4Remote Field Instruction and Supervision

Eileen McKee, Jenna Nieves, Kelly Allison, Cyndi Hall, and Shella Zagada

The COVID-19 global pandemic resulted in a shift in how social workers deliver services. Technology has been key in facilitating a continuity and exchange of information. E-counselling, e-therapy, and videoconferencing are becoming as familiar as emails, texts, and telephone calls for engaging with clients, colleagues, and stakeholders.

Because of this move toward remote service delivery, field education, considered the signature pedagogy for social work education (CSWE, 2008), has also changed. Since 2020, many social work students have experienced practicum placements that involve remote or hybrid models of field learning and/or service delivery.

In recognition of the critical role that technology now has in the education of social work students, students and field instructors will find in this chapter, resources to support e-learning and supervision such as:

• Descriptions of e-methods in remote field instruction,
• The elements of an effective field instructor–student relationship in the context of remote field instruction,
• Examples of important ethical considerations in remote field instruction,
• Strategies and approaches in remote field instruction to enhance the education of social work students, and
• Considerations for equity and diversity in remote field education.

Activity 1: Watch and Reflect

As an introduction to remote field instruction and remote practicums, student and field instructor can together review and reflect on Video 4.1. In their debrief, they may consider challenges in a remote practicum.

In the video, a field instructor and student discuss their experiences of a social work practicum that was interrupted by the pandemic and the resulting need for social distancing. Their experience is applicable to beginning a full practicum as well.

Developing Digital Literacy in Remote Field Education

Methods of Remote Field Education

There are several options for communicating remotely in field education. The choice of method is dependent on available technology as well as personal preferences. The most commonly used modalities include:

Teleconferencing. This term refers to a telephone meeting between two or more people in different locations through a telecommunication system. Terms like telephone conferencing, phone conferencing, and audio conferencing also describe this modality. The advantage of teleconferencing is that it requires very little technology in comparison to videoconferencing.

Emailing and Texting. These terms include one-way written communication via a computer, tablet, or smartphone. Email and text messages can be useful to communicate small pieces of information or brief questions between student and field instructor. However, tone and subtext of the communication may be difficult to read, which may result in misunderstandings and misinterpretations; therefore, emails and texts should be brief and to the point and both parties should ask if clarification is required.

Videoconferencing. This term refers to a meeting between two or more people in different locations by means of a computer network to transmit both video and audio concurrently. Videoconferencing (using Skype, Zoom, Microsoft Teams, etc.) allows all parties to both see and hear each other. Body language and other nonverbal cues are important for effective communication (Bambaeeroo & Shokrpour, 2017; Segal et al., 2015; Foley & Gentile, 2010; Mast, 2007), which is a major advantage of this modality. However, technology problems (audio or video) and poor network connections or bandwidth can present challenges in using videoconferencing. When using videoconferencing for field instruction, it is important that both the field instructor and student are familiar with the chosen platform. There are many useful guides, including those found in Image 4.1 and Video 4.2.

Activity 2: Watch and Reflect

Lighting, audio, camera height, and background affect the quality of video conferencing. In this activity, the student reviews and reflects on Video 4.3 and how they might use this information to improve skills in communicating remotely.

Activity 3: Compare Pros and Cons

It is ultimately the field instructor and their agency that determines the format of service and education delivery. There are multiple issues that affect the decision, including whether the student will have direct contact with clients; whether the student will be engaging in indirect activities working on behalf of clients; whether the learning environment itself is conducive to remote work; access and accessibility considerations for the students, field instructor and clients, etc.

With the above context as well as with knowledge and experience, the student uses the table below to develop a list of advantages and disadvantages of remote field education, then compares this with field education that may be completely in-person. When listing “potential disadvantages,” the student should consider how to mitigate the disadvantages with forethought, research, and communication.

Activity 4: Experimenting with Methods

In this activity, the students discuss with their field instructor the possibility of engaging with service users using different methods (phone contact, zoom call, etc.). After using several different methods, the student reflects on the strengths and limitations of each, then compares their experience with their list above.

Ethics in Remote Service Delivery and Education

Ethical challenges are common in social work practice as we work within and outside both formal and informal systems to assist marginalized individuals and communities. During field placements, students are exposed to various situations that demonstrate how our Canadian Association of Social Work (CASW) Code of Ethics (CASW, 2005) and Standards of Practice (CASW, 1995) guide decision-making in complex situations. Field instructors are able to support this learning with real world examples in practice. The onset of the pandemic crisis has fundamentally shifted thinking about ethics and standards in this unprecedented era. In an international study, Banks et al. (2020) highlight how the pandemic has exposed flaws and gaps in the social safety nets and discusses the ethical challenges social workers face because of the prolonged crisis.

The global pandemic has compelled social work as well as the learning environments to shift quickly to remote platforms and virtual spaces, and the use and quality of digital technology has been consistently on the rise nationally and globally. Nearly all Canadians access the internet daily, although inequities in digital access exist among low income and rural and remote populations (Weinberg, 2020). Digital technology is rapidly changing the way we communicate and relate to the world in which we live and the people around us. It is likely that some forms of remote work will remain an aspect of social work practice post pandemic and this will impact placements.

In managing this new context, all involved in social work and social work education must continue to refer to our Code of Ethics (CASW, 2005) and other practice resources, such as national or provincial standards for social work and technology and articles focused on the ethics of virtual service (NASW et al., 2017; Reamer, 2013; Van Sickle, 2014), to guide our approaches to integrating digital technology. Banks et al. (2020) suggest that social workers can “[r]aise with employers, professional associations and policymakers the serious harm and inequity experienced by people during the pandemic, the difficulties in delivering social work services and make proposals for improvements” (p. 22).

Technical/Professional Competence

It is important for students to understand the systems (e.g., access, storage, communication) used to manage electronic communication and applications used by their organization to ensure that the confidentiality and integrity of records are protected. Students need to familiarize themselves with practice guidelines and relevant legislation (e.g., professional regulations or local, provincial, and national legislation) involving the use of communication technology, as applicable in their geographic locations and service delivery contexts with clients, families, and communities.

Students must possess adequate technical knowledge to work remotely and to ensure compliance with the security requirements of their organization. As such, discussions between students and field instructors may include the potential benefits and risks of professional practice using technology (McInroy, 2019; National Association of Social Workers [NASW] et al., 2017; Van Sickle, 2014). In the context of ethical practice, ensuring confidentiality in a virtual world has its challenges and opportunities, and learning how to work with the technology is part of ethical practice. Students should reach out for assistance and discuss the various aspects of remote working during the interview at their potential placement sites. Assistance may be available through schools and university help desks if that is required.

Professional Boundaries

Students need to be provided with clear boundaries regarding expected response time to communications, permissible means of communication (e.g., email, video, texting, social media), and preventing conflicts of interest and dual relationships (e.g., connecting with clients on social media). Field instructors can clearly outline for students their expectations regarding the use of personal devices in field instruction, including accessing confidential student records and carrying out practicum learning activities. Professional communication using technology should be modelled by field instructors (e.g., not using casual or cryptic texting language when communicating professionally). Full compliance with technical security of data is critical to practice. A breach of data can lead to lack of trust by clients. In addition, the student, field instructor and learning environment will likely undergo an investigation by relevant privacy officers to determine the extent of the breach and mitigate further risks. It is important to review these expectations prior to beginning the placement to minimize risk.

Given the increased use of social media and other digital platforms, it is not unusual for people to encounter each other randomly and unexpectedly in online settings or when participating in online events (Reamer, 2013). Proactively discussing and setting expectations around potential online chance encounters outside of professional activities with field instructors, colleagues, and clients will help to clarify professional boundaries. Universities and schools of social work have well-developed policies including the use of social media in the context of placements. These policies must be adhered to as part of ethical practice in the age of technology. The following section deals specifically with the importance of privacy and confidentiality in the digital world.

Privacy and Confidentiality

Social workers have the responsibility to adhere to the CASW Code of Ethics (2024) and applicable regulations and legislation, including Canada’s Privacy Act and Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA; Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, 2019). Students need to recognize that all personnel (student, field instructor and the field setting) are responsible for the protection and security of their data and that all people within the field setting are required to follow the rules (Canadian Counselling and Psychotherapy Association [CCPA], 2019). Field instructors need to discuss and clarify with students the field setting’s policies and procedures regarding the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information as well as the access, storage, and overall management of private and confidential information.

The ease of access to digital technology makes it convenient to transfer information. However, to avoid confidentiality breaches, it is important for students to know it is not ethical to discuss or post client or colleague information in social media, websites, or blogs. Googling clients and colleagues, particularly for non-crisis information, is also unethical. Furthermore, it is important for students to be aware of their surroundings and prevent accidental disclosure of personal information through their audio or video conferencing background.

Use of Social Media and Digital Networks

Most social work education programs and many field settings have social media policies and/or guidelines. Students should discuss with their field instructors any further social media guidelines regarding personal and professional relationships, including their interactions with clients. The field setting policies and procedures regarding social media should be provided to and discussed with students. If they are not, then students should be proactive and ask for the guidelines.

Tip: Consider using virtual backgrounds during videoconferencing to limit access to your personal information. Many platforms offer a virtual background of your choice. For example, the following video describes how to change your background in Zoom.

Placement sites may choose to use one platform for personal use and another for professional use. They also may establish boundaries regarding online exchanges with students and reiterate privacy and confidentiality in handling personal and organizational information while in their field practicum. It is important to promote professional online behaviour, including respectful communication, confidentiality, academic integrity, and social work ethical standards (CCPA, 2019; NASW et al., 2017; Van Sickle, 2014).

Understanding that online posts may be permanent may compel users to be thoughtful and intentional in their communication. Students must be made aware of and comply with policies and procedures regarding their use of unfounded, derogatory statements or misrepresentation of organizational principles and operating standards (Renison, 2013). Examples provided of unacceptable use of social media include: sharing confidential information about the School of Social Work, the practicum setting and/or clients and colleagues; name calling or behavior that will reflect negatively on the School of Social Work or a practicum’s reputation; taking and sharing photographs without consent.

Learning and Supervision in Remote Placements

Remote Agency Practicum Orientation

As a student entering a field practicum, you can expect to have an orientation or onboarding process facilitated by your field instructor. As you learn more about your field practicum setting and the work that you will be doing, think about using the time with your field instructor to ask any questions about your role and opportunities for growth and learning, as well as make sure to discuss expectations, learning goals, and forms of support that will be helpful to you. The next sections highlight topics that you may want to discuss with your field instructor as you begin your practicum.

Defining Roles, Expectations, and Learning Goals

It is important that at the beginning of the working relationship, field instructors and students have a conversation about roles and expectations for both parties. It is essential to explore learning goals and how best to fulfil them. Getting clarification regarding your role, the field instructor’s role, and the practicum setting’s expectations of students will allow you to be more productive and confident in your new role. These discussions may evolve over time as expectations and learning goals change and develop.

Students and field instructors are expected to set a mutually agreed upon time and timeframe for remote field instruction. Guidelines for the structure of these meetings, such as a systematic review of learning activities, the integration of theory and practice, student questions, etc., and clear expectations regarding preparation for field instruction need to be discussed in your first onboarding meeting. Access to the field instructor during an emergency or on an ad hoc basis needs to be negotiated. It is important to review the remote field instruction plan on a regular basis so that adjustments can be made to enhance the remote field instruction experience for both you and the field instructor.

Discussing Learning Preferences, Providing Support, and Demonstrating Professionalism

Effective relationship-building requires both the student and the field instructor to observe, actively listen, and be open to the needs of each other. As there will be ongoing remote conversations, students should consider and be prepared to discuss their learning preferences, as well as how they can be supported in their professional and personal development. Although students do not need to discuss specifics regarding disabilities with their field instructors, field instructors should be made aware of any accommodations needed to best support the student’s learning in the field. Students should also be prepared to participate in self-evaluation and self-reflection, in addition to hearing the feedback provided by the field instructor. It is essential that interactions are based on mutual respect and trust. It is important for students to consider and discuss with their field instructor how they can be best supported in their learning.

Building an Online Working Relationship

The working alliance is an integral component to developing competency in social work practice. Building a relationship requires a concentrated effort, even more so when developing a working relationship remotely and online. It is important to be mindful that, depending on the technology used, nonverbal communication may or may not be visible. This may require a discussion with your field instructor to set aside time for engaging in social chats and building rapport before discussing practicum tasks or your learning plan. It is also important for students to discuss concerns in the practicum and how best to develop a strong field instructor-student relationship.

Communications and Feedback

In order to build an effective relationship remotely, ongoing and open communication between the field instructor and the student is essential. There needs to be opportunities for dialogue wherein the field instructor can provide meaningful and constructive feedback for the student in reference to their learning, their performance, and their personal development (Cicco, 2014). Building a positive relationship based on open and respectful communication, including considerations for critical cultural consciousness, allows ease with debriefing and discussing concerns about the student’s development and obtaining support when the student is faced with challenges in the practicum experience. With remote field instruction, communication is an even more vital aspect of the practicum experience and the field instructor-student relationship.

Student and field instructor may discuss what works for them in terms of feedback as well as to learn and grow professionally and personally.

Activity 5: Review and Reflect

Students can review and consider implementing these suggestions for remote internships from Princeton University Career Development Office.

https://careerdevelopment.princeton.edu/sites/g/files/toruqf1041/files/media/how_to_make_the_most_of_a_virtual_internship_students_2.pdf

Learning Activities for Remote Field Practicums

Direct Practice Learning Opportunities in Remote Field Practicums

The learning objectives and activities for each individual field practicum will vary, depending on the placement’s mandate and their provision of services. Each student and field instructor will need to consider remote learning activities relevant to the practicum requirements and the opportunities available in the field setting. Listed below are examples of possible learning activities that may be completed remotely:

• Orientation to placement: students can explore the agency website to become familiar with the mission, mandate, programs, policies, and structure. Students may participate in teleconferencing or videoconferencing to meet team members.
• Complete literature reviews on best practices for particular client groups or social issues.
• Network within the community and develop resources. For example, students may contact other service providers in local communities to create a resource of agency names, contacts, and a description of the services offered.
• Review ethical decision-making tools used in the field setting or write ethical guidelines for online engagements with clients, colleagues, and other service providers.
• Engage in online direct practice with individuals, families, and/or groups, based on agency guidelines, best practices, and relevant legislation.
• Participate in policy formulation or advocacy. For example, students may review laws, policies, and procedures impacting the population served by the agency. The student may be required to write a summary of the review, a policy brief, or draft guidelines for new policy.
• Engage in research activities. Examples include: needs assessment; program evaluation; literature reviews; development of research tools; data collection; data analysis; report writing.
• Provide remote case management and family support for child welfare and family resource centres (liaising with social workers to support clients virtually).

Field liaisons and field education coordinators can assist students and field instructors with further ideas for remote learning activities.

All remote learning is shaped by the particular agency context in a manner that assists students in situating that agency and population within the larger formal and informal social service and health care systems. The field instructor and their colleagues can identify viable learning activities and projects that are both significant for the agency and can provide important learning opportunities for students.

Clinical Practice Learning Opportunities in Remote Field Practicums

In recognition of the growth in remote mental health service delivery, the Mental Health Commission of Canada developed a toolkit: Mental Health Commission of Canada. (2018, September 18). Toolkit for e-mental health implementation.

Equity, Diversity and Inclusion in Remote Social Work Service Delivery and Learning

During COVID-19, we have become familiar with the expression “we may be in the same storm, but we are not in the same boat.” This statement is a reflection on the deep social, economic, political, cultural, and health inequities experienced by many Canadians across cultures and societies that already existed but were highlighted by the pandemic (Gips, 2020).

When the Canadian Association for Social Work Education (CASWE), social work’s accreditation body, made the historic decision to shift to remote placements and allowed for reduced practicum hours in the beginning of COVID-19 pandemic, field education staff rapidly implemented the directive and responded to the ensuing administrative and pedagogical implications (CASWE, 2020). While adjustments were made in the modalities and practice tools, there were also renewed calls for responsiveness to social inequities and racial injustices, particularly anti-Black, anti-Indigenous, and anti-Asian racism, which were further exposed during the pandemic.

In recognition of the significance of social justice, equity, and anti-racist approaches within the profession, CASWE’s changes in its recent Educational Policies and Accreditation Standards (EPAS; 2021) added and strengthened these principles and related competencies as core learning objectives for social work education. EPAS 2021 defines equity as “the fair treatment, access, opportunity, and advancement for all people while at the same time striving to identify and eliminate barriers that have prevented the full participation of some groups’’ (CASWE, 2021, p. 19). Equity is achieved when barriers, biases, and obstacles that prevent equal access and opportunity to participate in society are eliminated.

Social workers are ethically bound to pursue social justice, act in the service of humanity, and respect human dignity (CASW, 2005). In thinking about service delivery and learning whether in remote or in-person environments, social workers need to consider how to prioritize equity, support diversity and embrace inclusion to impact future social work practice.

Case Study

Racial biases and microaggressions may be intentional or unintentional, delivered by individuals or embedded within systems, including in the systems in which social workers and the larger society operate. As a result, they can be difficult for field instructor and student to identify, express, and discuss. Below is a case that presents several opportunities for field instructor and student to identify microaggressions and biases and discuss strategies to address them in their relationship and practice.

Remote placements create concerns about students’, field instructors’, and clients’ sense of safety and wellbeing, particularly in sharing experiences of racism and discrimination. Establishing caring and compassionate relationships is key to social work practice, but this can become challenging in remote environments where empathic engagement is diminished and non-verbal clues may be difficult to detect (Blakemore & Agllias, 2020). Field instructors may not be able to fully witness the learning process and may miss out on nonverbal communication (Sawrikar et al., 2015). While working relationships can be established online or in-person, the lack of non-verbal cues that express warmth, care, and empathy may impede relational practice (van Luitgarden & van der Tier, 2016). Safety can be enhanced by intentionally and deliberately taking time to establish good relationships between students, field instructors, and staff.

It can be important for racialized students to have access to online spaces to talk about equity, diversity and inclusion issues, race, and racism, to provide counternarratives and to offer and find resources (Eschmann, 2021). Eternity Martis, award-winning journalist and author of They Said This Would Be Fun: Race, Campus Life and Growing Up (2020) indicated that she was supported by her friends and on-campus peers and services when she experienced racism and sexual assault on campus many years ago. In the context of COVID-19 and remote learning, Martis (2020) acknowledges the importance of community, having a social experience, and being connected with a support system. Students are burned out due to COVID-19, remote learning, and social activism. Having allies and people who will listen and understand the impacts of internalized and external oppressions will make a difference (Martis, 2022).

Creating Equitable and Inclusive Virtual Spaces

Creating equitable and inclusive virtual spaces requires critical reflection on the foundational philosophies and theoretical frameworks that social workers and social service agencies adopt for service delivery or use in training social work students. Mullaly and West (2018) contend that many social work theories that underpin current social work interventions focus on maintaining the dominant culture or social order. This means that many social practice theories and intervention mechanisms may have produced and continue to sustain the systemic oppressions experienced by marginalized individuals and communities.

As face-to-face social work practices and interventions are increasingly shifting to remote spaces, the dominant worldviews and cultural expectations that discriminate or subjugate those who are in the minority can be reproduced in virtual forms and transferred to remote platforms. Students, with the support of their field instructor, need to consider the theoretical frameworks they are using in both face-to-face and remote service delivery to critically reflect on the ways they and the system they work within may continue to unknowingly oppress clients.

Technology, software, and platforms are designed, written, and tested primarily among people from dominant cultures and groups. It is important for students and field instructors to be mindful of not reproducing discrimination, marginalization, and oppression in virtual spaces (McInroy, 2019). Online microaggressions can and do occur frequently. Both field instructors and students are challenged to facilitate inclusive and decolonizing learning and service delivery, including engaging with racialized and marginalized colleagues in ways that respect their ways of being and knowing. Biased decision-making processes that could be both conscious and unconscious can lead to further inequities and disempowerment.

Azzopardi and McNeil (2016) describe the development of a critical cultural consciousness as an important aspect of working across differences and supporting equity and inclusion. Having evidence-based knowledge of colonization, discrimination, intersectionality, and neoliberal ideology, as well as choosing critical approaches grounded in ecological systems and strength-based orientation are important aspects of this critical cultural consciousness. They suggest that cultural empathy combined with linking personal experiences to larger social structures are important aspects of interventions. Finally, critical self-awareness is essential for the development of a critical cultural consciousness (Azzopardi & McNeill, 2016). Critical cultural consciousness requires individuals to consider how their own social identity and positionality, values, and biases impact their work and relationships and employing it can be beneficial for both students and field instructors.

As it relates to remote field learning, students and field instructors may consider and discuss with each other the following to develop a critical cultural consciousness and an equity mindset (adapted from Beasley et al., 2021).

• Are remote field activities, experiences, and reflections assisting students with active self-awareness opportunities?
• Has the implementation of online anti-racist field assignments and projects been considered? If so, what are the plans for implementation?
• How are concepts such as cultural humility, critical reflexivity, self-awareness, and self- regulation defined and operationalized within remote field practice and supervision?
• Does remote field education allow space to discuss the harms racialized social work students may experience in their field education experience and the profession? Does it allow space to discuss self-care practices related to this harm?
• Other than field evaluations, are there subsequent measures in place in remotely accessing the skill sets of diverse students?

Remote Field Education: Challenges and Future Considerations

The pandemic has fundamentally shifted social service delivery. The need for “social distancing” required agencies to quickly adapt to offering social work services via phone, email, and videoconferencing to a much larger degree than before the onset of COVID-19. Social service agencies have adapted to this new reality, albeit not without challenges and limitations. The shift to remote service delivery, while offering increased access to service for some, also has some disadvantages. Creating and maintaining trusting, empathic relationships with clients via phone or Zoom can be challenging (Banks et al., 2020). Some agencies have not been able to maintain the full spectrum of their service delivery, and some may be challenged to maintain both remote and in-person service delivery. As discussed above, ethical breaches are an ongoing risk due to the potential for failure of technology and the vulnerability of digital systems.

Social work education has also pivoted in this new reality. The national field education network harnessed their combined experiences, skills, and collaborative spirit to share resources and ideas to support the development of remote or hybrid practicums for social work students across Canada. Students who completed their field education in these types of practicums developed enhanced skills for remote service delivery as well as specific skills around overcoming adversity, adapting to rapid changes regarding technology, accessibility, instruction and service delivery format, and coping in a crisis. Many students appreciated the flexibility of remote placements, the opportunity to connect with agencies outside of their geographic location, and the increased opportunities to be involved in learning activities that fell outside of their regular practicum days (Allison, 2021; Mantulak, 2021).

However, remote practicums also create some challenges. Informal relationship-building opportunities with field instructors and other agency staff are more limited. Going for coffee and the casual discussions before a meeting or eating lunch with staff are examples of the informal experiences that a remote practicum does not offer. These relationship- and community-building activities in a traditional practicum setting contribute to a student’s sense of belonging in the organizations they are placed in.

Delayed communication and lower productivity have also been identified as challenges in remote practicums (Allison, 2021). Where a student in a traditional placement might be able to pop by their field instructor’s office to ask a question, remote practicum students need to wait for an email reply. Learning can sometimes be hindered because of this lag time. Screen fatigue from being in a full day Zoom meeting or long hours in front of a computer were also cited as barriers to productivity in learning (Allison, 2021).

Some students also expressed concerns about having the necessary skills and competencies for face-to-face social work practice when restrictions lifted after not completing an in-person practicum (Allison, 2021). Even in a clinical setting where students worked with clients remotely, students worried about the transferability of skills to a face-to-face environment (Allison, 2021). Although “being prepared for practice” is a common concern for many students upon graduation, this seemed to be exacerbated by remote practicums (Allison, 2021).

The Future of Remote Service Delivery and Practicums

Despite the challenges outlined above, remote service delivery, and thus remote social work learning and field practicums, will likely remain with us to some degree. Aligned with social work’s ethic of “meeting people where they are at,” remote service delivery and practicums allow for flexibility and accessibility for both clients and students. As agencies and schools of social work grapple with defining a “new normal” for work and education, they will need to consider the best ways to move forward. Schools of social work will need further research regarding best practices for remote learning and teaching. Further, there is a need to develop more effective evaluation methods for these types of practicums that maintain the competencies and standards expected of social work graduates. Additionally, relationships are at the heart of social work practice. Therefore, students and field instructors involved in remote learning and service delivery will need to deliberately and intentionally put time and effort into developing and sustaining caring relationships remotely. Actively making time for “connecting” with field instructors, other agency staff, and clients is crucial for success in this type of practicum.

Clarity of communication is more critical than ever when working and learning remotely. Ensuring that students have a clear plan for how to communicate with their field instructor and other agency staff and have discussed what methods of communicating are appropriate and ethical for various tasks is essential.

Equity, inclusion and diversity practices need to continue to be priorities for social workers and students in remote environments. Students as well as field instructors should be mindful of and discuss the ways in which their own diversity can be supported in their remote field experience. They also need to be aware of the ways in which remote service delivery can inadvertently reproduce discrimination and the subjugation of minorities. Student and graduate social workers must consciously use technology, methods and frameworks, some discussed here, that actively resist this. An example is selective use of remote meetings when an in-person meeting is a barrier or hardship. In other situations, an in-person meeting may be selected when it is the service-user’s choice to facilitate communication or impact.

Although a return to more traditional in-person practicums is welcomed and preferred by many students, faculty, and agency partners, remote practicums will likely continue to be offered. While remote field learning has benefits, students and field instructors need to be critically aware of challenges and disadvantages. Students will need to have a good understanding of the technical competencies for remote learning and supervision, intentionally build effective relationships with their field instructor and service users, and strive to create safe, equitable, and ethical learning and practice environments. By doing so, social work students can effectively use remote field practicum opportunities to learn to effectively respond to the needs of individuals, families, groups, and communities and to advance social justice.

Activity 6: Recap

As a helpful recap of the content of this chapter, the following has been provided to students and field instructors to consider and discuss before proceeding to the next chapter.

1. Name three skills and techniques important for building a relationship between student and field instructor when supervision is online.
2. Consider this scenario: A student was accepted for a placement in a rural-based agency. The agency is located within a geographic area where services to vulnerable populations are limited. However, the qualified social work supervisor is located in another rural site of the agency. A remote placement is considered. The field instructor, who has extensive practice experience, is not familiar with the use of technology in field instruction yet feels obligated to mentor the student and support the local community. How should the student approach this remote placement? What ethical dilemmas does this situation present? What steps needed to be taken in order to proceed?
3. What ethical issues need to be addressed in field instruction when a social worker and a student consider including a Google search of a client to gather information to complete their assessment?
4. List three projects or learning activities that can be remotely completed in a field practicum in your agency.
5. Dependent upon provincial Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice, student and field instructor can discuss strategies in a remote placement setting to ensure compliance with codes and standards.
6. Potential disadvantages of remote field education were discussed in this chapter. Student and field instructor might consider mitigating these disadvantages with forethought, research, and communication strategies.

References

Allison, K. (2021). Remote field placements: Lessons learned at the UBC School of Social Work. Perspectives: Newsmagazine of the BC Association of Social Workers, 43(3), 14–15.

Azzopardi, C., & McNeill, T. (2016). From cultural competence to cultural consciousness: Transitioning to a critical approach to working across differences in social work. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 25(4), 282–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/15313204.2016.1206494

Bambaeeroo, F., & Shokrpour, N. (2017). The impact of the teachers’ non-verbal communication on success in teaching. Journal of Advances in Medical Education and Professionalism, 5(2), 51–59. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28367460

Banks, S., Cai, T., de Jonge, E., Shears, J., Shum, M., Sobočan, A. M., Strom, K., Truell, R. Úriz, M. J., & Weinberg, M. (2020). Ethical challenges for social workers during COVID-19: A global perspective. International Federation of Social Work. https://www.ifsw.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/2020-06-30-Ethical-Challenges-Covid19-FINAL.pdf

Beasley, C. C., Singh, M. I., & Drechsler, K. (2021). Anti-racism and equity-mindedness in social work field education: A systematic review. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 31(3-5), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/15313204.2021.1991868

Blakemore, T., & Agllias, K. (2020). Social media, empathy and interpersonal skills: Social work students’ reflections in the digital era. Social Work Education, 39(2), 200–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2019.1619683

Canadian Association for Social Work Education (n.d.). EPAS 2021 approved. https://caswe-acfts.ca/epas-2021-approved/

Canadian Association of Social Workers (2024). ). CASW code of ethics, values and guiding principles 2024. https://www.casw-acts.ca/en/casw-code-ethics-2024

———. Standards of Practice. https://www.casw-acts.ca/en/tags/standards-practice

———. (2011, May 6). What is social work? https://www.casw-acts.ca/en/what-social-work

———. (2020, March 18). COVID-19 communication—Field education placements. https://caswe-acfts.ca/covid-19-communication-field-education-placements/

Canadian Counselling and Psychotherapy Association. (2019). Guidelines for uses of technology in counselling and psychotherapy. https://www.ccpa-accp.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/TISCGuidelines_Mar2019_EN.pdf

Cicco, G. (2014). Building effective supervisory relationships in the online counseling course: Faculty and student responsibilities. I-manager’s Journal on School Educational Technology, 10(2), 1–8. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1097715.pdf

Council on Social Work Education. (2008). Educational policy and accreditation standards. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Eschmann, R. (2021). Digital Resistance: How online communication facilitates responses to racial microaggressions. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, 7(2), 264–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332649220933307

Evanish, Jason. (n.d.) Lighthouse Blog. 7 essential tips for effective 1-on-1 meetings with your manager. https://getlighthouse.com/blog/effective-1-on-1-meetings/.

Foley, G. N., & Gentile, J. P. (2010). Nonverbal communication in psychotherapy. Psychiatry, (Edgmont), 7(6), 38. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20622944

Gips, D. (2020, October 29). The color of Covid-19: Disparate impacts, inequitable responses. Virtual town hall presented by the Skoll Foundation. https://skoll.org/session/the-color-of-covid-19/

Mantulak, A. P., Arundel, M. K., & Csiernik, R. (2021). A creative solution to the social work practicum amid a pandemic: The remote learning Plan. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 41(5), 535–549.

Martis, E. (2020). They said this would be fun: Race, campus life, and growing up. McClelland & Stewart.

———. (2022, April 27). Riding the wave of change. Keynote address. 2022 Advisor Conference, University of Waterloo, ON, Canada.

Mast, M. (2007). On the importance of nonverbal communication in the physician-patient interaction. Patient Education and Counseling, 67(3), 315–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2007.03.005

McInroy, L. (3 May 2019). Social work practice in a digital world: professional identities, ethics, and opportunities. Guest Speaker Presentation. Annual General Meeting, Ontario Association of Social Workers, Toronto, ON.

Mullaly, R. P., & West, J. (2018). Challenging oppression and confronting privilege: A critical approach to anti-oppressive and anti-privilege theory and practice (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.

National Association of Social Workers, Association of Social Work Boards, Council on Social Work Education, and Clinical Social Work Association. (2017). “NASW, ASWB, CSWE, and CSWA standards for technology in social work practice.” https://www.socialworkers.org/includes/newIncludes/homepage/PRA-BRO-33617.TechStandards_FINAL_POSTING.pdf

Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. (2019). PIPEDA in brief. https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/privacy-laws-in-canada/the-personal-information-protection-and-electronic-documents-act-pipeda/pipeda_brief/

Reamer, F. G. (2013). Social work practice in a digital ethical and risk-management challenges. CASW-ACTS. https://www.casw-acts.ca/files/attachements/reamer-ethical_issues_-_electronic_digital-webcast_2013.pdf

Renison University College School of Social Work. (2013). Social media policy. https://uwaterloo.ca/school-of-social-work/social-media-policy

Sawrikar, P., Lenette, C., McDonald, D., & Fowler, J. (2015). Don’t silence ‘the dinosaurs’: Keeping caution alive with regard to social work distance education. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 35(4), 343–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2015.1068262

Segal, J., Smith, M., Boose, G., & Jaffe, J. (2015). Nonverbal communication and body language. HelpGuide.org. https://www.helpguide.org/articles/relationships-communication/nonverbal-communication.htm

van de Luitgaarden, G., & van der Tier, M. (2018). Establishing working relationships in online social work. Journal of Social Work, 18(3), 307–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468017316654347

Van Sickle, C. (2014). Practice notes: Professional and ethical: Communication technology practices and policies for a digital world. https://www.ocswssw.org/wp-content/uploads/PN-Communication_Technology_Practices_Policies_for_Digital_World.pdf

Weinberg, M. (2020). Exacerbation of inequities during COVID-19: Ethical implications for social workers. Canadian Social Work Review, 37(2), 9–15. https://doi.org/10.7202/1075117ar

Weinberg, M., & Fine, M. (2020). Racisms and microaggressions in social work: The experience of racialized practitioners in Canada. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 31(2), 96–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/15313204.2020.1839614