4.4 Supervisors’ perception of student performance
4.4.2 Attitude towards work
92 On probing further it was discovered that some universities in the past had required students to write out their interviews verbatim, thus allowing the supervisor the opportunity to guide them based on their skills or lack of them. Although supervisors acknowledged that students were in field placement to learn, they were strongly of the opinion that the development of basic writing and counselling skills should have occurred at the university. There was however a huge gap.
The supervisors reported that the process of the interview could not be followed and as a result they experienced difficulties in guiding the student in the use of their skills etc. and “students inevitably get stuck”. One participant indicated that she did discuss the previous method of verbatim reporting with the university lecturer and was given a response as follows: “great if that could happen, but we recognize that that will never happen”.
In addition to the inadequate preparation regarding basic counselling and writing skills, many supervisors believed that students were inadequately prepared in terms of basic professional etiquette at the agencies. Regarding this matter, Participant 9 stated the following:
“…majority of the students need a lot of preparation as to expectations of the agency, like mindful of dress code, no revealing clothes, tight fitting, when working with elderly…”
Many participants reported on student’s inappropriate dress code. Whilst this is documented in the code of conduct and at some agencies discussed at the initial contracting stage or during the
orientation programme, it seems that students lack awareness of the inappropriateness of their dress for the type of work at agencies. Examples were cited where students insisted on wearing
high heeled shoes and elaborate clothing when going out to poor communities or wearing tight and revealing clothing when working with the elderly or at a faith based organization.
93 came in confident and were able to get on with the work. To elaborate on this, Participant 2 expressed the following sentiment, “most have a very enthusiastic attitude…very idealistic; they come in with the intention of changing the world”. However, as indicated by Participant 8,
“Initial enthusiasm does wane with time as workload grows, the time factor and pressure from university and agency”
Supervisors described a positive attitude as an advantage for students as it is easy for them to learn and adjust to challenges faced in the field and at the agency. To elaborate, Participant 5 stated that, “can’t have an attitude, we are dealing with death, chemotherapy, radiation, child given a few days to live…we lose all our barriers”
This supervisor was reflecting on the importance of an open and positive attitude especially when working at an organization that specializes in highly sensitive issues. Experience is recognised as a teaching and learning platform. Attitudes change and develop with life experience. This response highlights the difficulty in students who lack life experience to deal with issues of this nature. In reference to Hawkins & Shohet’s (2006), Seven-Eyed Supervision Model, the relationship between the client and supervisee is a challenge for supervisors in the process of supervision. The model reiterates that the differences in the supervision experiences lay in the choices that the supervisor makes in terms of where and what to focus on.
According to Fortune et al (2007), “field practice includes experiential learning that helps student’s master professional skills and integrates knowledge and skills from the classroom”.
This idea is documented in several studies, which emphasize that experience is well established as a principle of social work education. It has been found, that more frequent practice of professional skills is associated with better student outcomes. The results support the usefulness of repeatedly practicing skills in the field.
A few of the supervisors indicated that they encountered students with negative attitudes towards their work from the outset, who did not take their work seriously. Their personalities or personal issues interfered with assuming their responsibilities and their overall performance. Participant 6
94 elaborated on this by stating that, “some allow their personal situations to impact on their working environment e.g. students do not come in due to problems with transport”
Whilst students’ challenges with transport and finances are rife, and cannot be equated with poor attitude, the issue that supervisors experience is students’ poor commitment to their work, often blaming and finding excuses through other factors without making attempts to work around these issues. The complacent attitude, ‘everything must be handed to students’, is what supervisors’
interpret as a poor attitude.
Some participants reported that students displayed non-commitment to their work and spent their time engaging in activities that were unrelated to their field practice and when confronted about their behavior they displayed a ‘don’t care’ attitude stating that they “only attended the field placement because they had to”. In some cases, supervisors informed that students were selective of the areas they requested to conduct field work in, and they displayed a negative attitude when their requests were not adhered to, for example, going out into rural communities, or informal areas were regarded as too dangerous, even though transport was arranged. Students have to be exposed to the realities of the profession since a major part of social work intervention is conducted outside of the office in the space of the client irrespective of their living circumstances. The code of conduct and ethics that serves as a guide to the profession must be inculcated from early in the career, similar to first year medical students who take their professional oath of practice at the beginning of their first year.
Many of the participants expressed that 4th year students appeared to be under pressure from the university and agency to accomplish all that was required within a limited time frame, which resulted in their being unable to complete their tasks as expected. This was exacerbated by the fact that supervisors did not usually have enough time for supervision. This resulted in some students adopting a “cheeky, arrogant and moody” attitude. Whilst it is acknowledged that students do have their own expectation to meet, it must be reiterated that agencies also have expectations of students. This sentiment was expressed by Participant 16 who stated that:
“…it’s very challenging on both sides, the student has certain expectations and the agency has certain expectations…the agency is obviously looking for the fact that as
95 much as they want to train and groom the students they also want some kind of support and give back…many agencies like mine for example, we actually depend on student social workers, I don’t have any frontline SWs, so we depend on student SWs, especially third and fourth years, because you are expecting that they are at a point where they are almost ready to get into practice, but they are so not ready for the realities of field work”
This quote clearly indicates that whilst agencies offer universities and students the opportunity of a training ground, they also want to benefit in the process. This results in the students being in a position where they are being tugged at both ends, by the university to perform according to the field practice requirements and by the agency for support and capacity in terms of service delivery. Agencies that accept students because they lack human resources and expect students to fill in the gaps seem to impact on students’ time and ability to function according to all the expectations, resulting in students’ frustration which in turn is interpreted as a negative attitude.
In being guided by Brown and Bourne’s Model for Practice (1996), students’ progress through the various systems depends on their interaction within these systems in the context of the practice, the agency and the team. Through building in the model of supervision and contracting at the outset, the requirements and expectations of all parties will be clearly defined.
Some supervisors believed that students developed a negative attitude as a result of how they were treated by their supervisors. They tend to adopt the behavior from how their supervisors treated them, reacted to situations and generally how they groomed the students. According to Engelbrecht (2006), “Attitudes towards social work practice are often acquired and established during social work training”. This sentiment was expressed by Participant 7 who stated that:
“…it depends largely on the attitude of the supervisor, her approach and mannerism toward the student…if students are treated well, they do not become angry, antagonistic, frustrated and emotional…supervisors must lead by example and be a role model…if you show your students that you can accomplish anything irrespective of how hectic it is, your students learn from you…attitude on both parties very important. If a student is perceived as a burden or just a task allocated to you as a
96 supervisor, this impacts on the relationship, process and attitude…the way you as a supervisor grooms a student will impact on how they perform out in the field.”
It is encouraging to note that supervisors have this level of awareness of the impact and influence they have on the student in training. Supervisors have, in this study, described their role as being a mentor and role model and as such it is critical that they portray behaviour and attitude that can be modeled by their students. The aspect of modeling is highlighted in the study by Davys &
Beddoe (2000) and is regarded as inherent in the supervisor’s role and a potent aspect in the supervisor’s functions. The criticism raised by these authors in this respect is that very little is invested in ensuring good quality models for this profession. The importance of a positive relationship between the supervisor and supervisee, one that can enhance growth and development has been highlighted in several studies. This is also elaborated on in Mode 5 of Hawkins & Shohet’s (2006) Seven-Eyed Supervision Model, where attention to the quality of the working relationship between the supervisor and supervisee is paramount. If students are regarded as burdens it is highly unlikely they would enjoy a positive learning opportunity or develop a positive feel for the profession.