Objectives: This study of a field instructor (FI) training model, offered at two universities, focused on the relationship between student competencies, the supervisory alliance, and students' attachment styles. Method: The study used a pretest–posttest follow-up design of 100 randomly assigned FIs (training group = 48; control group = 52) and 64 students. The authors used Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) to estimate linear growth models and the relation between variables at different times within and across supervisory dyads. Results: The training improved the supervisory relationship and selected student competencies as rated by FIs but not by students. These findings were not moderated by student attachment style; however; relationships were found between students' anxious and avoidant attachment styles and student-rated performance. Conclusion: This randomized controlled study underscores the need for future research in developing and testing FI training models.

No abstract

Objective: This study focused on interrelationships among supervisor attachment, supervisory working alliance, and supervision-related affect, plus the moderating effect of a field instructor training. Method: The researchers employed a pretest-posttest follow-up design of 100 randomly assigned field instructors and 64 students in two universities, using linear growth models to estimate relations among variables concurrently and over time. Result: Positive associations existed between attachment anxiety and negative affect among field instructors and between positive affect and supervisory alliance for all participants. Results suggested the training might have allowed field instructors to separate initial impressions of the alliance from change in positive affect over the year. Conclusion: This study underscores the need for research on field instructor training models and attachment styles in supervision.

No abstract

On the basis of a survey of 264 participants and 8 follow-up focus groups with 44 total participants, this analysis considers why male and female students may censor themselves in classroom discussions and what solutions there are to this diminished participation. The survey revealed few statistically significant differences based on gender. However, when significant differences occurred, they reinforced stereotypical gender behavior among women. Gender differences were more pronounced in the focus groups with respect to both the interpretation of the survey data and communication styles. The female participants exhibited more caretaking and relational behaviors and tended to defer to authority, whereas the male participants were more assertive and concerned with how “oppressed” they were as men. Implications of these findings for social work education are offered.