LABORATORY TRAINING IN THE BACCALAUREATE CURRICULUM

LABORATORY TRAINING IN THE BACCALAUREATE CURRICULUMAuthor(s): William RoweSource: Canadian Journal of Social Work Education / Revue canadienne d'ducation en servicesocial, Vol. 7, No. 3 (1981), pp. 93-104Published by: Canadian Association for Social Work Education (CASWE)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41670033 .Accessed: 16/06/2014 06:15

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Canadian Association for Social Work Education (CASWE) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserveand extend access to Canadian Journal of Social Work Education / Revue canadienne d'ducation en servicesocial.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.46 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 06:15:23 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=caswehttp://www.jstor.org/stable/41670033?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

LABORATORY TRAINING IN THE BACCALAUREATE CURRICULUM*

William Rowe, MSW Assistant Professor of Social Work King's College University of Western Ontario

Une tude dirige a t entreprise en vue de comparer deux approches diffrentes fondes sur la comptence et servant initier les tudiants de premier cycle en service social aux techniques interpersonnelles apprentissage. La mthode exprimentale s'appuyait sur f L'apprentissage systmatique des relations humaines" de Carkhuff, tandis que la mthode de contraste s'inspirait de "L'analyse du champ de force," applique aux techniques interview. L'chantillon comptait cinquante-deux dbutants de BSS diviss au hasard en cinq groupes. Deux groupes se virent assigner des moniteurs qui utilisrent la mthode de contraste, tandis que trois groupes furent confis des moniteurs qui employrent la mthode exprimentale. Les tudiants reurent un score de prtest et de post-test fond sur leur rendement, aprs un indice uniforme de communication. De plus, un sous-chantillon choisi a t retest aprs une priode de quatre mois apprentissage sans laboratoire.

La comparaison des rsultats des prtests et des post-tests a montr que les groupes ayant suivi la mthode exprimentale et la mthode de contraste se sont amliors de faon sensible, beaucoup plus dans le cas de la mthode exprimentale que dans celui de la mthode de contraste.

Les retests ont fait voir que si tous les groupes conservaient leur niveau lev de fonctionnement, les groupes assujettis la mthode de contraste continuaient de s'amliorer durant une priode de non-apprentissage.

Cette tude fait ressortir la ncessit qu'il y ade poursuivre les recherches afin de mieux marquer les diffrences entre les mthodes. Ces travaux s'imposent si l'acquisition de techniques interpersonnelles doit devenir une norme de la pratique directe et une partie intgrale du programme de BSS.

The growth of baccalaureate education in social work has challenged educators to reconsider curriculum questions. The illusion that the BSW curriculum could simply be a downgraded version of the MSW curriculum was shattered early, and the work of developing a programme appropriate both conceptually and practically to the preparation of first-level practitioners began. This task was made more challenging by increased information not only in social work but also in related fields, which paved the way for many teaching innovations. One of the aspects of the BSW programme that has been most open to innovation is laboratory training. This paper speaks to some of the programmatic and research questions concerning the use of the skills laboratory in the BSW curriculum.

Historically, the major skills training ground for social work students has been the practicum experience. Students have been expected to learn interviewing skills by "trial-and-error interactions

This paper was originally presented before the Direct Practice Teaching Workshop at the annual CASSW Conference in Montreal, June, 1980.

CJSWE/RCESS Vol 7 #3, 1981 93


http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

with clients and after-the-fact supervision."1 In recent years, however, in response to concerns of accountability, worker effectiveness, and practice standards, a number of social work educators have recognized the training and testing value of the interpersonal skills laboratory as an adjunct or preface to the practicum.2 These laboratories most often have consisted of a sequence of systematic programmed learning experiences designed to improve a student's skill in facilitative communication. Most have focussed specifically on what have been identified as the core conditions of helping (empathy, non-possessive warmth, and genuineness).3

Initially, questions were raised concerning the content of the laboratories. The knowledge on which the skills laboratories were based was developed for the most part in the field of counselling psychology, and some questioned its applicability to social work settings. Recent social work research by Shulman,4 however, has identified many of the same skills as necessary for effective helping, and few at this point would contest the importance of a worker's ability to communicate empathy, respect and authenticity in the helping interview.

Educators that have incorporated these laboratories into their curriculum attest emphatically as to their value, yet they appear not to be a widely utilized training device in schools of social work. Evidence of the effectiveness of such programmes is plentiful and raises questions as to why more schools have not adopted the approach.5 Most of the challenge to incorporate the interpersonal skills laboratory into the social work curriculum has been directed at graduate schools of social work. Some of the reluctance to incorporate this teaching innovation could stem from the possibility that the laboratory is presently more appropriate to the BSW than to the MSW curriculum, given current trends in social work education. While many MSW programmes have traditionally emphasized problem solving and specialization by area of service, BSW programmes have for the most part identified their goal as preparation for first-level generalist practice.6 The interpersonal skills laboratory provides an appropriate repertoire of beginning helping skills that appear consistent with this goal.

Another consideration is curriculum design. Most graduate schools begin their programme with concurrent practicum experience, whereas many BSW programmes provide one year or more of course work prior to field exposure. One of the purported benefits of the interpersonal skills laboratory is that it helps ease the transition from theory to practice by making use of simulations in a relatively safe and controlled environment. It would appear appropriate, especially when considering the young age and meager experience of most BSW students, to offer an opportunity for them to establish a base of interpersonal skills before

94



involvement in an internship or practicum experience. Indeed, the possibility of developing and gauging interpersonal skill competencies prior to direct client contact is progressive and affirmative programming in light of increased demands for professional accountability and standards for practice.

A third reason for the lack of widespread use of laboratory methods may be related to educational philosophy. Most laboratory training methods reflect competency-based or performance-based educational approaches in that teaching and learning goals are clear and specific, the performance objectives are directly related to practice competencies, and the competencies are obtainable and measurable.7 Much debate has ensued regarding the meaning and the value of performance-based education as applied to social work training. Many claim that performance-based training approaches lack the broad theoretical and conceptual anchoring necessary for general social work practice. It appears that competency-based educational approaches have not found general acceptance in graduate education but have been adopted by many BSW programmes.8 The recognition that the BSW graduate must perform almost exclusively at the direct practice level has prompted some schools to establish a list of practice competencies that students must achieve in order to progress through the programme. Most of these programmes recognize interpersonal skills as fundamental to practice competence and differ only in how they teach and measure these skills. The interpersonal skills laboratory appears to be not only appropriate to the purposes and goals of BSW programmes, but also compatible with current trends in educational philosophy.

A final consideration as to why the laboratories have not received wholesale acceptance may be related to the research itself. Previous studies for the most part have compared an adapted version of Robert Carkhuff s "Systematic Human Relations Training" with traditional classroom teaching and/or practicum experiences. In each case the Carkhuff approach was shown to be dramatically more effective at helping students to perform better on measures of interpersonal skills. The results of such studies have led investigators to make the following observations and recommendations:

(1) Specific procedures for training in the core conditions are available.

(2) These training methods can demonstrably produce practitioners functioning at more facilitative interpersonal levels than their colleagues.

(3) The next step is for schools of social work to begin to utilize this knowledge to revise their curriculum to incorporate that which demonstrably is successful and to eliminate that which

95



demonstrably is not.9 Although the results of the previous studies are persuasive, some

questions have been raised regarding the research that point to the need for further study. For example, there have been few replications utilizing different student populations and different trainers. It is important to know if the approach is broadly applicable regardless of the theoretical orientations of trainers and students. In addition, conceptual and methodological questions have been raised regarding the research.10 For example, previous studies compared the Carkhuff model with methods that lacked the laboratory structure (small group, role-play, video-tape feedback) as well as the didactic input. It is possible that the laboratory structure itself can affect some learning, regardless of content. In some cases, the trainers taught both the contrast and experimental groups. Under these conditions, it is likely that the purity of the trainers' teaching styles could not be retained, thus potentially biasing the results.

The interpersonal skills laboratory appears to be a valuable addition to the social work curriculum, especially when offered early in the BS W programme. Important questions remain, however, regarding the preferred model, the structure of the laboratory, and the measurement and retention of the learning. The following study was initiated in an attempt to further illuminate some of these questions.

Study Purpose and Design The purpose of this study was to compare two different approaches

to teaching interpersonal skills to entry-level BSW students. The sample consisted of 52 students that were divided into five groups. Stratified random sampling methods were employed on the basis of sex to ensure like groups, since previous studies have shown performance differences based on the variable of sex.11 Relevant demographic information was collected to assess the nature and comparability of the groups, both internally and across groups.

The majority of the students were young (75% between ages 20-25), female (84%) and Anglo-Canadian (78%). Most had never been employed full time (75%), and their primary area of interest in social work was work with individuals and families (82%). In addition, most were single (77%) and had no children (86%).

Five senior students were selected as trainers, based on prior teaching experience, maturity, and demonstrated abilities in interviewing. These trainers were then randomly assigned to the five groups. Three of the trainers were taught the Carkhuff (experimental) laboratory model and two were taught a contrast model. All trainers received intensive ongoing consultation regarding their particular model and the

96



laboratory experience in general. Since it was important to assess the models rather than any specific individual's teaching ability, the use of different trainers for the same model was appropriate.

Assessments of students' skill levels were made via Robert Carkhuffs Communication Index.12 This instrument was developed to measure the respondents' ability to formulate facilitative responses to simulated client statements or vignettes. The responses were rated by trained raters on scales that provide a l-to-5 measure of an individual's ability to communicate empathy, non-possessive warmth and genuineness. In the present study, three trained raters independently scored all responses with no knowledge of from which test nor which group the responses were drawn. Interrater reliability was established following Tinsley and Weiss'13 guidelines which provide an index of agreement, as well as reliability. The reliability coefficient for the three raters in the present study was .91, which was well within acceptable limits.

Some criticism has been leveled at the use of written responses to simulated client vignettes as a measure of "in vivo" skill.14 However, a number of studies have shown that the Communication Index does provide an accurate estimate of the future level functioning of trained or prospective helpers.15

All students received the pre-test and post-test, and a randomly selected sub-sample were retested four months after laboratory training had ceased.

The following hypotheses were employed: (1) student in the experimental groups will score significantly higher on the performance criterion than students in the contrast groups; (2) students will retain their improvement even after a period of no training. The hypotheses were tested by using a T-test for comparing pre-test, post-test and selected retest means.

Training Laboratories The laboratories took place during the first semester of the 1979-80

academic year. All groups received twelve two-hour sessions of didactic and experiential teaching. In the King's College social work programme, students do not partake in any practicum experiences until their second year. Students in their first year take three social work courses (Introduction to Practice Theory, Social Policy, and Human Behaviour and Social Environment) and two electives not in social work. As a result, the laboratories were seen as their only practice- oriented experience, and enthusiasm to participate appeared high. Absenteeism for the training session was low (under 5%) and no student missed more than two sessions.

97



The experimental laboratory training was based on an adapted version of Carkhuffs Systematic Human Relations Training model.16 Prior to the beginning of the laboratory, students were instructed to make a twenty-minute video-tape of a simulated helping interview. In the first session, they were introduced to the core conditions of helping and assigned pertinent readings. In each successive session the first hour was devoted to learning and practicing the core conditions. The trainers introduced the material and facilitated discussion and role-play experiences. The role-play experiences were predesigned to help students explore and practice discrete dimensions of each of the core conditions, and to help them evaluate each other's responses, both from a worker and a client point of view. In the second hour, students presented their pretaped interviews and received feedback regarding their level of core condition responses and suggestions as to how they might improve. At the end of the sixth session, students made a second video-tape which they presented in the second six sessions, along the same format as the first. The teaching and learning experiences in these sessions were highly structured (core conditions being introduced sequentially) and behaviour-specific (the unit of attention being facilitative communication).

The alternate or contrast laboratory condition followed a similar format but without reference to the core conditions. Students also made a twenty-minute video-tape of a simulated helping experience. In the first session, students were assigned background readings on interviewing in social work practice and introduced to an adapted version of Lewin's Force Field Analysis.17 This was employed to provide students with a framework for conceptually organizing their personal helping qualities and characteristics. Students were instructed to preview their tapes and analyse them in terms of their helping and hindering responses. The tapes and the analyses were presented in successive sessions and each student received feedback and further analyses from the trainers and fellow students. Role-play experiences were developed where possible to explore more fully the helping and hindering characteristics that were presented. After the sixth session, students made a second tape and repeated the procedure. At the end of the laboratory, all students formulated lists of learning goals and objectives based on their analyses and feedback. This approach to training was meant to approximate traditional social work supervision, albeit within a laboratory structure. It was learner specific, often insight-oriented and less structured than the experimental training (teaching material being derived from student presentations rather than from a prescribed programme).

All of the trainers appeared to be committed to and enthusiastic

98



about their particular training model. In fact, after the experimental blinds were lifted, the trainers engaged in a lively and heated debate as to which was the preferred model for effective training.

The laboratories were similar in structure where this did not interfere with the distinctiveness of the approach. Both the experimental and the contrast models made use of video-taped simulated interviews, role- play, and the small group format to facilitate teaching and learning. The experimental model was highly systematized, behaviourally specific and somewhat close-ended. The contrast model, on the other hand, was less systematized, learner-specific and more open-ended.

Findings The first hypothesis, that the students in the experimental groups

would achieve higher scores on the performance criterion than the students in the contrast groups, was supported. As illustrated in Table I, the experimental groups had a mean improvement from pre-test to post-test of .66, while the mean improvement of the contrast groups was .39. The difference between these measures of achievement was highly significant [t (50) = 11.7 p < .001]. Although the experimental groups improved significantly more than the contrast groups, it is notable that both groups improved significantly. One of the limitations of this study was that a control group of students not receiving any laboratory was not also studied. It could be argued that the standard social work curriculum would account for some improvement in students' skill levels. A recent study by Wallman18 using the same performance criterion showed an overall increase after one year of graduate education in social work and no specific laboratory training. In Wallman's study, however, one-third of the sample dropped in performance levels on the post-test, whereas only one student in the present study received a slightly lower score on the post-test. In addition, Carkhuff hypothesized that an overall improvement of .5 or better is needed to indicate that a training approach has been effective. Only 35% of the contrast group achieved improvement of .5 or better, whereas 75% of the experimental group fell into this range. In light of these findings, it would appear that the Carkhuff-oriened training was more efficacious than the contrast training.

99



Table I Mean and Standard Deviation of Combined Groups on Pre-test and Post-test Measures

GROUP N PRE-TEST POST-TEST Difference Mean1 SD Mean SD Between

Means2

Contrast training 20 2.18 .27 2.57 .22 .393 (C1,C2)

Experimental training 32 2.35 .32 3.01 .27 .66 (E3,E4,E5)

1 Represents average of ratings on interval level scale 1-5. 2 Difference between groups was significant beyond the .001 level. 3 Difference between tests was significant at the .01 level.

The second hypothesis, that students in the experimental groups would maintain their high levels even after a period of no training, was also supported. As shown in Table 2, all three experimental groups retained their high levels with slight, statistically insignificant, changes during a four-month period of no training.

It is notable that both contrast groups not only retained their skills level but continued to improve substantially during the period of no training. Group CI surpassed the retest scores of one of the experimental groups (E5). Group CI also achieved the .50 improvement deemed necessary to indicate an effective training approach after training had ceased. This finding raises some question about previous claims as to the exclusive value of the Carkhuff approach.

Table 2 Mean and Standard Deviation of Groups on Pre-test, Post-test and Retest Measures

GROUP N PRE-TEST POST-TEST1 RE-TEST Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Cl 10 2.20 .22 2.59 .25 2.882 .35 C2 10 2.15 .32 2.54 .20 2.61 .30 E3 11 2.43 .32 3.01 .27 3.01 .35 E4 11 2.39 .31 3.11 .30 2.95 .42 E5 10 2.21 .30 2.90 .17 187 .32

1 All groups achieved a post-test score that was significantly higher at the .01 level. 2 The retest mean for CI was in fact higher than that of E5.

Obviously it is difficult to account for all of the interviewing variables that could influence students in a setting of this kind, since they take other classes together, and intermingling and discussion of laboratory experiences is inevitable. However, the findings do suggest the need for

100



further clarification, since both contrast groups continued to improve substantially, while only one of the experimental groups improved slightly. It is difficult to account for this finding, since the group assignment was randomized and a closer examination of the data showed that the effects could not be explained by demographic differences. One might argue that both contrast groups had lower pre- test scores than the experimental groups and as a result had further to improve. Carkhuff, however, claims that this by and large does not make a difference. He maintains that those who begin higher on pre-test also score higher on post-test. It is possible that students discussed the laboratory differences among themselves during the period of no training and that this could effect scores. One would not expect, however, the kind of consistent improvement indicated by the data from such haphazard interchanges. In the absence of other explanations, it is possible that the changes were due to the differences in the laboratory training. It is possible that the dynamic, growth- oriented framework of the contrast model helped establish an internal pattern for learning that continued even after training had stopped. The programmed, systematized nature of the Carkhuff model, on the other hand, relies on external behaviour, specific teaching and learning, that may have produced immediate improvements but left trainees unable to learn on their own. If such were the case, the contrast model would appear more useful in social work education, since it is hoped that students who become practitioners will continue to improve and expand their skills without direct input from an instructor. Another possibility is that the two approaches provide related and supplementary forms of learning for students. It would be valuable to study a skills laboratory that integrates the two training approaches to see if the mix is even more effective than either approach separately.

Limitations One important limitation of the present study that has already been

discussed was the lack of a control group in which no laboratory was provided. Previous studies have yielded contradictory findings regarding the impact of social work education on interpersonal skills; further investigation is warranted. The contamination effects of such a design could be reduced if two or three schools could be studied at one time, there being less opportunity for the intermingling of students.

Another limitation of this study was the use of senior students as trainers. Although the trainers in this study were chosen for previous teaching experience, maturity, and ability in interviewing, it would be preferable to launch a similar study with seasoned trainers to help eliminate the possible differential effects of trainer experience. It is

101



possible that more experienced trainers could more precisely maintain the differences between the training approaches and more clearly differentiate the independent variables for study.

Discussion The findings of this study tend to support previous contentions that

the experimental laboratory method based on Carkhuff s Systematic Human Relations Training Model is an effective way of training beginning level social work students in interpersonal skills. However, the findings also demonstrated that alternate methods are also effective and that further study is warranted in order to determine the nature and scope of the difference. Many social work educators find the Carkhuff approach too close-ended and behaviourally specific for their purposes. If other approaches that are more philosophically and practically compatible with social work settings are also shown to be effective, the previously mentioned reluctance to incorporate this educational innovation may lessen.

It is necessary to investigate further the laboratory method to determine the appropriate timing for inclusion in the curriculum, the optimal number of sessions, and the optimal size of groups. Future studies should also explore student and trainer variables, such as learning and teaching styles. In this study, senior level students with consultation were able to facilitate a significant level of learning for the trainees. It is likely that students would achieve even greater scores if more experienced trainers such as field instructors or experienced practitioners were used in the laboratory.

It should be noted that the interpersonal skills laboratory presented in this study considers for the most part the one-to-one helping situation. Micro-level social work skills include work with families and small groups, as well as individuals, and it will be important to develop skills laboratories that reflect the scope of these activities.

Summary The interpersonal skills laboratory provides a practical bridge

between the classroom and the field. It provides an opportunity for students to measure their beginning skills in an identifiable and objective fashion. It offers to the beginning helper a frame of reference in which to formulate a foundation of facilitative skills. It allows students to learn from their mistakes before experimenting on clients. Indeed, there are those that suggest that demonstrated achievement in skills measures should be a prerequisite to the practicum experience in the social work curriculum. 19 In this light, skill measures could have ramifications for progression, graduation, and ultimately for practice.

102



If the interpersonal skills laboratory is to have this kind of impact, then questions as to the validity of the knowledge they are based on must be addressed. Further replication studies are required to deal with the questions cited earlier in this paper.

Social work educators have been greatly challenged by the rapid growth and broad acceptance of baccalaureate social work education. It is in response to these challenges that educational innovations like the one studied in this paper are offered. The interpersonal skills laboratory not only appears to be an effective training device but is appropriate to the purposes and goals of the BSW curriculum. It is the educator's ability to adapt and use these effective methods that will help provide the training necessary for future effective practitioners.

Notes 1 D. Katz, "Laboratory Training to Enhance Interviewing Skills," in The Pursuit of

Competence in Social Work , M.L. Arkava and F. Clark, eds., (San Francisco, 1979), p. 205.

2 J. Fischer, "Training for Effective Therapeutic Practice," Psychotherapy: Theory, 9 Research and Practice , 12 ( 1975), 435; J. Larsen & D. Hepworth, "Skills Development

through Competency Based Education," Journal of Education for Social Work , 14:1 (1978), 72; R.A. Wells, "Training in Facilitative Skills," Social Work , 20(1975), 242.

3 J. Fischer, Effective Casework Practice (New York, 1978). 4 L. Shulman, "A Study of Practice Skills," Social Work , 23 (1978), 274. 5 Fischer, op. cit. (1975). 6 B. Baer and R. Federico, Educating the Baccalaureate Social Worker (Cambridge,

Mass., 1978), p. 7. 7 F. Clark, "Characteristics of the Competency-Based Curriculum," in M.L. Arkava

and E.C. Brennen, eds., Competency-Based Education in Social Work (New York, 1976), p. 29.

8 A. McLean, ed., Competency-Based Perspectives in Baccalaureate Social Work Education (Oshkosh, Wis., 1980).

9 Fischer, op. cit. (1978), p. 211. 10 J. Gormally and C. Hill, "Guidelines for Research on Carkhuff s Training Model,"

Journal of Counselling Psychology , 21 (1974), 539-547. 11 J. Larsen, "A Comparative Study of Traditional and Competency-Based Methods of

Teaching Interpersonal Skills in Social Work Education" (unpublished thesis, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, 1975).

12 R. Carkhuff, Communication Index (Amherst, Mass., 1977). 13 H. Tinsley and D. Weiss, "Interrater Reliability and Agreement of Subjective

Judgments," Journal of Counselling Psychology , 22 (1975), 358. 14 Gormally and Hill, op. cit., 539. 15 R. Carkhuff, Helping and Human Relations , vol. 1 (New York, 1978). 16 Fischer, op. cit. (1978), p. 330.

103



17 P. Abels, "Group Supervision of Students and Staff," in Supervision, Consultation and Staff Training in the Helping Professions (San Francisco, 1978), p. 195.

18 G. Wallman, "The Impact of the First Year of Social Work Education on Student s Skill in Communication of Empathy and Discrimination of Effective Responses" (DSW dissertation, Adelphi University, 1980).

19 J. Larsen and D. Hepworth, op. cit., 73.

104



Article Contentsp. 93p. 94p. 95p. 96p. 97p. 98p. 99p. 100p. 101p. 102p. 103p. 104

Issue Table of ContentsCanadian Journal of Social Work Education / Revue canadienne d'ducation en service social, Vol. 7, No. 3 (1981), pp. 1-171Front MatterEDITORIAL [pp. 3-10]THE IMPACT OF STUDENT UNITS ON SERVICES AND STRUCTURAL CHANGE IN HOMES FOR THE AGED [pp. 11-27]A STUDY OF THE EXTENT AND PURPOSES OF GROUP USE IN SOCIAL WORK [pp. 29-44]STUDENT PERSONAL EXPERIENCE OF A DIRECT SERVICE MODEL OF PRACTICE: TOWARD INTEGRATION OF THEORY AND PRACTICE [pp. 45-53]OUTCOME EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR SOCIAL WORK EDUCATORS [pp. 55-91]LABORATORY TRAINING IN THE BACCALAUREATE CURRICULUM [pp. 93-104]RESEARCH PROJECTS/PROJETS DE RECHERCHETRENDS AND ISSUES IN THE FIELD PREPARATION OF SOCIAL WORK MANPOWER: SECONDARY ANALYSIS OF DATA [pp. 105-122]LES TENDANCES ET LES PROBLEMES DE LA FORMATION PRATIQUE DE LA MAIN-D'OEUVRE EN SERVICE SOCIAL: ANALYSE SECONDAIRE DES DONNEES [pp. 123-141]

BOOK REVIEWS/RECENSIONSReview: untitled [pp. 143-144]Review: untitled [pp. 144-146]Review: untitled [pp. 146-148]Review: untitled [pp. 148-150]Review: untitled [pp. 151-151]Review: untitled [pp. 151-153]Review: untitled [pp. 154-156]Review: untitled [pp. 156-158]Review: untitled [pp. 158-160]Review: untitled [pp. 160-162]Review: untitled [pp. 162-165]Review: untitled [pp. 165-168]Review: untitled [pp. 168-171]

Back Matter

Documents

LABORATORY TRAINING IN THE BACCALAUREATE CURRICULUM