International students’ experience of supervision during social work field placement: troubling or transformative?

ABSTRACT

In Australia, international students have continued to enroll in social work programs for more than a decade. While there is an emerging interest in international students’ learning during field placement, their specific needs in the supervisory space have been largely neglected in the social work education literature. This article examines international students’ experience of field placement supervision, focusing on an analysis of the student perspective. The dataset is drawn from a recent doctoral study that explored international students’ professional learning during social work field placement. Sixteen international students from Master of Social Work programs in Victoria, Australia, were recruited and interviewed on three occasions using a semi-structured, in-depth interview format. Initial and focused coding within a constructivist grounded theory methodology produced three thematic categories: ‘valuing supervision’, ‘seeking safety/finding risk’, and ‘engaging in group supervision’. Key findings suggest that further research is required in relation to ensuring that supervision pedagogies are responsive to the distinctive learning needs of international students during social work field placement. Furthermore, a more detailed analysis is required to ensure that field placement supervision is a safe, productive, learning space for international students, whilst simultaneously considering the implications for the training and support of Field Educators.

KEYWORDS:

• International student
• field education
• supervision
• field placement

Introduction and context

International students have been a dominant feature of the higher education landscape in Australia for the past decade and internationalization agendas have been a key pillar of higher education policy frameworks (Gribble & Blackmore, 2012). In 2022, Australian borders reopened to international students post-pandemic. Current Department of Education data indicates that 360, 358 students were enrolled in higher education in Australia between January and November 2022 (Department of Education, 2022). This dataset also indicates that 58% of international students were from the following countries: 25% were from China, 16% from India, 9% from Nepal, 4% from Vietnam and 4% from Colombia (Department of Education, 2022). Australia continues to compete in the global education market through offering—and extending—post-study work visas for graduates from disciplines such as social work, where there is a labor market shortage. For international students, employability has been identified as an important factor in the decision to study social work in Australia (Zuchowski et al., 2022). While there is significant variability in the number of international student enrollments across social work programs in Australia (Cleak & Zuchowski 2020), there is a clear preference for the two-year qualifying Master of Social Work degree.

In Victoria, Australia, there are currently 10 accredited social work programs which means that access to field placements is competitive. Current arrangements are considered unsustainable with ongoing debate in relation to ensuring the quality of field placements given this persistent demand. Agencies themselves report limited capacity to accept students, given the extended placements that are mandatory within the social work program structure in Australia. As outlined in the Australian Social Work Education and Accreditation Standards (ASWEAS), the Australian Association of Social Workers currently requires all social work students to complete one thousand hours of supervised field placement which are mostly undertaken in two blocks, each consisting of five hundred hours. Current accreditation guidelines stipulate that all social work students must receive 1.5 hours of supervision per 35 days of placement. Up to half of these hours may be undertaken in a group supervision format, an increasingly prevalent model of supervision across social work programs in Australia. During field placement, social work students in Australia engage in a diverse range of practice methods such as casework, counseling, community work, advocacy, research, and policy development. As such, placements may be located in human service organizations across government and non-government agencies. In their scoping study of field education in Australia, Cleak and Zuchowski (2019) note that significant variability exists in both the types of placements available to students, as well as differences in supervision formats. They attribute this to insufficient placements and argue that it represents a response to the current field education crisis in Australia (p. 431).

It is important to note that international students in Master of Social Work programs have often only been resident in Australia for a short period of time before commencing their first social work placement. As a result, they may experience significant acculturative stress upon entering an unfamiliar agency context (Franco et al., 2019; Zhou et al., 2008), while beginning to negotiate their professional identity (Yao, 2021). Outside of field placement, international students are also attempting to balance paid employment (Hemy et al., 2016; Hodge et al., 2020) and manage other stressors such as precarious financial circumstances and learning to navigate higher education institutions. During field placement, however, international students may encounter a diverse range of supervisory modalities and approaches. In Australia, social work students are supervised by a qualified social worker with more than two years’ post-qualifying practice experience (Australian Association of Social Workers [ASWEAS], 2020) who may be on-site in the agency or off-site and appointed by the university. In agencies where there is not a qualified social worker on-site, students’ day to day work may be overseen by a Task Supervisor who is generally an experienced practitioner in the agency. In these situations, the university appoints an off-site or External Field Educator who provides social work supervision. Zuchowski et al. (2022) highlight these contrasting supervision modes in their dataset where they report that 51% of international students had a Field Educator external to the placement organization and 11% more international students than domestic students had placements with external or off-site supervision (p. 1161).

Literature review

The emerging literature related to field placement supervision is varied and while there is agreement in relation to the aim and purpose of field placement supervision (Bogo, 2021; Chee, 2016; Zuchowski et al., 2021), key pedagogies have not been fully explored in relation to the experience of diverse student cohorts such as international students. Despite steady international student enrollments in Australian social work programs for more than a decade, their experience of field placement is only just beginning to be explored in the empirical research (Zuchowski et al., 2022) with limited attention paid to the student perspective. To date, there has been an interest in the Field Educator perspective (Grieve et al., 2022; Ross et al., 2019) and a critical analysis of the responsibilities of higher education providers (Ross et al., 2020). Ross et al. (2019) acknowledge persistent concerns relating to international students’ cultural and linguistic differences and the ways in which these ‘are viewed in terms of student deficiency, rather than as a positive opportunity for mutual learning and professional development’ (p. 188). This study also exposes some field educators’ reluctance to supervise international students on account of perceived needs for additional orientation and supports, particularly during first placement. Harrison and Ip (2013) similarly underline the need for comprehensive training and support of field educators who are supervising international students, noting that ‘minimal consideration has been given to how international students are faring on field placement or how field educators fare when supervising international students’ (p. 231). Consistent with recent findings from Zuchowski et al. (2022), Harrison and Ip (2013) found that international students were more likely to experience external supervision and required additional time in supervision meetings, in comparison to their domestic counterparts (p. 1155). While the international student ‘voice’ is largely absent in the social work literature, Zuchowski et al. (2022) offer an analysis of international student experience in field placement supervision from the international student perspective. They emphasize the importance of critically reflective learning and the inherent value of supportive supervision as a vehicle for developing skills as emerging practitioners.

Beyond individual models of supervision, group supervision is an increasingly prevalent dimension of student learning during field placement in Australia and a substantive finding in this research. One of the few definitions of group supervision is presented by Bogo et al. (2004) who describe it as ‘supervision conducted by one field instructor with three or more students’ (p. 16). While group supervision during field placement requires further research and development, current studies present important findings in relation to strengths focused approaches (Alschuler et al., 2015) and highlight the efficacy of peer facilitated learning (Strang, 2021). Most importantly, however, the current group supervision literature appears to assume a culturally homogenous student cohort which does not account for culturally diverse learners in field placement. Given the increasing number of international students in social work education in Australia and reliance on group supervision learning formats, there is an urgent need for further research. Schiff and Zeira (2016) consider the benefits of group supervision, concluding that ‘students increased their self-awareness, developed skills and learned how to end treatment’ (p. 260). They do not, however, consider the learning needs of culturally diverse students nor the ways in which these perspectives may shape the group learning process. Bogo et al. (2004) similarly described the specific skills deployed by Field Educators in group supervision during field placement, focusing on the establishment of trust and reinforcing the importance of core group facilitation skills. They do not, however, consider the ways in which these key supervision skills may be adapted to engage with culturally diverse students in practice learning contexts.

While the current empirical research in social work education is largely silent in relation to the ways international students’ experience field placement supervision, in one of the few studies that relate to international students’ experience in the supervisory space, Zuchowski et al. (2022) argue the need for social work educators to ‘establish a culturally sensitive learning environment’ (p. 1165). They highlight the need for a more critically reflexive approach to supervisory learning (p. 1165), given that the empirical research has paid scarce attention to the ways in which cultural difference and ethnicity shape complex supervision encounters. Analysing the cultural context of supervision more generally, Tsui et al. (2014) argue the ‘significance of cultural competence and sensitivity to diversity in the practice of clinical supervision’ (p. 238). They contend that cultural awareness is imperative, given the increasingly globalized practice context and suggest that ‘in light of the growing diversity in the global world, it is essential for the helping professionals to enhance their awareness and knowledge of multicultural issues in supervision’ (p. 239). Davys (2005) advocates that both supervisor and supervisee should be engaging in a critically reflective process to understand the role of culture and diversity within the supervisory relationship. In the supervisory learning space, Hair and O’Donoghue (2009) highlight the importance of a ‘diversity and plurality of knowledge’ (p. 77), empowerment and a supervisory dialogue that reflects the ‘influence of the social and cultural context’ (p. 77). Further extending their critical analysis of the cultural context of supervision, Hair and O’Donoghue (2009) suggest the need for supervision to ‘unpack the potential meanings of cultural identity, dialogue between supervisors and supervisees’ (p. 78). Furthermore, they note that the current social work supervision literature has not critiqued its underpinning Euro-Western ideologies (p. 70). Within their social constructionist frame, Hair and O’Donoghue (2009) propose a supervisory relationship that ‘honors cultural complexities’ (p. 71) and embeds ‘multicultural competence, sensitivity to diversity and anti-oppressive social work’ (p. 71) and in doing so, acknowledge the structural inequalities associated with racial and ethnic differences. Focusing on social justice agendas, they argue the need for practice learning that reflects a ‘critical dialectical (both/and) position, while exploring and constructing a range of possible explanations and meanings of human distress within a diverse cultural landscape’ (p. 76).

Critically analyzing the challenges that racially and culturally diverse students encounter in supervision, Razack (2001) contends that many students are reluctant to discuss ‘the obvious cultural differences and their expectations pertaining to subjectivity and identity’ (p. 226). Despite researching the Canadian field education context more than 20 years ago, Razack’s research continues to highlight an important deficit in field education contexts such as Australia. While applicable to an increasingly diverse social work student cohort in Australia, Razack’s findings (2001) have not been considered in relation to supervision practices in field education programs. In considering cultural and racial safety within the supervisory relationship, Razack (2001) confirms the cautiousness of racially diverse students and concluded that ‘field instructors need to learn how to initiate discussions of diversity and difference for students to integrate their knowledge and experiences in practice’ (p. 226). She argues that it is imperative for social work educators to understand how minority groups, including international students, negotiate and navigate the placement context (p. 219) in order to create a supervisory space that is safe and inclusive. Razack’s research reveals the silencing of minoritised students, observing that students did not wish to ‘rock the boat’ and understandably sought to ‘increase their chances of being hired at the major institutions’ (p. 227).

While international students’ experience of field placement requires further attention in the social work research, their experience has been considered across disciplines such as psychology (Jones et al., 2017; Mori et al., 2009; Nilsson, 2007), speech pathology (Attrill et al., 2016, 2020) and education (Spooner‐Lane et al., 2009). Each of these disciplines have advanced the understanding of international students’ supervisory experience and provide important insights as their curricula mandate extended periods of field placement where students engage in supervision focused learning. Nilsson (2007) argues that ‘supervisees must feel safe and trust their supervisors in order for a productive dialogue to take place on culture’ (p. 37). She also posits that ‘supervisees who trust their supervisors and experience as knowledgeable may feel more comfortable bringing up their concerns’ (p. 37). Prior to the placement, issues such as students’ language proficiency and interpersonal communication were identified as potential challenges (Spooner‐Lane et al., 2009), however, during placement, the relationship with the placement supervisor was elevated as the most important factor in the student’s professional learning. Supervisor capabilities were noted as significant determinants in the success of the placement to the extent that they were able to produce a ‘contextualized understanding’ (p. 80) of professional skills and knowledge. Accordingly, Spooner‐Lane et al. (2009) reported that those international students who do not experience a robust learning alliance with their supervisor can be left feeling ‘vulnerable, isolated, confused and threatened’ (p. 81). While international students in pre-service teacher courses were observed to have a similar pre-placement anxiety as their domestic peers (p. 80), their placement learning included additional complexities of adapting to a foreign culture, consolidating their language skills, while simultaneously negotiating a new professional context that may include ‘cultural adjustment difficulties’ as identified by Reynolds and Constantine (2007).

Further examining the supervisors’ skills and capabilities, Jones et al. (2018) advocate the need for placement supervisors to engage in specialist training prior to supervising an international student and highlight the gap in the empirical research related to supervisor preparation. They concluded that supervisors’ capabilities could be increased through a heightened awareness of international students’ strengths and vulnerabilities, that is, an emphasis on ‘relational processes’ (p. 511). Research undertaken by Falender and Shafranske (2017) confirmed supervisors’ limited multicultural competence and pointed to the need for further research to ensure culturally responsive supervisory pedagogies, delivered by appropriately trained and supported supervisors. To this end, Jones et al. (2017) argue the importance of supervisors’ awareness of their own cultural background and worldviews as they encounter racially and culturally diverse individuals in the supervisory space. Schultz et al. (2020) similarly concluded that ‘multiculturalism pervades every aspect of the supervisory process … supervisors have a professional obligation to address and explore the interplay between ethics and multicultural values, beliefs and identities’ (p. 3). Wisker also concludes that ‘both halves of this relationship [must] work in the context of some understanding of each other’s cultures, expectations and learning backgrounds’ (p. 19).

Methodology

As part of a larger doctoral study examining international students’ learning experience during social work field placement (Hicks, 2020), international students enrolled in each of the five Master of Social Work (Qualifying) programs in Melbourne, Australia, were invited to participate in this research via their Field Education Program Coordinator. Each participant was recruited via self-selection and interviewed on three occasions using a semi-structured, in-depth question format (Kvale, 2007). The methodological framework was informed by a constructivist grounded theory approach (Charmaz, 2014) which enabled unanticipated findings to emerge and provided an iterative and inductive analysis of the dataset. Initial and focused coding processes (Charmaz, 2014; Saldana, 2016) produced three distinctive thematic categories in relation to participants’ experience of field placement supervision. Ethics approval was provided by the RMIT University Human Research Ethics Committee (0000019660-09/15).

Thirteen research participants in this study identified as female and three identified as male. From the 16 participants, 13 participants had completed undergraduate degrees in their country of origin and three had completed undergraduate degrees in Australia. Participants’ countries of origin included South East Asia, Africa, the Middle East, Europe and South America. In this study, placements were undertaken in a broad range of agency contexts, including direct service practice with clients as well as placements that focused on research and policy analysis. One participant completed a placement in a large regional hospital, however, all other placements were undertaken in urban locations across Melbourne in government and non-government organizations. While field placements are located across diverse practice contexts, student performance during field placement is assessed against eight core domains of practice and profession-specific graduate attributes outlined in the ASWEAS (2020), where the Australian Association of Social Workers outlines standards and requirements for social work education in Australia.

Findings

Three thematic categories emerged from the analysis of participants’ experience of field placement supervision. Firstly, participants described ‘valuing supervision during social work field placement’ and identified the key dimensions that enhanced and supported their learning. Secondly, alongside their positive evaluation of supervision, participants described the notion of ‘seeking safety, finding risk, in supervision’ with the expectation that supervision would provide a safe and supportive experience. Thirdly, participants provided detailed reflections related to their experience of ‘engaging in group supervision’ which represented an important, yet unanticipated, finding in the research.

Valuing supervision

Unsurprisingly, participants’ accounts of field placement acknowledged the value of their supervisory learning, however the reasons for this varied considerably. All participants provided a positive account of at least one of their experiences of supervision and recognized its pivotal importance in achieving the required learning outcomes in field placement. Captured in statements such as ‘I think supervision is the most, I think … I believe supervision is the most important part of placement’, (Peter, Interview 2) participants consistently affirmed the value of supervision across their interviews, even if their expectations were not met, nor the learning potential realized. Accordingly, participants valued supervisory learning that addressed specific challenges such as the need for emotional support and building confidence, while providing an opportunity for debriefing or reassurance. One of the participants, Alice, described her positive experience of inquiry-based supervision and support, acknowledging that it alleviated some of the stress she was experiencing during placement:

My Task Supervisor was kind enough to understand that - when we went through what would help me grow, what kind of supervision would help me grow. Our supervision was mainly ‘knock on the door’ supervision. Whenever I needed her, she was always there … and that was something great … because keeping everything inside eats into me. (Alice, Interview 2)

Other participants, such as Peter and Zara, emphasized the value of emotional support and the ‘safe’ learning environment created by their Field Educator, including the ways in which it enhanced their learning:

So, supervision … She [Field Educator] helps me. She helped me so much in that sense. And also emotionally. Because she noticed that sometimes I was struggling … like … like, trying to express myself in a complex conversation. And I was like … a bit frustrated. So she was, like, checking that I was OK … It’s what I had, like I want – I want – to be able to have a conversation … but I can’t. So, she supported me emotionally. (Interview 1)

Zara described her positive experience of supervision in terms of feeling comfortable to ask questions and described her Field Educator’ willingness to share practice knowledge:

She [Field Educator] works with me every day and I can ask her questions. That was the best supervision I had. Yes, because she is knowledgeable, she is smart, she is professional. (Interview 1)

Also linking her positive experience of supervision during placement to her Field Educator’s cultural sensitivity, Tessa encapsulated the key dimensions of ‘valuing supervision’ describing the need to build trust in the supervisory relationship. Tessa also reinforced the connection between trust and professional learning. It is also important to note that in reflecting on ‘trust’ and ‘safety’, Tessa emphasized the importance of her Field Educator’s awareness of cultural difference and Tessa’s own cultural orientation:

Yeah, and I also think we need to build a relationship. If all well goes, we can finish our placement … so we need to build a relationship. I need to trust you [Field Educator] so we can talk about our case, what happened. Yeah. If I don’t trust you, I would never talk about anything in my placement. So, build a relationship is also very important. Yeah, most of all you need to know my culture. (Interview 1)

Cate’s initial reflections on supervision emphasized the importance of her Field Educator’s support that increased her professional confidence:

She is very nice to improve my confidence. And I always thought I lack of confidence … maybe it’s just some part of international students like me didn’t have confidence and especially the confidence about language. And in my individual supervision, my supervisor gave me a lot of, support and she like not only help me to improve my confidence and also to give me about learning English. (Cate, Interview 3)

Coding related to ‘valuing supervision’ highlighted field placement supervision as a strategy for ‘building knowledge’ and ‘growing in confidence’. For example, Alice attributed her increasing skills and confidence to the support and reassurance provided by her Task Supervisor. She highlighted this supervisory approach as pivotal to her professional learning and the development of practice skills:

Because the informal supervision impacted me so much it was a great learning curve. It also reinforced my confidence. At the beginning of the placement, I was not confident enough. Will I be able to do this? But as I - as I learned from her, as I modelled her questions she did, I observed her kind of client-based interaction. (Interview 2)

Similarly, Patrick recalled that his Field Educator’s support enhanced his learning and enabled him to integrate theoretical frameworks into his research:

Once I got stuck, like I don’t know how to use the theory … if I got stuck. I don’t know how to connect the theories and the practice. I can discuss with my supervisor, because at the beginning I didn’t know how to use the theoretical framework to conduct my research because I didn’t know anything about the peace movement in Australia, so it was a little bit hard for me to fit into that environment … And my supervisor, I think he’s quite understanding. (Interview 3)

Seeking safety, finding risk

In contrast to the positive, enabling, accounts of field placement supervision, a number of participants reported that their vulnerability was amplified in the supervisory learning space. Codes such as ‘seeking safety, finding risk’ revealed participants’ assumptions of supervision as a safe, supportive, learning context as well as the difficulties they encountered in the supervisory process. There is evidence in the data that the concept of ‘risk’ included the potential for a fail grade in field placement or the possibility of the placement being terminated. Participants who recognized their own vulnerability in the supervisory context also outlined the strategies that they implemented to manage or mitigate the risk. Participants such as Evelyn, Carmen and Sarah, described the risks associated with the supervisory learning process, where they frequently needed to employ a ‘strategic silence’. The empirical data revealed these participants’ cautiousness in the way that they engaged with their Field Educator and negotiated the supervisory process more generally. Accordingly, these participants recognized the power differential in the supervisory relationship. Describing risk and vulnerability in supervision, Carmen described her feeling of powerlessness:

She [Task Supervisor] didn’t try to understand my real feeling … I don’t feel that she understands my situation as an international student … she’s also a staff employed in the organisation and she can’t be wrong … I am the person who makes mistakes. I am an international student. (Interview 2)

As an international social work student in Australia, I feel like there is still hierarchy in the field … when you talk about justice, when you talk about human rights, it’s kind of meaningless to me in that situation. (Interview 2)

Like Sarah and Carmen, Evelyn identified the risk of her placement being terminated. She described tense, complex, interactions with her Field Educator and the distress associated with her supervisory experience. Evelyn recalled her discomfort and vulnerability during supervision meetings and questioned whether she would be able to complete the placement:

I don’t feel comfortable with just us. Honestly, she really … it makes me really feel vulnerable, I reported it to school, so it was really bad. I could barely finish my placement. It was maybe because of the race, that me, not from Australia, may have affected the relationship. (Evelyn, Interview 1)

Sarah’s experience of supervision was similarly distressing and deficit focused and she described her experience of ‘seeking safety, finding risk’ in relation to her Task Supervisor’s persistent criticism of her communication skills, particularly in relation to answering the telephone. She described her Task Supervisor’s aggressive and frustrated response to her and her own acquiescence:

‘Sarah, can you say that, ‘Good Afternoon, Grief Support Services’ [pseudonym] … and after that she said, ‘I don’t think you pronounce it very well … you didn’t like, pronounce it very well. You need practice’ … And after lunch time … she wants us to practice, like, practice role play … She become very aggressive and she want me to say it again … ‘Ok, I will do the role play’. (Interview 3)

Engaging in group supervision

The prevalence of group supervision during social work field placement was an important and emergent finding in this research. It is therefore important to note that 14 out of 16 participants engaged in group supervision during at least one of their field placements, with the other two participants receiving individual supervision from an on-site Field Educator for both of their placements.

Participants described their experience of group supervision in mostly positive terms, valuing opportunities for peer supported learning and the unique reassurance that this model offered. Zara acknowledged the value of a peer supported environment that enhanced and deepened her learning:

But in the group supervision, because it’s happened twice … we more focused our reflection… It’s like, OK something’s happened and I responded and then I bring those things to the group and then discussion, not just with the supervisor but also with other students. So, I think I can learn more things from the group interaction. (Zara, Interview 2)

Hannah similarly identified group and off-site supervision as the most effective methods of learning during placement. She reinforced the importance of reassurance as a key strength of the group supervision format:

I’ve got [Off Site Field Educator] and she’s fantastic, she’s helped quite a lot, even in terms of like having that support outside of the agency. Even group supervision has been great because you know you’re not the only one. There’s other people who might be feeling the same way as you. (Hannah, Interview 1)

Alice reflected on her experience of group supervision and the importance of a ‘safe’ and inclusive learning space:

We had group supervision and that’s a good place, I think, where you have a mix of students in group supervision through off-site supervisor where everyone is talking about how they are feeling going around the room, and you recognise and go, ‘Oh they are not an international student, they are a local student, they are having the same problems as you’. (Alice, Interview 3)

Alice similarly affirmed the importance of group supervision in addressing her experience of social isolation. She also valued the opportunity to engage in peer support:

Group supervision helped me understand that I am not the only one out there … who is having the difficult problem, having difficulties on placement there are others there who do have a hard time or even a harder time than I am in and you know how do we come together and what can we share with the other ones. (Interview 1)

Alice also valued group supervision as it represented an opportunity to begin developing skills in critical reflection and learning to communicate effectively with her peers:

In group supervisions, I struggled a lot, I didn’t know what to say. I had everything inside me, I didn’t know how to tailor my, I mean, to learn how to share, because that is something that is difficult for us as international students … because back in our culture, we were never taught to ask questions We were never taught to critically reflect and you know ask them questions and stuff like that. (Interview 2)

In contrast Alice’s experience of critical reflection during group supervision, John described a more structured approach to group supervision that focused on case study presentation and discussion:

And so, each week we have two students [presenting] case study chosen from our case … We need to give one case study in the group supervision, to just, you know … to introduce the whole story of the client and what is our assessment. And what’s our plan and other students we gave feedbacks suggesting from case. (John, Interview 2)

Olivia highlighted the need for a specific, focused, group to support international students’ learning during placement and suggested:

Because the local students have a big advantage being involved in the culture, they don’t have that stress. They don’t have to face the same things that the international students have to face, a lot of stress trying to fit in the culture, trying to understand. You know … the supervisions sessions, I think that should be different, should be different … Yes, so I think that is necessary other kind of spaces to talk freely … I agree that it would be good for international students to have some kind of group or forum to be able to reflect, debriefing almost … we need more spaces to talk. About those personal experiences more you know, more personal. (Interview 2)

In summary, while participants valued the supervisory learning process, they acknowledged both strengths and limitations in the learning process. Across the dataset, individual and group supervision were valued elements of field placement learning and enhanced participants’ social work knowledge and skills. Of more concern, however, were the instances where the supervisory relationship did not create a ‘safe’ environment for participants which may have diminished the efficacy of their field placement learning.

Discussion

This research has revealed a complex picture in relation to international students’ experience of supervision during field placement. For the most part, analysis of participants’ narratives produced a variable, fragmented, picture of field placement supervision, where learning outcomes were mostly achieved alongside identified risks and limitations in the supervisory learning space. Participants’ accounts have highlighted potential limitations related to current field placement supervision pedagogies, including a minimal response to international students’ specific learning needs. In short, for some participants in this research, supervisory relationship was precarious and consistent with emerging literature (Cleak et al., 2020; Hay et al., 2018). Beyond the unpredictable nature of current supervisory learning processes, it is important to note that a clear definition of field placement supervision is largely absent in the social work literature, instead there appears to be an assumed consensus in relation to what constitutes field supervision learning, often limited to traditional functions of support, administration, and education (Bogo, 2021; Kadushin, 2002). As such, the concept of field placement supervision lacks a clear definition that acknowledges the complexity of contemporary field placement learning contexts and the often adaptive, agile learning practices that participants described in this study (Hicks, 2020).

Despite a limited conceptual framework for field placement supervision, participants valued supervision, and emphasized the importance of key elements such as debriefing, emotional support, language acquisition and critical reflection. These outcomes were not, however, guaranteed for all participants during their placements. The concept of ‘building confidence’ also emerged as an important dimension of effective supervisory learning in both individual and group supervision modes, while empathy and acknowledgment of the international student experience were also key determinants of a supportive supervisory learning space.

Beyond the value of individual supervision during field placement, this research also provides evidence of the importance of the group supervision model for international students. Findings related to the value and potential of group supervision were largely unanticipated. Participants reported that group supervision addressed their experience of social and professional isolation during field placement and offered a rare opportunity to engage with local students. To this end, group supervision offered reassurance to participants and a valuable opportunity for peer supported learning within a community of practice (Wenger, 2000). Analysing the importance of group learning during social work field placement and racially diverse students, Soper et al. (2016) highlight the need for learning and reflection within a group learning space:

A safe space was a place where an equalising of power was always striven for – an open stance to co-construct meaning with students – and a place to hear the student’s journey, including the intersection of other forms of oppression linked to heritage, class and identity (p. 60).

Despite its neglect in the social work education literature, participants recognized the potential value of group supervision in relation to peer supported learning and development of their practice knowledge. The practice of group supervision during field placement, does, however, require further theoretical development through empirical research from both the Field Educator and student perspectives (Schiff & Zeira, 2016). Considering the benefits of group supervision, Schiff and Zeira (2016) note that ‘group supervision offers the potential of peer learning and the relationships developed between group members serve as the main learning instrument’ (p. 254). In this study, however, the risks appeared to be limited to models of individual supervision, rather than the group format. There is paucity in the social work education literature in relation to the efficacy of group supervision during field placement. Therefore, the urgency of empirical research into group supervision practice during social work field placement is acknowledged, given its emergence as a supervisory learning framework in Australia.

While ‘valuing supervision’ was a dominant thematic category, a small number of participants described supervision as distressing, recalling their experience of vulnerability and powerlessness. For these participants, the supervisory learning space was described as complex, precarious, and its navigation presented significant challenges. Some participants described a supervisory relationship that did not reflect a diversity-sensitive approach (Tsui et al., 2014) where racialized and cultural differences were not acknowledged. Furthermore, key findings highlight the nature of the student-Field Educator relationship, one that is primarily based on assessment (Tsui, 2005) and an inherent power differential between the Field Educator and student. Analysing the risks associated with current supervisory practices in social work, Beddoe (2015) argues that supervision is ‘so much a part of our language landscape that it is assumed to be benign’ (p. 151) and continues to argue that ‘supervision is a practice enacted and experienced within a structured social field’ (p. 159). Adamson (2012) similarly argues that ‘supervision is not politically innocent’ (p. 194) and findings in this research suggest that current models of field placement supervision appear to ignore the inherent power imbalance in the Field Educator-student relationship, which is even more pronounced for international students.

While Field Educators must deploy a racially literate, critically reflexive, model of supervision, these perspectives are largely absent in the social work literature, with the exception of scholars such as Davys (2005). In this study, there is limited evidence of systematic critical reflection within the supervisory process, nor do any approaches appear to draw on models such as the framework developed by Davys and Beddoe (2009). We are arguing that a more rigorous conceptual analysis of field placement supervision is urgently required where critical reflection and practitioner reflexivities shape supervision pedagogies.

To this end, it is imperative that the impact of racialized differences be understood within the supervisory relationship and it is incumbent on Field Educators to ensure that cultural and contextual issues are addressed within the supervisory learning space. As such, the power difference between international students and Field Educators cannot be ignored. Drawing on the work of Garcia et al. (2009), it is imperative that Field Educators demonstrate ‘awareness of power and privilege within supervisory systems’ (p. 19) to achieve a more ‘just and effective supervisory practice’ (p. 19).

While a small number of Field Educators appeared to recognize participants’ distinctive learning needs, further research is required in relation to supervisory practices that embed critical reflection and provide support while students are orientating to new cultural and professional contexts. Accordingly, further research is required in relation to the training and support offered to Field Educators who are supervising international students (Ross et al., 2019). While the current ASWEAS (2020) requires Field Educators to participate in training and professional development delivered by the higher education provider, it does not specify any professional capabilities or learning outcomes for Field Educators in relation to their supervision practice or other key responsibilities such as undertaking assessment during field placement, that is, ‘assessing and reporting the student’s progress throughout the placement against the Profession-Specific Graduate Atrributes listed in the ASWEAS (Appendix 3, Section 5.2). In contrast, the British Association of Social 2019 Workers requires all prospective Field Educators or ‘Practice Educators’ to complete the Practice Educator’s Certificate prior to supervising their first social work student. Updated in 2019, the ‘Practice Educator Professional Standards for Social Work’ (2019) address issues such as discrimination in addition to the ethical use of power and authority within the supervisory relationship. While the learning outcomes do not specifically identify strategies to support international or ‘overseas’ students, indicative content does address equity, prejudice, working inclusively and challenging discrimination as key professional responsibilities for supervisors.

Conclusion

Findings in this research highlight the urgent need for further interrogation of international students’ experience of supervision, the learning process which arguably anchors student learning during field placement. While participants valued supervisory learning, key themes of ‘risk’ and vulnerability present significant concerns in relation to international students’ sense of safety in this space. Participants accounts do signal the need for a more rigorous, in-depth examination of field placement supervision and failing to do so diminishes its potential to be a safe, productive, learning context. Findings in this research do, however, affirm field placement supervision as a site for transformative professional learning during social work field placement.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Haidee Hicks

Haidee Hicks is a Lecturer in Social Work and Human Services at RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia. Haidee’s research interests focus on international students, field placement supervision and critical social work approaches. She has an an going interest in teaching research methods and social work theory.

Ronnie Egan

Ronnie Egan is Associate Professor of Field Education at RMIT University and her research focuses on social work supervision and practice for students and graduates. She has published widely in relation to social work practice skills, field education and agency-university partnerships.