See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/353762903

Social Work Field Instruction Program: The Case of Leyte Normal University

Research · August 2021

DOI: 10.47119/IJRP100811720212104

CITATIONS READS

0 821

1 author:

Lilibeth Fallorina
Leyte Normal University
1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Lilibeth Fallorina on 08 August 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1

Social Work Field Instruction Program: The Case of Leyte

Normal University
Lilibeth B. Fallorina
lilibeth.fallorina@lnu.edu.ph

Social Work Department, Leyte Normal University, Tacloban City, 6500, Philippines

Abstract

The study aimed to assess the extent of implementation of the guidelines and standards set by Commission on Higher
Education (CHED) Memorandum Order No. 39 s, 2017 for Field Instruction Program of the Bachelor of Science in Social
Work in Leyte Normal University with focus on: objectives, administration, field learning experiences, and facilities.
Respondents of the study were the agency supervisors, faculty supervisors, and practicum students. A descriptive-normative
survey using a validated, research-made questionnaire was utilized as the basic tool in gathering data. The result of the
study showed that no significant difference in the perceptions of the respondents on the implementation of field instruction
program policies and standards in terms of: objectives, administration, and field learning experiences. However, significant
difference was noted on the area of facilities. The results implied that the Field Instruction Program of Leyte Normal
University satisfied most of the policies and standards set by CMO No 39, s. 2017.

Keywords: Field Instruction, CHED Memorandum Order 39 s.2017, Extent of Implementation, Leyte Normal University, Social Work

I. INTRODUCTION

Educational institutions across the world are mandated to adhere to the standards of the 21st century in which
students are required to perform at higher levels and in which teachers are held accountable for the learning of
students rather than simply for the delivery of instruction. Students’ success is always the focus of educational
mandates and is regarded as one of the prime agenda in every institution of higher learning. Development of
skills is deemed to be relevant to the field of work that students would be engaged in. Likewise, it is believed
that success is hinged on the quality of teachers and administrators and the way they had mentored and guided
the students.
The International Federation of Social Workers (2014) defined Social Work as a practice-based profession
and an academic discipline that promotes social change and development, social cohesion, and the
empowerment and liberation of people. Beytell (2014) recommended that Social Work education should focus
not only on implementing theory in practice, but also on practicing realities.
The essential feature of the BSSW curriculum is the field instruction program which requires students to
spend a minimum of 1,000 hours in a social welfare institution and in a community with required documentation
of the placement experience. The program provides students the opportunity to integrate classroom knowledge
into practice as so stipulated in Commission on Higher Education Memorandum Order No. 39, s. 2017. To this
light, Bogo (2018) confirmed that field education experiences are designed to teach the students’ cognitive and
affective processes, and hence, the competencies as beginning social workers are developed.
In the Philippines, it is expected that colleges offering social work programs meet the following: (1)
sufficient number of competent social work faculty who would supervise the students; (2) partner agencies and
communities; (3) engagement with partner communities for at least three years to provide enough time for all
stakeholders to achieve desired outcomes; (4) designation of a supervisor who is a licensed social worker who
has completed at least half of the academic requirements for a master’s degree in social work or any related
fields; and (5) provision of social work facilities for field instruction to ensure that social welfare agencies and
partner communities are accredited agencies with a licensed social worker willing to supervise students and that
it can provide appropriate learning opportunities and workspace for students. (CHED Memorandum Order
No.39 s. 2017).

IJRP 2021, 81(1), 1-14; doi:.10.47119/IJRP100811720212104 www.ijrp.org

 Lilibeth B. Fallorina / International Journal of Research Publications (IJRP.ORG)
2

However, scant evidence is seen whether the expectations are met by institutions offering Bachelor of
Science in Social Work in the Philippines. Despite the guidelines set in the curriculum, no study has been
conducted yet as to the extent of compliance with the standards set.
For over two decades, the BSSW course has been offered at Leyte Normal University, where the researcher
is currently teaching, and the achievement of social work graduates is very satisfactory, taking into
consideration the licensure examination results annually as the yardstick. However, this claim cannot be
attributed solely to their performance in field instruction. Other aspects as to its implementation have to be
looked into to provide a benchmark on the success or failure of the program. This have spurred the researcher’s
interest to conduct this study leading to the framing of a field instruction enhancement program to improve the
university’s existing design and meet the expectations of social work students as articulated in the guidelines.
Specifically, the study sought to determine the extent to which Field Instruction Program guidelines and
standards set by CHED Memorandum Order No. 39 s, 2017 for Bachelor of Science in Social Work are
implemented in Leyte Normal University in the following areas: objectives; administration; field learning
experiences; and facilities.

1.1. Framework of the Study

This study is anchored on the theory of praxis espoused by Paulo Freire. Praxis refers to a particular theory
which means “theory plus action” (Breunig, 2005). It indicates life practice formed by both reflection and
action. Praxis has its explicit goal to empower marginalized people and help them challenge their oppression
and eventually transform their lives. It also involves the commitment to challenge the status quo and help people
from marginalized communities understand their oppression. Freire, whose beliefs emanated from Marxist and
existentialist, believed that the oppressed must not only fight for freedom from hunger but should make sure that
this freedom also creates, constructs, wonders, and ventures on people. True knowledge, Freire contended
emerges only through knowledge, continuing, hopeful, critical inquiry with people about their relation to the
world. Therefore, he advocated that rather than learners receiving, filing, and storing knowledge taught by
educators, learners should be allowed to develop an accepted practice, an inventive way of life that encourages
creative reflection, and considerate action in order to change the world, even if it would mean that the learners
will be transformed on the process.
Corollary to the theory of praxis is symbolic-interaction approach which explains how to build reality in
people’s everyday interactions with others. The theory sees institutions as arrangement of people who are
interlinked in their respective actions. It analyzes society by the descriptive meanings that people have given to
objects, events, and behaviors. These descriptive meanings have bearing on the behavior because people behave
according to their descriptive beliefs rather than objective truths. These descriptive beliefs are interpretations
created by people thus, the idea suggests that society is based on the descriptions of people. People interpret
each other’s behavior and a bond is created, which is grounded on this interpretation (Blumer,1969).
This theory explains how humans develop a complex set of symbols that give meaning to the world in their
perspective. The interaction of the individual with the society form these meanings. These reciprocal action are
personally interpreted to suit the meaning in accordance with the existing symbols (Croteau & Hoynes, 2014).
The symbolic interactionism articulates that the individuals build self-identity through these interactions with
the society. The students’ interactions with their supervisors, clients, and those that they meet in the field will
influence how they interpret the things around them. These will be very helpful and important as they will be
able to understand things not only from their perspectives but from others as well.

III. METHODOLOGY

This study was descriptive-normative which utilized questionnaires as the basic tool in gathering data. The
perceptions were compared against the norms and standards for field instruction program as stipulated in the
CHED Memorandum Order No. 39, s. 2017. It involved three groups of respondents: the agency supervisors;
the faculty supervisors; and the practicum students.

www.ijrp.org
 Lilibeth B. Fallorina / International Journal of Research Publications (IJRP.ORG)
3

The extent of implementation of the guidelines and standards for field instruction program as stipulated in
CMO No. 39, s 2017 was statistically expressed in a Likert type scale of 4,3,2,1 where 1 is the lowest and 4, the
highest. The weighted mean of the perceptions of the respondents was taken.

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 1. Extent of implementation of the BSSW Field Instruction Program guidelines and standards in the area
of Objectives as perceived by the three groups of respondents

Agency Supervisor Faculty Practicum Students

De- De- De- De-
Ave.
Objectives Mean scriptive Mean scriptive Mean scriptive scriptive
Mean
Rating Rating Rating Rating
1.Demonstrate 3.69 Fully 3.4 Sub- 3.77 Fully 3.62 Fully
beginning Achieved stantially Achieved Achieved
competence in Achieved
problem-solving by
engaging clients’
solutions to their
problems
2.Encourage people 3.62 Fully 3.0 Sub- 3.32 Sub- 3.31 Sub-
to conduct advocacy Achieved stantially stantially stantially
with reference to Achieved Achieved Achieved
pertinent societal
issues
3.Generate resources 3.54 Fully 3.0 Sub- 3.55 Fully 3.54 Fully
for networking and Achieved stantially Achieved Achieved
partnership Achieved
development

4.Demonstrate 3.46 Sub- 3.4 Sub- 3.75 Fully 3.53 Fully

competence in stantially stantially Achieved
Achieved
critical thinking and Achieved Achieved
analysis of the root
causes of problems

5. Engage in social 3.62 Fully 3.6 Fully 3.75 Fully 3.65 Fully
work practices that Achieved Achieved Achieved Achieved
promote diversity
and difference in
client systems

6. Acquire practice 3.92 Fully 3.8 Fully 3.93 Fully 3.88 Fully
knowledge of the Achieved Achieved achieved Achieved
helping process

7. Identify, relate, 3.85 Fully 3.2 Sub- 3.80 Fully 3.61 Fully
and apply relevant Achieved stantially Achieved Achieved
concepts and theories Achieved
to practice situation

8. Conduct oneself in 3.85 Fully 4.0 Fully 3.84 Fully 3.89 Fully
accordance to
www.ijrp.org
 Lilibeth B. Fallorina / International Journal of Research Publications (IJRP.ORG)
4

Agency Supervisor Faculty Practicum Students

De- De- De- De-
Ave.
Objectives Mean scriptive Mean scriptive Mean scriptive scriptive
Mean
Rating Rating Rating Rating
professional and Achieved Achieved Achieved Achieved
ethical standards of
the social work
profession

9. Utilize supervision 3.77 Fully 3.8 Fully 3.55 Fully 3.70 Fully
as a means to Achieved Achieved Achieved Achieved
enhance personal and
professional growth
and development

10. Produce portfolio Fully Fully Fully Fully

of accomplishments 3.62 4.0 3.55 3.70
Achieved Achieved Achieved Achieved

Overall 3.69 Fully 3.52 Fully 3.71 Fully 3.64 Fully

Mean Achieved Achieved Achieved Achieved

The results indicate that the respondents had differing opinions on the Extent of Implementation of the field
instruction objectives. The faculty supervisors disagreed with the agency supervisors and practicum students
when they said that items 1 “Demonstrate beginning competence in problem-solving by engaging the client in
finding solutions to problems,” item 3 “Generate resources for networking and partnership development,” and
item 7 “Identify, relate, and apply relevant concepts and theories to practice situation” were Fully Achieved.
They believed that the students have not yet fully developed the skills in problem solving, resource generation,
and the application of theories in practice. The basis could have been the documents like case studies, group,
and community studies, projects, and training proposals that were submitted by the students. The faculty
supervisors felt that there should have been provision of opportunities wherein students apply the knowledge
they learned in the classroom, get exposed to varied activities necessary towards developing their skills in
helping clients solve their problems, and that resource generation should have been in the learning plan. Both
the agency and faculty supervisors agreed that item 4 “Demonstrate competence in critical thinking and analysis
of the root causes of problems as basis for services” were Substantially Achieved. The perception of agency and
faculty supervisors could have been based on the kind of work the students have submitted or on how they
carried out the tasks given in the agency and in the classroom. The reflection papers, case studies, position
papers, and other assignments gave the supervisors the opportunity to assess their critical thinking abilities.
On the other hand, faculty supervisors and students agreed that item 2 “Encourage people to conduct
advocacy with reference to pertinent societal concern” was Substantially Achieved. This could have been due to
the fact that most of the students were assigned in field sites that did not require them to conduct advocacy
campaigns or similar activities.
It is worth noting that the average mean of Field Instruction Program objectives were Fully Achieved. The
respondents believed that the program provided opportunities for students to apply the theoretical knowledge
learned in the university in real practice environment.
Popouli (2014) said that in the field instruction, students are given the opportunity to discover new ideas,
think about their own values, prejudices, and attitudes towards others, and to develop a sense of commitment to
the profession. This is parallel to what is stipulated in the Council of Social Work Education (2015) that field
education connects the theory and concepts taught in the classroom in the practice setting. Students’ attainment
of field instruction objectives enables them to refine the tools and skills needed to become a social work
practitioner (Virginia State University Field Instruction Manual, 2019).

www.ijrp.org
 Lilibeth B. Fallorina / International Journal of Research Publications (IJRP.ORG)
5

Table 2. Extent of Implementation of the BSSW Field Instruction Program guidelines and standards in the area
of Administration as perceived by the three groups of respondents

Agency Supervisor Faculty Practicum Students

Procedures of
De- De- De- De-
Placement Mean scriptive Mean scriptive Mean scriptive Mean scriptive
Rating Rating Rating Rating

1. Scouts for partner 3.85 Com- 3.8 Com- 3.75 Com- 3.8 Com-
agencies and assess pletely pletely pletely pletely
their capacities to Imple- Imple- Imple- Imple-
provide the students a mented mented mented mented
conducive learning
environment

2. Makes initial 3.92 Com- 3.8 Com- 3.77 Com- 3.83 Com-
arrangements with pletely pletely pletely pletely
prospective agencies Imple- Imple- Imple- Imple-
that meet the criteria set mented mented mented mented
by the Social Work
Unit

3.Determines the 3.69 Com- 3.6 Com- 3.25 Sub-stan- 3.51 Com-
students’ readiness for pletely pletely tially pletely
Field Instruction Imple- Imple- Imple- Imple-
mented mented mented mented

4. Assesses and matches 3.50 Com- 3.6 Com- 3.07 Sub-stan- 3.39 Sub-stan-
students and field site pletely pletely tially tially
by ensuring congruence Imple- Imple- Imple- Imple-
of interests mented mented mented mented

5. Prepares and finalizes 3.85 Com- 4.0 Com- 3.82 Com- 3.89 Com-
the list of students and pletely pletely pletely pletely
their agency/area of Imple- Imple- Imple- Imple-
assignments mented mented mented mented

6. Formalizes the 3.92 Com- 4.0 Com- 3.93 Com- 3.95 Com-
partnership between the pletely pletely pletely pletely
school and the agency Imple- Imple- Imple- Imple-
through MOA mented mented mented mented

7. A trialogue for 4.0 Com- 3.8 Com- 3.70 Com- 3.83 Com-
fieldwork students, pletely pletely pletely pletely
agency, and faculty Imple- Imple- Imple- Imple-
supervisors is conducted mented mented mented mented
before the start of the
fieldwork.

8. Formal endorsement 3.77 Com- 4.0 Com- 3.89 Com- 3.88 Com-
to assigned agencies is pletely pletely pletely pletely
done by unit head and Imple- Imple- Imple- Imple-
faculty supervisors. mented mented mented mented

www.ijrp.org
 Lilibeth B. Fallorina / International Journal of Research Publications (IJRP.ORG)
6

Agency Supervisor Faculty Practicum Students

Procedures of De- De- De- De-
Placement
Mean scriptive Mean scriptive Mean scriptive Mean scriptive
Rating Rating Rating Rating

9 Completion of the 3.85 Com- 4.0 Com- 3.82 Com- 3.89 Com-
core subjects in each of pletely pletely pletely pletely
the curricular areas and Imple- Imple- Imple- Imple-
social work methods mented mented mented mented
courses

10.Satisfactory 3.92 Com- 4.0 Com- 3.84 Com- 3.92 Com-

academic performance pletely pletely pletely pletely
Imple- Imple- Imple- Imple-
mented mented mented mented

11. All requirements 3.54 Com- 3.8 Com- 3.77 Com- 3.70 Com-
such as: parents, pletely pletely pletely pletely
consent, waiver have Imple- Imple- Imple- Imple-
been submitted before mented mented mented mented
the fieldwork.

Overall 3.69 Com- 3.52 Com- 3.69 Com- 3.63 Com-

Mean pletely pletely pletely pletely
Imple- Imple- Imple- Imple-
mented mented mented mented

The agency supervisors believed that all items were Completely Implemented. The average mean rating for
all items was 3.69. For the faculty supervisors, their perception was that all items were Completely Implemented
with an average rating of 3.52. The students perceived all items as Completely Implemented except for items 3
“Determines student’s readiness” and 4 “Assesses students and field site by ensuring congruence of interests,
needs, and preferences” which they rated as Substantially Implemented. The average mean rating was 3.69
described as Completely Implemented. In sum, the average mean rating of the three groups of respondents was
3.63 interpreted as Completely Implemented.
Students’ rating items 3 and 4 as Substantially Implemented was not surprising. The feeling of anxiety to go
on field instruction might have been the reason why they felt that their readiness was not considered. They were
at that time ready for Field Instruction because they have had taken the subjects that would equip them with
knowledge needed in practice. The faculty also expressed that in assigning, they considered the students’
capacity, personality, and agency preferences. However, due to limited agencies for placements, the area of
assignment was at times distant from the city that it required them to travel for hours, and as a result spend more
expenses on transportation. These factors made the student’s think that it was not considered.

Table 3. Profile of agency supervisors in terms of number of students supervised

Number of Practicum Students Supervised in

f %
Four Years

1-30 10 77
30-60 2 15
60 -90 1 8

www.ijrp.org
 Lilibeth B. Fallorina / International Journal of Research Publications (IJRP.ORG)
7

It can be gleaned from the table above that for the period of 4 years, 10 or 77% of the agency supervisors had
supervised at least 1-30 students, 2 or 15% supervised at least 30-60 while 1 or 8% supervised 60-90 students.
The Leyte Normal University’s tie-up with new field placement sites explains the reason why majority of the
agency supervisors have handled only about 1-30 students so far.

Table 4. Profile of agency supervisors in terms of years in service

Years in Service f %

0-3 years 3 23
4-6 years
7-10 years 3 23
10 years above 7 54

The table above presents the work experience of the agency supervisors. The data reveal that 10 or 54% of
the field supervisors have been working as social workers for 7-10 years, 3 or 23% have worked for 4-6 years
while the other 3 or 23% are new social workers who have been in the service for 0-3 years.
The foregoing data shows that more than half of the agency supervisors have been working in the field of
social work for years. Their practice experience made them more than qualified to supervise field instruction
students. The guidelines in the CMO requires at least two years of work experience for a social worker to be
designated as agency supervisor.

Table 5. Profile of agency supervisors in terms of eligibility

Profile of Agency Supervisors f %

Passer of Licensure Examination for Social

13 100
Worker

It can be gleaned in Table 5 that all agency supervisors are passers of the licensure examination for social
workers. The provision in the CMO Number 39 s. 2017 that says an agency supervisor should be a licensed
social worker was Satisfied.

Table 6. Profile of agency supervisors in terms of educational attainment

Educational Attainment f %

Bachelor’s Degree 3 24
BS with MA Units 8 62
MA Degree 2 15

In terms of educational attainment, the above table shows that 2 or 15% of the agency supervisors finished
Master’s Degree while 8 or 62 % have earned MA units and three or 24% finished a Baccalaureate Degree in
Social Work.
It is stated in the CMO guidelines that the designated agency supervisor must be a licensed social worker who
has completed at least 50% of the academic requirements for a Master’s Degree and have at least two years of
work experience.
Overall, majority of the agency supervisors have met the standards set in the CMO guidelines. These findings
conform to the claims of Alchauser et al. (2015) that to efficiently deliver the services in a training program for
social workers, the field supervisor must be a registered social worker, preferably a Master’s Degree holder in
Social Work, or one with master’s degree units with at least two years of work experience.

www.ijrp.org
 Lilibeth B. Fallorina / International Journal of Research Publications (IJRP.ORG)
8

Table 7. Profile of faculty supervisors in terms of number of practicum students supervised

Number of Practicum Students f %

Supervised within 4 years
1-30 students 3 60
30-60 students
90 above 2 40

In can be gleaned from the table above that within 4 years, 3 or 60% of the faculty supervisors have
supervised at least 1-30 students while 2 or 40% have supervised more than 90 students. The findings show that
most of the faculty were new field instruction supervisors.

Table 8. Profile of faculty supervisors in terms of number of years in service

Years in Service f %

1-3 years 3 60
4-6 years
7-10 years
10 years above 2 40

In terms of teaching experience, 3 or 60% are new faculty members who have been in the university for 1-3
years while 2 or 40% have been with the university for more than 10 years. The hiring of new faculty members
due to the increasing number of students enrolling in the social work course and the retirement of a senior
faculty explain the reason why majority are new field supervisors.

Table 9. Profile of faculty supervisors in terms of number of years in service

Eligibility of Faculty Supervisors f %

Passer of Licensure Examination for Social

5 100
Worker

The table above shows that all faculty supervisors are licensed social workers. The provision in the CHED
CMO Number 39 s. 2017 that requires a social work faculty to be a licensed social worker was Complied.

Table 10. Profile of faculty supervisors in terms of educational attainment

Educational Attainment f %

Bachelor’s Degree in Social Work

BSSW with MA Units 3 60
MSW Degree
MA with Doctoral Units 2 40

For educational attainment, 3 or 60 % of the faculty supervisors finished BS Social Work with MA units
while 2 or 40% are Masters in Social Work graduates with doctorate units.
The findings are partly not able to meet the CHED Memorandum Order No. 39 s. 2017 which requires a
faculty member to be a licensed social worker, a holder of Master’s Degree in Social Work or a Master of
www.ijrp.org
 Lilibeth B. Fallorina / International Journal of Research Publications (IJRP.ORG)
9

Arts/Science degree in any field related to social work. CHED emphasizes that supervision is well-carried out if
the social work supervisors are appropriately trained and with a high level of educational qualification. In order
to qualify teaching in social work, the three faculty supervisors should have had finished their Master’s degrees
as mandated in the CMO guidelines.

Table 14. Extent of Implementation of the BSSW Field Instruction Program guidelines and standards on the area
field learning experiences as perceived by the three groups of respondents

Agency Supervisor Faculty Practicum Students

Field Learning
Experiences De- De- De- De-
Ave.
Mean scriptive Mean scriptive Mean scriptive scriptive
Rating
Rating Rating Rating Rating
1. Orientation to the agency- 4.0 Com- 3.8 Com- 3.82 Com- 3.87 Com-
includes staff, office pletely pletely pletely pletely
procedures, programs, and Imple- Imple- Imple- Imple-
services provided mented mented mented mented

2. Experiences in developing 3.69 Com- 3.8 Com- 3.50 Com- 3.66 Com-
and managing interventive pletely pletely pletely pletely
relationships Imple- Imple- Imple- Imple-
mented mented mented mented

3. Recording experience- 3.54 Com- 4.0 Com- 3.75 Com- 3.76 Com-
making eligibility studies, pletely pletely pletely pletely
case studies, case Imple- Imple- Imple- Imple-
summaries, referral letters, mented mented mented mented
minutes

4. Administrative 3.46 Sub- 3.2 Sub- 3.55 Com-- 3.40 Sub-stan-

experiences – participation stantially stantially pletely tially
in staff meetings, planning, Imple- Imple- Imple- Imple-
evaluation, budgeting, mented mented mented mented
coordinating.
5. Experiences in referral 3.77 Com- 3.6 Com- 3.52 Com- 3.63 Com-
management - orientation of pletely pletely pletely pletely
services available to clients Imple- Imple- Imple- Imple-
being served mented mented mented mented

6. Interviewing experiences 3.92 Com- 4.0 Com- 3.98 Com- 3.96 Com-
–conducting interviews for pletely pletely pletely pletely
variety of purposes Imple- Imple- Imple- Imple-
mented mented mented mented
7. Experiences with 3.23 Sub- 3.0 Sub- 3.20 Substan- 3.14 Substan-
individuals – includes case stantially stantially tially tially
studies, counselling, Implement Implement Implement Implement
observing/conducting ed ed ed ed
therapy sessions

www.ijrp.org
 Lilibeth B. Fallorina / International Journal of Research Publications (IJRP.ORG)
10

Agency Supervisor Faculty Practicum Students

Field Learning
Experiences De- De- De- De-
Ave.
Mean scriptive Mean scriptive Mean scriptive scriptive
Rating
Rating Rating Rating Rating
8. Experiences working with 3.77 Com- 3.4 Sub- 3.73 Com- 3.63 Com-
groups – assisting groups in pletely stantially pletely pletely
problem solving, facilitating Imple- Imple- Imple- Imple-
group meetings, conducting mented mented mented mented
trainings

9. Experiences in 3.54 Com- 4.0 Com- 3.89 Com- 3.81 Com-

community activities- pletely pletely pletely pletely
helping communities solve Imple- Imple- Imple- Imple-
problems, organizing and mented mented mented mented
strengthening community
groups.

Com- Com- Com- Com-

3.66 pletely 3.65 pletely 3.66 pletely 3.65 pletely
Overall Mean Imple- Imple- Imple- Imple-
mented mented mented mented

The findings revealed that the agency and faculty supervisors agreed that administrative experiences and
experiences with individuals were Substantially Implemented while the students perceived it as Completely
Implemented. The difference in responses could have been due to the fact that the agency and faculty
supervisors felt that the exposure given to the students in terms of planning and budgeting was limited since
they did not participate in the planning and budgeting activities of the agency and the university. On the part of
the students, they regarded their experiences in conducting planning workshops with clients, making of project
proposals as administrative experiences. In field instruction, the agencies were encouraged to provide
opportunities for students to experience how to make plans, budget, project proposals, and other administrative
activities. Although they were conducting planning sessions with their clients, the experience of joining actual
planning sessions with the agency staff should have exposed the students to the real world of work.
All respondents were one in saying that the experiences with individuals specifically on the conduct of
counseling and therapy sessions was Substantially Implemented. This could have been explained by the fact that
some students were assigned in agencies where counseling and therapy sessions were not part of their services
or they were given limited opportunities to counsel clients since they were not yet skilled in counselling or if the
cases were sensitive.
Moreover, both agency supervisors and students agreed that experiences with groups was Completely
Implemented but the faculty supervisors expressed that it was Substantially Implemented. The basis of the
faculty rating could have been the weekly plan and accomplishment reports submitted by students. It reflected
that students have seldom conducted group work activities in their area of assignment.
This finding implies that the respondents have had a firm conviction that most of the learning experiences
and activities provided to them in the field practicum were appropriate, enriching, and helpful in the
development of practical skills.
This concurs with the study of Apao (2014) which emphasized that provision of engaging learning
experiences where learners are given amount of work to do in a specific length of time will cultivate their innate
potentials and develop their life skills.
As an implication, LNU Social Work Department should have had strategized ways on how it can provide
holistic learning opportunities and experiences deemed necessary for students to acquire beginning competence
in social work.
www.ijrp.org
 Lilibeth B. Fallorina / International Journal of Research Publications (IJRP.ORG)
11

Table 15. Extent of implementation of the BSSW Field Instruction Program Guidelines and standards on the
area of facilities as perceived by the three groups of respondents

Agency Supervisor Faculty Supervisor Practicum Students

Facilities Mean De- Mean De- Mean De- Ave. De-

scriptive scriptive scriptive Mean scriptive
Rating Rating Rating Rating
1. The college selects 3.69 Very Ade- 2.4 Partially 3.64 Very 3.24 Sub-
accredited welfare quate Adequate Adequate stantially
agencies with a social Adequate
worker; supervisor to
student ratio is 1:5
2. Provisions of work 3.54 Very 2.2 Partially 3.09 Sub- 2.94 Sub-
space for students Adequate Adequate stantially stantially
Adequate Adequate
3. Availability of 2.92 Sub- 2.4 Partially 2.77 Sub- 2.7 Sub-
books, magazines, FI stantially Adequate stantially stantially
reading materials etc. Adequate Adequate Adequate

4. Provision of technology in the workplace for FI activities such as:

a. overhead 2.69 Sub- 1.8 Partially 3.14 Sub- 2.5 Sub-
projector stantially Adequate stantially stantially
Adequate Adequate adequate

b. LCD 3.62 Very 2.4 Partially 3.16 Sub- 3.06 Sub-

projector Adequate Adequate stantially stantially
Adequate Adequate
c. Laptop 2.62 Sub- 1.6 Partially 2.77 Sub- 2.33 Partially
stantially Ade-quate stantially Adequate
Adequate Adequate
d. camera 2.85 Sub- 1.4 Partially 2.39 Partially 2.21 Partially
stantially Adequate Adequate Adequate
Adequate
e. microphone 3.69 Very 2.0 Partially 3.32 Sub- 3.0 Sub-
Adequate Ade-quate stantially stantially
Ade-quate Adequate
g. computer 3.0 Sub- 1.6 Partially 2.58 Sub- 2.39 Partially
stantially Adequate stantially Adequate
Adequate Adequate

h. TV 2.54 Sub- 1.6 Partially 2.32 Partially 2.15 Partially

stantially Ade-quate Adequate Adequate
Adequate
i. exhibit 3.08 Sub- 1.8 Partially 2.66 Sub- 2.51 Subs-
boards stantially Ade-quate stantially tantially
Adequate Adequate Adequ
5. Provision of display boards for:
a. organizational set-up 3.62 Very 3.0 Sub- 3.52 Very 3.38 Sub-
Adequate stantially Adequate stantially
Adequate Adequate
b. statement of 3.77 Very 3.0 Sub- 3.68 Very 3.48 Sub-
mission, goals, and Adequate stantially Adequate stantially
services of the agency Adequate Adequate

www.ijrp.org
 Lilibeth B. Fallorina / International Journal of Research Publications (IJRP.ORG)
12

Agency Supervisor Faculty Supervisor Practicum Students

Facilities Mean De- Mean De- Mean De- Ave. De-

scriptive scriptive scriptive Mean scriptive
Rating Rating Rating Rating
c. essential forms used 3.77 Very 2.8 Sub- 3.39 Sub- 3.32 Sub-
by the agency Adequate stantially stantially stantially
Adequate Adequate Adequate

d. flow of 3.69 Very 2.8 Sub- 3.32 Sub- 3.27 Sub-

communication in the Adequate stantially stantially stantially
agency Adequate Adequate Adequate

e. chart on the 3.77 Very 2.8 Sub- 3.34 Sub- 3.30 Sub-
procedures of helping Adequate stantially stantially stantially
processes Adequate Adequate Adequate

f. other information 3.85 Very 2.8 Sub- 3.41 Sub- 3.35 Sub-
essential for the Adequate stantially stantially stantially
accomplishment of Adequate Adequate Adequate
students’ learning
goals

Overall Mean 3.29 Sub- 2.23 Partially 3.05 Sub- 2.85 Sub-
stantially Adequate stantially stantially
Adequate Adequate Adequate

The findings revealed that the respondents have had varied perceptions on the extent of implementation of
the CMO guidelines on field instruction facilities. The agency supervisors and students found item 1 “Selection
of accredited agency with a supervisor-student ratio of 1:5” to be Very Adequate but the faculty said it was
Partially Adequate. In answering the item, the faculty supervisors considered the field placements of students
not only on the covered year of the study but also of those in the past. Accordingly, there were instances that in
their community placements, the agency supervisor handled 10 to 15 students. This was because most of the
Local Government Units where students were assigned only had one social worker.
On item 2 “Provisions of appropriate work space for students,” the agency field supervisors said it was Very
Adequate, the faculty field supervisors found it Partially Adequate while the students said it was Substantially
Adequate. The Very Adequate rating of the field supervisors was based on the fact that in most field placement
sites, the students were given a particular working area. For the faculty, the Partially Adequate rating could be
attributed to the university’s limit on the students’ access or use of the classroom for field instruction only
during the time allotment while the Substantially Adequate rating of the students must have been based on their
experiences both in the agency and in the university.
On item 3 “Availability of a library with updated books and magazines” both agency supervisors and
students rated it as Substantially Adequate. Since the agencies do not have library, the agency supervisors and
students considered the library of the university in rating the item. For the faculty supervisors, the library facility
is perceived as Partially Adequate, for them, although there are available updated social work books in the
university library, books for field instruction are limited.
On the provision of technology for FI activities, the agency supervisors and students rated LCD projector,
laptop, camera, computer, TV, and exhibit boards as Substantially Adequate while the faculty supervisors rated
the items as Partially Adequate. The basis of the agency supervisors in rating was the availability of these
technologies in their respective offices. For the faculty supervisors, their perceptions were based on the
availability of technologies for field instruction in the university. In LNU there are available overhead
projectors, laptops, computer, LCD, microphone, printer, and TV. However, these technologies are intended for
classroom use. The students cannot borrow and bring them outside the university. When students are conducting
activities in the field they use their own laptops, borrow the sound system, microphone, and LCD projector of
Junior Social Workers Association of the Philippines (JSWAP) organization. Since students are assigned in
different areas, there are times that their activities are scheduled on the same date. If these happen, they take the
www.ijrp.org
 Lilibeth B. Fallorina / International Journal of Research Publications (IJRP.ORG)
13

initiative of borrowing equipment’s from their assigned agency or if they are assigned in the Local Government
Units, they borrow from the LGU offices.
On the provision of display boards, all the sub-items were rated Very Adequate by the agency supervisors.
The faculty supervisors rated all sub-items as Substantially Adequate while the students believed that except for
the sub-items “organizational set-up” and “statement of vision, mission, and goals of the agency” which was
rated as Completely Adequate, all other sub-items were Substantially Adequate. The Very Adequate ratings of
the agency supervisors were attributable to the very visible organizational set-up, VMGO, and charts that were
displayed at strategic locations in their respective offices.
For the faculty, they said that that there was a display board intended for field instruction; however, essential
information were not within it like FI organizational set-up, goals of FI, field sites, names of faculty and agency
supervisors and their respective supervisees, procedures of the helping process, etc. This must have prompted
the faculty supervisors and graduates to convey the Substantially Adequate rating.
The deterrence why the facilities for field instruction was perceived by the respondents as Substantially
Adequate could have been the limited budget of the university for facilities and technologies solely for field
instruction program. This prevalence is believed to be due to the implementation of RA 10931 or the Universal
Access to Quality Education Act in which there is cessation of fee collections for Field Instruction laboratory
fees.
The study of Dhemba (2012) as cited by Shokane et al. (2016) supports these findings. It was revealed that
all students placed in the five districts in Africa experienced the same problems and challenges which included
inadequate resources and no provisions for additional costs in understanding work-based learning in most of the
social work agencies. This is also parallel to the study conducted by Schmidt and Rautenbach (2015) which
described that one of the challenges that field instruction is currently facing in the Eastern Cape is the lack of
resources within agencies that can be used for field instruction. Pawar’s study (2017) likewise noted that
agency facilities on field instruction are valuable in carrying out the teaching-learning process. Continual
learning takes place when students are actively involved in direct encounter with different laboratory
instruments, actual manipulation of apparatus, being hands-on with the chemicals, and utilizing preserved
specimens and organisms (Tura, 2016). It is the developed instructional system headed by the teacher and
assisted by adequate instructional materials and facilities that can positively influence the production of high
caliber graduates at all levels of educational system (Mbaga et al., 2014) Hence, it is critical for educators to
provide these fundamental experiences (Berk et al., 2014) because facilities and instructional materials are
important in the actualization of the educational goals (Figueroa, 2018).
If Leyte Normal University Social Work Department envisions to produce high-caliber graduates who
possess the skills necessary for a professional social worker, it should be aggressive in advocating
administrative support from the university and agencies for the acquisition of field instruction facilities.

V. CONCLUSIONS

From the results and findings of this study, the following conclusions are drawn:
1. There is consensus on the full achievement perceptions of the three groups of respondents on the
objectives set by the CMO No 39, s. 2017.
2. On the administration of the field instruction program, all respondents agree that it is completely
implemented except for the assessment and matching of students’ needs and interest and in determining
their physical, emotional, and economic well-being to go on Field Instruction.
3. Some faculty supervisors failed to meet the provision that requires them to be holders of a master’s
degree.
4. The exposure of students to learning experiences and activities are limited in terms of administrative and
individual experiences.
5. The field instruction facilities are substantially adequate.
Based on the findings and conclusions drawn from this study, the researcher puts forward the following
recommendations:
1. Strengthened collaboration between Leyte Normal University Social Work faculty, government and
non-government agencies for more avenues in field instruction;
www.ijrp.org
 Lilibeth B. Fallorina / International Journal of Research Publications (IJRP.ORG)
14

2. Instilling of resourcefulness, initiative, and innovativeness of agency and faculty supervisors to tap
sources where materials can be loaned out or borrowed;
3. Collaboration between the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) and National Association of
Social Work Education Inc. (NASWEI) in assessing the compliance of Social Work schools with the
mandated CMO guidelines.

REFERENCES

Beytell A. (2014). Fieldwork education in health contexts: Experiences of fourth-year BSW students. Social
Work/Maatskaplike Werk, 50(2).
Bogo, M. (2018). Social work practice: Integrating concepts, processes, and skills. (2nd Ed.) Columbia:
Columbia University Press.
Commission on Higher Education Memorandum Order no.39, s. 2017. Manila: Commission on Higher
Education. Retrieved August 5, 2019 from ched.gov.ph/cmo-39-s-2017-2
Breunig, M. (2005). Turning experiential education and critical pedagogy theory into praxis. Journal of
Experiential Education, 2(28), 106-122.
Blumer, H. (1969) Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and methods. US: Prentice Hall.
Croteau, D., & Hoynes, W. (2014). Experience sociology. USA: Mcgraw-Hill Education.
Popouli, E. (2014). Field learning in social work education: Implications for educators and instructors. The Field
Educator, 2(4), 1-15. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/y6fwj6q8
Virginia State University Field Instruction Manual. (2019). Virginia: Virginia University. Retrieved from
http://www.sola.vsu.edu
Alschuler, M., Silver, T., & McArdle, L. (2015). Strengths-based group supervision with social work students.
Groupwork, 25(1), 34-57.
Apao, L. (2014). Alternative earning system accreditation and equivalency program: Quality of life beyond
poverty. (Unpublished thesis). Cebu Normal University, Cebu City.
Shokane, A., Nemutandani, V., & Ngodiseni, J.B. (2016). Fourth year social work students during fieldwork
practice at a rural-based university. AFFRIKA:Journal of Politics, Economics and Society, 6 (1), 133-163.
Schmidt, K., & Rautenbach, V. (2016). Field instruction: Is the heart of social work education still beating in the
eastern cape?. Social Work Journal, 52 (4).
Pawar, M. (2017). Reflective learning and teaching in social work field education in international contexts. The
British Journal of Social Work, 47(1), 198-218.
Tura, M.B. (2016). The science curriculum in the K-12 program: Initial assessment. (Unpublished master’s
thesis). Cebu Normal University, Cebu City.
Figueroa, M. (2018). What implementers say about the senior high school program: Challenges and prospects.
(Unpublished master’s thesis). Cebu Normal University, Cebu City.
Mbaga, E., Quahha, D., Duhu, P., & Danzaria, L. (2014). The perception of electrical engineering trade teachers
on the use of information and communication technology for teaching in technical colleges in Adamawa and
Gombe states of Nigeria. European Scientific Journal, 10 (13).
Figueroa, M. (2018). What implementers say about the senior high school program: Challenges and prospects.
(Unpublished master’s thesis). Cebu Normal University, Cebu City.

www.ijrp.org

View publication stats