The impact of MSW students' field learning engagement on their perceived competence: a comparative study between Mainland and Hong Kong, China.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The primary purpose of this study was to compare students’ field learning engagement in their direct practice and social work related competence in two Master of Social Work (MSW) programs. The secondary purpose was to investigate whether the Student Engagement theory is appropriate to explain social work students’ field engagement including institution-level and individual-level engagement for social work related competence. Method: More than 65% students of the two MSW programs were recruited for a cross-sectional self-administered questionnaire survey in Mainland and Hong Kong (HK), China. The measurement included institution-level scales on field supervisor’s behaviors and school supervisor’s behaviors as well as individual-level scales on students’ learning activities and their achievement motivation. Independent t-tests and hierarchical regression analysis were conducted. Results: Not unexpectedly, the program-based comparison revealed several commonalities in these two programs, including a requirement of more than eight hundred hours in placement, the combination of field supervisor and school supervisor to support students’ field learning, and block placement in first summer without concurrent coursework. However, this study highlights some differences between HK and Mainland samples in social work related competence. HK social work students perceived significantly higher levels of team working skills, professional resilience development, supportive skills, and case management skills than their Mainland counterparts; despite there is no significant difference in school supervisor’s behaviors, HK social work students reported significantly higher levels of experiencing field supervisor’s behaviors, learning activities, and achievement motivation. In addition, field supervisor’s behaviors significantly predicted their competence in both groups but in totally reverse directions. Field supervisor’s behaviors positively predicted competence in Mainland sample while they negatively predicted competence in HK sample. This may be explained by HK school supervisors playing more critical roles in students’ field learning. Furthermore, students’ learning activities significantly predicted social work related competence in the HK sample only; they are not significant predictors on competence in Mainland sample. This might be attributable to the lack of sufficiently diverse activities for students to be engaged or their effect of prediction has been covered by those of field supervisor’s behaviors in the Mainland sample. Conclusion: The study findings support the appropriateness of Student Engagement Theory in explaining social work students’ field learning engagement for their competence. This study draws attention to the critical roles of school supervisors and to the more diverse activities for students to be engaged during their direct practice, especially for social work students in Mainland China.