survey, you will be asked to volunteer to be interviewed (20 minutes) in your preferred
space.  Your participation is voluntary, and do not have to answer any questions you don’t want
to.  
FIELD EDUCATION PREPAREDNESS  208



PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION  
You will not receive any compensation for participation.

CONFIDENTIALITY
There will be no identifiable information obtained in connection with this study. Your name,
address, or other identifiable information will not be collected. At the completion of this study,
direct identifiers will be destroyed and the de-identified data may be used for future research
studies.  If you do not want your data used in future studies, you should not participate.  

Required language:
The members of the research team, the funding agency. and the University of Southern
California’s Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP
reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used. (Remove this statement if the data are anonymous)  

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION  
The Principal Investigator is Umeka Franklin, ufrankli@usc.edu
 
The Faculty Advisors are Melora Sundt, sundt@usc.edu and Kenneth Yates, kennetay@usc.edu.

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los
Angeles, CA  90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu 
Abstract (if available)
Abstract The utilization of the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework was applied in this study to examine Field Faculty at the Franklin School of Social Work centered around implementing a SEAP for students who demonstrate poor performance in field education as measured by the nine core competencies developed by the Council on Social Work Education (2015b). The purpose of this study was to conduct a need’ analysis in the areas of knowledge and skill, motivation, and organizational resources essential to accomplish the goal of FSSW Field Faculty to implement a Student Educational Agreement Plan with students who require a successful field education. This study was comprised of a mixed methods approach which includes survey, interviews, and documents analysis to gather data that identified the influence relative to Field Faculty implementation of SEAPs. This study collected data from 55 Field Faculty participants for the survey, interview data for 11 participants, and 12 SEAP documents were analyzed to identify and validate assumed influence that may factor into Field Factor in to the SEAP implementation. Findings show validated gaps based on the assumed influences in the knowledge and organization categories of the KMO. Data analysis results was examined and researched based solutions was used to address the organization’s performance barriers. The Four Levels of Evaluation was used to develop an evaluation and implementation plan to measure the effectiveness of the solutions (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). 
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
doctype icon
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses 
Conceptually similar
Examining the adoption of electronic health records system in patient care and students’ education using the GAP analysis approach
PDF
Examining the adoption of electronic health records system in patient care and students’ education using the GAP analysis approach 
Increasing student persistence at a community college from a faculty perspective
PDF
Increasing student persistence at a community college from a faculty perspective 
The moderating role of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on employee turnover: A gap analysis
PDF
The moderating role of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on employee turnover: A gap analysis 
Establishing a systematic evaluation of positive behavioral interventions and supports to improve implementation and accountability approaches using a gap analysis framework
PDF
Establishing a systematic evaluation of positive behavioral interventions and supports to improve implementation and accountability approaches using a gap analysis framework 
Promoting equity in discipline practices for Latino students: a gap analysis
PDF
Promoting equity in discipline practices for Latino students: a gap analysis 
First-generation college students and persistence to a degree: an evaluation study
PDF
First-generation college students and persistence to a degree: an evaluation study 
Increasing parent involvement in social-emotional learning workshops in high school using the gap analysis approach
PDF
Increasing parent involvement in social-emotional learning workshops in high school using the gap analysis approach 
Increasing student persistence at a community college from an administration perspective
PDF
Increasing student persistence at a community college from an administration perspective 
The barriers and facilitators of academic success for Black male students at a community college: a gap analysis
PDF
The barriers and facilitators of academic success for Black male students at a community college: a gap analysis 
Examining regular high school teachers’ roles in enhancing students academic performance: a gap analysis
PDF
Examining regular high school teachers’ roles in enhancing students academic performance: a gap analysis 
Satisfactory academic progress for doctoral students: an improvement study
PDF
Satisfactory academic progress for doctoral students: an improvement study 
A gap analysis of employee satisfaction for the National Park Service: Picturesque Park
PDF
A gap analysis of employee satisfaction for the National Park Service: Picturesque Park 
Examining the faculty implementation of intermediate algebra for statistics: An evaluation study
PDF
Examining the faculty implementation of intermediate algebra for statistics: An evaluation study 
Enhancing socially responsible outcomes at a major North American zoo: an innovation study
PDF
Enhancing socially responsible outcomes at a major North American zoo: an innovation study 
A gap analysis of course directors’ effective implementation of technology-enriched course designs: An innovation study
PDF
A gap analysis of course directors’ effective implementation of technology-enriched course designs: An innovation study 
Improving student achievement at a restructured high school academy of health sciences using an innovation gap analysis approach
PDF
Improving student achievement at a restructured high school academy of health sciences using an innovation gap analysis approach 
Gap analysis of employee satisfaction at a national park: Round Hill Park
PDF
Gap analysis of employee satisfaction at a national park: Round Hill Park 
A qualitative examination of the methods church leaders use to increase young adult attendance in Christian churches: an evaluation study
PDF
A qualitative examination of the methods church leaders use to increase young adult attendance in Christian churches: an evaluation study 
Establishing a systematic evaluation of an academic nursing program using a gap analysis framework
PDF
Establishing a systematic evaluation of an academic nursing program using a gap analysis framework 
Examining teachers' roles in English learners achievement in language arts: a gap analysis
PDF
Examining teachers' roles in English learners achievement in language arts: a gap analysis 
Asset Metadata
Creator Franklin, Umeka E'Lan (author) 
Core Title Addressing first year Master of Social Work students' preparedness for field education: A gap analysis approach 
School Rossier School of Education 
Degree Doctor of Education 
Degree Program Education (Leadership) 
Publication Date 07/26/2018 
Defense Date 03/23/2018 
Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital) 
Tag academic educators,field education,field instructors,first year MSW students,First year students in field education,Master of Social Work,Master of Social Work first year students in field education,MSW,OAI-PMH Harvest 
Format application/pdf (imt) 
Language English
Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance) 
Advisor Sundt, Melora (committee chair), Yates, Kenneth  A. (committee chair), Hydon, Stephen P. (committee member) 
Creator Email franklcsw@yahoo.com,ufrankli@usc.edu 
Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-32453
Unique identifier UC11670730 
Identifier etd-FranklinUm-6505.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-32453 (legacy record id) 
Legacy Identifier etd-FranklinUm-6505.pdf 
Dmrecord 32453 
Document Type Dissertation 
Format application/pdf (imt) 
Rights Franklin, Umeka E'Lan 
Type texts
Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection) 
Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law.  Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a... 
Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
academic educators
field education
field instructors
first year MSW students
First year students in field education
Master of Social Work first year students in field education
MSW