An Off-Site Supervision Model of Field Education Practice: Innovating While Remaining Rigorous in a Shifting Field Education Context

Models of pre-registration student supervision in allied health: a scoping review

“…Level 2a: Advantages included student perception of deep learning (Fieldhouse & Fedden, 2009) and the development of independence and autonomy (Dancza et al, 2013;Egan et al, 2021). Educators similarly believed students "learned substantially" from their experience (Kassam et al, 2013).…”

“…Also noted was development in observation and assessment skills and constructing knowledge for themselves rather than acquiring information from an educator (Fieldhouse & Fedden, 2009). An off-site educator provided the opportunity for critical reflection and discussion separate from the internal politics and relationships of the agency (Egan et al, 2021) A disadvantage of the off-site model was the absence of day-to-day support from a clinical educator (Dancza et al, 2013), contributing to feelings of being lost in an unfamiliar setting (Fieldhouse & Fedden, 2009). Compared with other models of supervision, significantly more students in the off-site model rated dissatisfaction with supervision and support (Cleak et al, 2016;Egan et al, 2021), overall engagement with learning activities (Cleak et al, 2016;Cleak et al, 2022), exposure to casework and counselling activities (Cleak et al, 2022) and understanding of how to use theory in practice (Dancza et al, 2013).…”