Learning Outcomes Assessment Plan
March 2004
1.
The mission of the
The mission of the BSW Program is to prepare entry-level, generalist social workers to assume responsibility for a range of services that deal with the problems experienced by people in a multicultural society.
The mission of the MSW Program is to prepare students in advanced social work practice for leadership roles in the effort to solve, in partnerships with others, the existing and developing challenges that confront communities in the United States and internationally.
The missions of the
The
2. Learning
Outcomes
A. Bachelor’s of Social Work
1. Apply critical thinking skills within the context of professional social work practice.
2. Understand the value base of the profession and its ethical standards and principals, practice accordingly.
3. Practice without discrimination and with respect, knowledge, and skills related to clients’ age, class, color, culture, disability, ethnicity, family structure, gender, marital status, national origin, race, religion, and sexual orientation.
4. Understand the forms and mechanisms of oppression and discrimination and apply strategies of advocacy and social change that advance social and economic justice.
5. Understand and interpret the history of the social work profession and its contemporary structures and issues.
6. Apply the knowledge and skills of a generalist social work practice with systems all sizes.
7. Use theoretical frameworks supported by empirical evidence to understand individual development and behavior across the life span and the interactions among individuals and between individuals and families, groups, organizations and communities.
8. Analyze, formulate, and influence social policies.
9. Evaluate research studies, apply findings to practice, and evaluate one’s own practice interventions.
10. Use communication skills differentially across client populations, colleagues, and communities.
11. Use supervision and consultation appropriate to social work practice.
12. Function within the structure of organizations and service delivery systems and seek necessary organizational change.
B. Master’s of Social Work
Learning Outcomes Common to Both Foundation and Concentration Years:
1. Apply critical thinking skills within the context of professional social work practice.
2. Understand the value base of the profession and its ethical standards and principals, and practice accordingly.
3. Practice without discrimination and with respect, knowledge, and skills related to clients’ age, class, color, culture, disability, ethnicity, family structure, gender, marital status, national origin, race, religion, and sexual orientation.
4. Use communication skills differentially across client populations, colleagues, and communities.
5. Use supervision and consultation appropriate to social work practice.
Foundation Year Learning Outcomes
6. Understand the forms and mechanisms of oppression and discrimination and apply strategies of advocacy and social change that advance social and economic justice.
7. Understand and interpret the history of the social work profession and its contemporary structures and issues.
8. Apply the knowledge and skills of a generalist social work perspective to practice
with systems of all sizes.
9. Use theoretical frameworks supported by empirical evidence to understand individual development and behavior across the life span and the interactions among individuals and between individuals and families, groups, and organizations from a community perspective.
10. Analyze, formulate, and influence social policies.
11. Evaluate research studies, apply findings to practice, and evaluate one’s own practice interventions.
12. Function within the structure of organizations and service delivery systems and seek necessary organizational change.
Concentration Year Learning Outcomes
13. Demonstrate communication/facilitation skills in building community partnerships and partnership structures.
14. Conduct community assessments and engage in community resource development.
15. Demonstrate skills for influencing necessary organizational and community change to address populations at risk and advance social and economic justice.
16. Demonstrate skills for influencing policy formulation and change in communities.
17. Apply knowledge and leadership skills in managing projects, and working with community groups and/or organizations.
18. Apply advanced information technology skills to community-based practice.
19. Demonstrate skills in quantitative/qualitative research design, data analysis, and knowledge dissemination.
3/4. Assessment
Methods/Data Collection/Analysis Procedures
The BSW program has a plan for engaging in ongoing, systematic self-study and evaluation of the total program. For current students, the School uses both quantitative and qualitative measures to assess learning outcomes.
First, since each course in the two-year curriculum integrates its course objectives with specific program outcomes, and all program outcomes are met at least once throughout the two years, a student who successfully passes all course work has technically met all of the learning outcomes set forth in the program outcomes.
Second, the final Field Education Evaluation form is specifically designed to address all the program outcomes. All of the program outcomes, in light of each student’s performance in field education, are evaluated by the Field Supervisor and discussed with the student and the Faculty Liaison.
Third, at the end of each semester, students complete an online, anonymous assessment that includes 20 Likert-scaled questions and four qualitative questions. Previously, these paper and pencil forms and results were often delayed. Faculty can now access results 3-4 weeks after the term ends. The information serves as a good source of information for improving course content, materials used, delivery of material, exams, assignments, and other suggestions that may be offered to improve courses.
Fourth, the BSW Program of the
For a number of years after the last accreditation of the BSW program, the School administered what was formerly known as the Baccalaureate Program Directors Outcome Instrument (BPDOI). Over those years, the school received responses from 57 alumni or approximately a 20% response rate from our graduates. While this response is acceptable, the School believed it was insufficient to provide useful feedback. Nevertheless, the responses from our graduates during those years indicated that on virtually all measures of the inventory of knowledge and skills, between 65-75% felt prepared or very prepared. These percentages were constant and well within the national ranges.
Subsequent to the School’s final administration of the
BPDOI, the School administered the Area Concentration Achievement Test (ACAT) out of Austin Peay University to all
graduating seniors during their final Field Education Integrative Seminar (The
School also administered it to MSW students completing their Foundation Year
courses). The ACAT measured students’
knowledge in the designated content areas of the Foundation Curriculum. In aggregate, the BSW students tended to
score in the upper middle percentile of the ACAT. The School felt these outcomes were quite
respectable. However, in 2002, the unit
administering the ACAT at
Most recently, the
With the permission of the authors, the School is planning to use FPSE as an alumni follow-up survey as well beginning with the class that graduated in May 2003. The School will augment the survey with items that are relevant to social workers that have been out of school for a year, but will maintain the core of questions related to self-efficacy.
The FPSE offers a great deal of potential to accumulate data for use in monitoring program changes, to identify needs for improvement, and to acknowledge and reinforce areas of strength. In addition, comparisons are possible among other social work programs with the potential to establish norms in conjunction with the instrument’s use.
In summary, the
The MSW program has a 6-step plan for engaging in ongoing, systematic self-study and evaluation of the total program.
First, as with the BSW program, since each course in the two-year curriculum integrates its course objectives with specific program objectives, and all program outcomes are met at least once throughout the two years, a student who successfully passes all course work has technically met all of the learning outcomes set forth in the program objectives.
Second, each course, throughout the entire two years of the program, is evaluated by the students in that course. These student evaluations are designed to allow the students to evaluate not only the instructor, but the course content as well. These evaluations are reviewed by the Director, shared with the individual faculty member, and in aggregate shared with the entire faculty in order to better understand the curriculum as a whole.
Third, within the first month of the second year, focus groups are conducted with the two-year students and a separate focus group with the advanced standing students. For the two-year students, the purpose of the focus group is to provide feedback on course content, curriculum integration, curriculum gaps, and readiness for second year. For the advanced standing students, the purpose of the focus group is to provide feedback on the bridge courses, how effective they were in preparing students for the concentration, redundancy with BSW content and expectations, and readiness for the second year.
Fourth, since in the first year MSW field practicum students are to achieve Program Outcomes 1-12 and in the second year, all students (two year and advanced standing) are to complete at least Program Outcomes 1-4 and 13-19, the Student Field Evaluation is constructed to permit the Field Supervisor in consultation with the Faculty Liaison to evaluate each student for each of the appropriate outcomes.
Fifth, at the end of each academic year, first year field
supervisors are asked to complete a survey evaluating the preparation of their
students in light of the curriculum along the nine content areas. Second Year Field Supervisors are asked to
complete a survey evaluating the preparation of their students in light of the
curriculum along the skill sets. This is
particularly helpful since many of the field supervisors with whom we partner
have also supervised students from the other two Schools of Social Work who
place students in the
Sixth, for the last several years, the School has been following up MSW graduates utilizing a survey that evaluates the graduates’ perception of the role of community work in their advanced practice and their perception of the importance and preparation in the Concentration Year’s six skill sets. For every measure on the importance of each of the six skill sets, graduates rated the items on a six-point Likert scale. additional information.)
Additionally, because the School keeps close contact with most of its graduates, a reasonably up-to-date listing of the graduates employment is maintained called “Where are They Now”. We have conducted a non-scientific, sample of convenience, with several employers of these graduates. While the employers were not always necessarily looking for social workers with a Community Partnerships concentration, they have found the perspective a benefit. Moreover, they are very pleased with the person=s performance to date and would definitely hire the person again.
5. Use of
Results
There are several vehicles for evaluating the feedback and
making curricular changes including informal semester meetings with the
Director of the School, a BSW and MSW Program Committee that include BSW and
MSW students, a Field Education Advisory Committee, and a
In the last several years, a number of curricular changes have been addressed by the MSW Program Committee, approved by the faculty, and shared with the Community Advisory Council. For example, in the BSW program, the School opted out of the College research course and reinstated its own social work research course. In the MSW program, students received only three semester credit hours for SW 7500-Foundation Field Education I which they took in the Fall, along with four other foundation courses: HHS 6000, a college level research course; SW 7200--Human Development Through the Life Course; SW 7400--Social Work Practice I; and an elective, which we mandated as SW 4840--Social Work and the Law. Early on it became clear that this workload was burdensome. As a result, the faculty approved increasing the semester credit hours in the first semester field education course, SW 7500, from three to six and eliminating the elective in the first year. We moved the research course to the second semester. In so doing, each full-time semester in the first year (and the second year) consists of three classroom courses and one field education course (totaling 400 clock hours in the field in the first year). In a related decision, the faculty approved a change in the grading of SW 7500/7900 and SW 8500/8900, the Field Education courses.
A second change in the curriculum was prompted by student concerns. The above mentioned research course, HHS 6000, was taught at the college level by faculty from units other than social work. Our students felt that the examples used to illustrate the concepts were confusing because they came more from a medical and biological orientation rather than a human service orientation. The book used for the course was a nursing research text. As a result of this feedback, the faculty believed the School must teach its own research course. After consultation with the Dean of the College and approved by the College Academic Affairs Committee, MSW students now take SW 7300-Methods of Community Research Methods in Social Work.
Yet another change brought about by students and in consultation with field supervisors was the movement of SW 8300-Leadership and Management from the Fall to the Spring Semester of the Concentration Year. The rationale for this move included the ability of students to take an elective each semester and placing the content of leadership and management more in line with field education objectives.
Another example of curriculum change that resulted from the
evaluation process is the relationship between the three bridge courses offered
to the advanced standing students in the summer. Through course evaluations and the focus
group, students were almost unanimous in supporting two of the three of the
summer bridge courses for providing the appropriate connections to the
concentration in Community Partnerships.
However, there has been continuing refinement of the third course based
upon the feedback. The current iteration
of utilizing the variable topic course SW 7960-Seminar in Community
Partnerships has provided the opportunity to present modules of information and
skill building, e.g. intensive writing and SPSS.
In other words, the evaluation of objectives has provided the School opportunities to engage in continuous improvement of the curriculum for the both the BSW and MSW programs.