The Shifting Landscape of International Practicum in Social Work Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
International practicum, or international field placements, create opportunities for social work students to address global social challenges in an international setting and prepare for social work practice. The landscape of international practica in social work has evolved and shifted over the last two decades. This article reports on the findings of a literature review that was conducted to understand how international practicum has changed over time. The study established search criteria that led to the inclusion of 70 publications, 16 in the first decade (2000 to 2010) and 54 in the second decade (2011 to 2020) utilizing the web of Science and Social Work Abstracts, as well as specific searches conducted on the University of Calgary Library Database, EBSCO host, ProQuest, and Google Scholar. The results of the literature review show that there were fewer publications in the first decade and the emphasis was on understanding international practicum and field models. During the second decade, the published literature on international practicum tripled, focusing predominantly on developing new field education models, engaging in critical reflection and theory, and how to create successful field placements for students through preparation, teaching, and discussion. International practicum opportunities are critical to fostering transformative learning in social work students, and post-secondary institutions will need to re-establish international field education programs after the COVID-19 pandemic.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".