Quality and Comparability in Distance Field Education: Lessons Learned from Comparing Three Program Sites

By Mcfall, Joann P.; Freddolino, Paul P. | Journal of Social Work Education, Spring 2000 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Quality and Comparability in Distance Field Education: Lessons Learned from Comparing Three Program Sites

Mcfall, Joann P., Freddolino, Paul P., Journal of Social Work Education

THE NEED FOR AND ACCEPTANCE OF distance education programs in graduate social work are well represented in the literature (Black, 1997; Blakely, 1992, 1994; Cochrane, Sullivan, & Bloom, 1995; Conklin, 1994; Jackson & Nair, 1995; Jennings, Siegel, & Conklin, 1995; Petracchi & Morgenbessser, 1995; Raymond, 1988; Sheafor, 1994; Siegel, Jennings, Conklin, & Napoletano Flynn, 1998). Additionally, the academic achievement of distance education students is addressed by comparative studies indicating similar performance levels of students in various campus and distance locations (Black, 1997; Chute, Balthazar, & Poston, 1988; Cunningham, 1988; Davis, 1995; Miller, 1988; Mount & Walters, 1985). At the same time, some reports indicate student preference for live instruction (Thyer, Polk, & Gaudin, 1997). Comparability of the learning environments of students on campus and in distance sites has also been addressed (Freddolino & Sutherland, 2000), as has the importance of relationships in distance learning (Freddolino, 1996).

Due to swift advances in technology, distance education modalities in social work have progressed rapidly but, we believe, with professional responsibility and caution. At the same time, literature regarding the vital field instruction component of distance programs is just beginning to emerge (Black, 1997; Blakely, 1992; Cochrane et al., 1995). This is occurring as programs move to more distant sites and field directors experience the challenges that have been predicted: exhausting logistical arrangements; long distance problem resolution; and managing potential impacts within agencies and across human service networks (Freddolino, McFall, & Herrick, 1994).

Field instruction at distance education sites must meet the Council on Social Work Education's (CSWE) accreditation standards (CSWE, 1994), and general guidelines for distance education programming (CSWE, 1995). Specifically for field instruction, these standards assure equal quality of field education for all program components with outlined goals and objectives (Evaluative Standard [EVS] 6.1); assessment of field education needs (EVS 5.5) and monitoring of field performance (EVS 5.8) for all students; creating clearly defined criteria for selection of agencies and field instructors (EVS 6.4); maintaining field instruction policies (EVS 5.3); and developing reciprocal and ongoing relationships with the local practice communities (EVS 6.6) (CSWE, 1994). The focus is thus on quality and comparability.

In addition to the rigorous demands of CSWE accreditation requirements, field instruction planning occurs in an atmosphere characterized by ongoing and chaotic change in the context of practice (Jarman-Rohde, McFall, Kolar, & Strom, 1997). This makes the goal of maintaining the integrity of the distance field program along with quality and comparability a true challenge.

With these design, implementation, and evaluation issues in mind, this article summarizes the experience of one distance education program model based on interviews with students. Comparisons among responses from the three sites are presented to explore the issues of quality and comparability. Finally, the recommendations are presented to assist others in dealing with these very important field instruction issues in the distance education context.

Program Description

In response to considerable demand from potential students in northern rural areas of the state, the faculty of the School of Social Work at Michigan State University approved a new Distance Education Initiative (DEI) in 1993. For its initial undertaking, DEI staff organized two part-time graduate degree cohorts in 1995-96 that used electronically mediated instruction to compare with a home-campus (East Lansing) cohort. One program was based in Marquette, a small city in a rural area 400 miles from the main campus, and the other was centered in Gaylord, located in a rural area approximately 200 miles from campus.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Quality and Comparability in Distance Field Education: Lessons Learned from Comparing Three Program Sites


Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?