CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE GATEKEEPING AND ONLINE DEGREES IN SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION: WHERE DO THINGS STAND? Beth E. Halaas.

Transcription

1 CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE GATEKEEPING AND ONLINE DEGREES IN SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION: WHERE DO THINGS STAND? A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements For the Doctor of Education Degree in Educational Leadership By Beth E. Halaas August 2014

2 Copyright by Beth E. Halaas 2014 ii

3 The dissertation of Beth E. Halaas is approved: Dr. Rosina Becerra Date Dr. Miguel Ceja Date Dr. Jinyi Li Date Dr. John M. Reveles, Chair Date California State University, Northridge iii

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thank you to my husband, Robbie, and children Audrey and Robert, for all of your support and love throughout this program. You are my motivation. I love you all so much. To the members of my cohort, CCO9, for being wonderful companions every Thursday night for what seems like many years. I will never forget how supportive you were to my family and me during the tumultuous early weeks of the program. For those who have been so encouraging through this long process, a special thank you to Ms. Dalia McWatters, Dr. Susan Love, Ms. Jennifer Henningfield, and Dr. Peggy Johnson. Thank you to my committee members, without whose guidance I would not have been able to finish. Dr. Miguel Ceja, thank you for being a consistent support throughout the program and offering valuable expertise along the way. Dr. Rosina Becerra, thank you for being such an extraordinary role model. I value your expertise as a social worker in higher education and I appreciate your willingness to support me in this process. Dr. Jinyi Li, thank you for your indispensable knowledge and guidance. I am humbled by your expertise and wisdom. I have appreciated your time and commitment to my study. Dr. John M. Reveles, my Dissertation Chair, thank you very much for pulling it all together and providing the exact direction I needed to complete my dissertation. I will be forever grateful for your guidance and friendship. iv

5 DEDICATION This dissertation if dedicated to my wonderful parents, Mary Helen Halaas and Russell Halaas. You are an inspiration and a grounding force for all I do. My accomplishments are rooted in your love and encouragement. v

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS Signature Page... iii Acknowledgments... iv Dedication... v List of Tables... ix Abstract... x Chapter 1: Introduction and Purpose of Study... 1 Introduction... 1 Problem Statement... 5 Definition of Terms... 6 Purpose of Study... 7 Significance of Gatekeeping Study and the Practice of Social Work... 9 Research Questions and Hypotheses Framework for Analysis Overview of Methodology Limitations of the Study Organization of the Dissertation Summary Chapter 2: Literature Review Introduction Gatekeeping Defined Where Does Gatekeeping Happen? Emergent Issues and Considerations Gatekeeping and Relationship to Suitability vi

7 Delivery of Social Work Through Distance Learning Gaps and Rationale for Study Summary Chapter 3: Methodology Introduction Research Design Setting and Context Sample and Data Sources Instrument Data Collection Data Analysis Role of Researcher Summary Chapter 4: Results Introduction Background Information Institutional Information Participant Demographic Information Results of Statistical Analyses Summary Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusions Introduction Summary of Study Major Findings vii

8 Conclusion Recommendations for Further Research Concluding Statement References viii

9 LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1. Suitability Factors Adapted from Tam, Twigg, Boey, and Kwok (2013) Table 3.2. Description of Variables Table 4.1. Summary of the Institutions and Programs that Participants were Affiliated With Table 4.2. Descriptive Statistics of Faculty Table 4.3. Summary of Means and Standard Deviations for Gatekeeping Factors by Administrative Role Table 4.4. Summary of Means and Standard Deviations for Gatekeeping Factors by Length of Nonacademic Practice Years Table 4.5. Summary of Means and Standard Deviations for Gatekeeping Factors by Field Education Experience Table 4.6. Summary of Means and Standard Deviations for Gatekeeping Factors by Involvement in Online or Hybrid Programs Table 4.7. Summary of Means and Standard Deviations for Gatekeeping Factors by Length of Years Involved in Social Work Education Table 4.8. Top One-third Gatekeeping Measures Table 4.9. Difference between Faculty Importance of Gatekeeping and Program Emphasis of Gatekeeping in Traditional Programs Table Difference between Faculty Importance of Gatekeeping and Program Emphasis of Gatekeeping in Online/Hybrid Programs Table Differences Between What is Emphasized in Traditional Programs and What is Emphasized in Online/ hybrid Programs in Assessment and Screening of Students Professional Suitability to Practice Social Work Table Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Faculty s Background Characteristics Predicting Social Consciousness (N = 120) Table Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Faculty s Background Characteristics Predicting Ethical Suitability (N = 120) Table Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Faculty s Background Characteristics Predicting Practice Suitability (N = 120) Table Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Faculty s Background Characteristics Predicting Personal Suitability (N = 120) ix

10 ABSTRACT GATEKEEPING AND ONLINE DEGREES IN SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION: WHERE DO THINGS STAND? By Beth E. Halaas Doctorate of Education in Educational Leadership This study examined faculty perception regarding the importance of gatekeeping in social work education and if suitability is emphasized differently in traditional versus online or hybrid programs. A descriptive, quantitative approach utilizing a correlational, cross-sectional design was used to ascertain gatekeeping attitudes amongst social work educators using a four factor, 22 item suitability instrument adapted from Tam, Twigg, Boey, and Kwok (2013). The data collected through a web-based survey instrument indicated that educators (a) share a strong interest in professional suitability measures for social work students, (b) perceive that gatekeeping measures are not emphasized in either traditional or hybrid/online programs at the same level, and (c) perceive the assessing and screening of student suitability is emphasized more in traditional programs than in online/hybrid social work programs. Recommendations for the further development of effective gatekeeping practices in traditional and hybrid/online social work program formats are offered. x

11 Chapter 1: Introduction and Purpose of Study Social workers must attempt to anticipate the emergence of ethical issues that, while perhaps unimaginable today, are likely to arise in the future as a function of societal and other changes, perhaps as a result of technological developments that have ethical implications. (Reamer, 1998, p. 496) Introduction Gatekeeping implies the general process of granting permission for passage through a set juncture or stage. For professional educational programs, the person responsible for such evaluation is ordinarily an experienced member of the profession who stands guard on behalf of professional standards and the welfare of future clients (Homrich, 2009, p. 1). Barring some students from entering an educational training program continues to be an assumed professional mandate and prominent function related to competencies set forth in areas such as counseling (Goodrich & Shin, 2013; Lumadue & Duffey, 1999). This is also the case for other professions such as psychology, medicine, and social work (Sofronoff, Helmes, & Pachana, 2011). Interest in setting gatekeeping criteria stems from nonacademic challenges students face such as ethical violations and mental health issues (Sofronoff et al., 2011). The process of guarding the gate of a profession has been referred to as both an inherent and vexing responsibility (Homrich, 2009, p. 1). Indeed, the duty of educators to perform a gatekeeping function has been highlighted by the increasing awareness of the damage to clients (Lumadue & Duffey, 1999, p. 101) and educators contend that the gatekeeping tasks are unavoidable (Ziomek-Daigle & Christensen, 2010) and an assumed duty and obligation of educators in the counseling arena (Goodrich & Shin, 2013, p. 1

12 43). In fields such as psychology, social work, and counseling, the assessment and screening of students is crucial in relation to the quality of service to clients (Brear, Dorrian, & Luscri, 2008, p. 93). Often referred to as suitability, the practice of determining student appropriateness for a profession is also referred to as professional fit in professions such as psychology. Similarly, the literature sets forth numerous attempts to measure suitability prior to entry into counselor education programs (Nagpal & Ritchie, 2002). In their review of gatekeeping research across helping professions, Brear et al. (2008) contend that encountering unsuitable students is widespread and experienced regularly by most educators (p. 99). Efforts to assess student suitability in professions have increased in recent years, particularly in areas such as psychology, social work, and medicine (Sofronoff et al., 2011). It is common for professions such as social work education and nursing to maintain standards upon entry into educational programs (Reynolds, 2004). The profession of social work is specifically impacted by gatekeeping. The motivation to keep gatekeeping in the forefront of social work education has been influenced, in part, by the greater likelihood that interns will need to provide services to challenging clients in need of a high level of skillful intervention (Gillis & Lewis, 2004). In addition, attention from the social work education accreditation body (Council on Social Work Education) and recent legal decisions have offered further evidence that gatekeeping is a legitimate and expected function (Magen & Emerman, 2000, p. 403). This focus furthers the sentiment that educators must develop means of gatekeeping that will be as fair as possible to students while also protecting clients (Sowbel, 2012, p. 39). 2

13 However, institutional pressures to admit students have been reported for decades (McClelland, Rindfleisch, & Bean, 1991, as cited in Reynolds, 2004, p. 18) and continue to highlight the quandray for social work educators. Within the context of social work and gatekeeping, numerous issues related to the gatekeeping function of profession are currently affecting the landscape of social work education. One such issue is the escalation of new graduate programs across the country (Kindle & Colby, 2008). Pressure to maintain steady or increased enrollment numbers has created a proliferation of distance education in social work and other areas of study (Collins, 2008; Petracchi, 2000; Vernon, Vakalahi, Pierce, Pittman-Munke, & Frantz Atkins, 2009; Wilke & Vinton, 2006). Compounding the issue is the rising number of applicants interested in entering social work programs and the number of current students with mental illness and other disabilities enrolled in higher education (Cole, Christ, & Light, 1995; Katsiyannis, Zhang, Landmark, & Reber, 2009; Kiuhara & Huefner, 2008; Thomas, 2000). Each issue is independently pertinent to any dialog concerning gatekeeping within the social work profession, regardless of assigned significance or regional practice. For many educators and administrators working in social work graduate programs, the responsibility of upholding the integrity of the social work profession is a priority given the vulnerable populations social workers serve (Barlow & Coleman, 2003; Grady & S, 2009; Reamer, 1998). Helper and Noble (1990) express it most succinctly when stating, The quality of social work education ultimately affects practice competence and the social welfare of citizens (p. 126). Additionally, GlenMaye and Bolin (2007) assert, gatekeeping involves basic determinations of suitability for the profession (p. 120). 3

14 However, it appears that although many social work educators may agree with the general definition of gatekeeping, uncertainty continues to exist as to the practice and appropriate use of gatekeeping in the profession today (Gibbs & Macy, 2000). This ambiguity is based on a lack of unified responses to social work gatekeeping and an absence of a common definition of gatekeeping. In addition to this long-standing quandary, many social programs are now faced with the task of determining the extent of the gatekeeping role within a growing distance learning context (Siegel, Jennings, Conklin, & Napoletano Flynn, 1998) as hybrid, offsite, and online programs continue to increase in number (Freddolino, 1998). Moore (2005) states, As social work educators pursue their efforts to assist students to become professionally socialized, develop the requisite social work knowledge and skills for practice, and experience personal and professional growth, careful consideration needs to be given to the ways in which Web-based instruction can facilitate or hinder these efforts. (p. 65) Currently, the Council on Social Work Education lists 34 online programs (29 graduate and 5 undergraduate) (Council on Social Work Education, 2014) up from 22 online programs (18 graduate and 4 undergraduate) just 2 years prior (Council on Social Work Education, 2012). While the popularity of distance education programs continues to flourish and online education becomes increasingly associated with promising innovation in teaching pedagogy (Madoc-Jones & Parrott, 2005), critics of such growth focus on the potential for minimized quality of the educational experience in such contexts (Trinkle, 1999). 4

15 Tenured and tenure-track faculty, lecturers, and program administrators are all uniquely placed to both observe and critique this phenomenon. Field and academic faculty, in the face of the rapidly evolving distance learning and online program growth, are being challenged to forgo long-established constructs involving teaching styles and physicality of classrooms (Collins, 2008). In addition, administrators, department chairs, field faculty, and academic faculty are involved in the myriad of gatekeeping focal points, such as admission processes, academic review committees, coursework, and in field education settings. Problem Statement Many assert that faculty have a responsibility and obligation to determine the suitability of students in counseling fields in order to safeguard the community (Goodrich & Shin, 2013, p. 43). It has been suggested that professional licensing and credential bodies would benefit from comprehensive and effective information regarding gatekeeping and ethical standards (Ziomek-Daigle & Christensen, 2010). In the social work profession, some assert the goal of a unified approach to gatekeeping in professional education programs is a necessary challenge given the profession s quest to balance student or applicant equity and adequate client care (Reeser & Wertkin, 1997; Sowbel, 2012). Lafrance, Gray, and Herbert (2004) assert that the profession of social work has difficulty terminating students for nonacademic reasons because of an inability to define suitability for the profession and format concrete criteria (p. 325). The problem addressed in this study is a result of the unique convergence of two central issues: professional gatekeeping issues and the growth of online social work education. With the advent of distance learning and online social work degree programs, 5

16 both academic and community-based field faculty share a growing concern that the quest for entrepreneurial endeavors has and will supersede the goal for well-trained and competent social workers (Kreuger & Stretch, 2000). Others contend the lack of face-toface learning as a result of the growing technological advances in non-traditional educational programs is counterintuitive to the professional skills needed for the social work profession (Siebert, Siebert, & Spaulding-Givens, 2006). Regarding gatekeeping, a prevailing approach does not appear to exist in social work academia (Sowbel, 2012), and some argue that lack of consistent gatekeeping policies is the norm (Younes, 1998, p. 145). Still others contend that the social work accreditation body (Council on Social Work Education) requires social work programs to have gatekeeping procedures but does not specify measures to be used (Urwin, Van Soest, & Kretzschmar, 2006). Definition of Terms Gatekeeping is a term that takes on many different meanings in social work as defined by researchers in this field of study. For instance, GlenMaye and Bolin (2007) assert that gatekeeping involves basic determinations of suitability for the profession (p. 120). Similarly, Homrich (2009) describes gatekeeping as a metaphor that identifies the process of monitoring progression through a series of states via critical points of entry or practice (p. 1), while others associate the term with the practice of averting unsuitable students from completing professional social work programs (Koerin & Miller, 1995). Lyons (1999) contends that professional suitability is defined as good understanding of social work knowledge, skills, and values, and the perforamnce of appropriate behaviors in given practice situations (as cited in Tam & Coleman, 2009, p. 47). This terminology 6

17 and associated practice is consistent with other helping or counseling professions outside of social work as well (Brear et al., 2000). The term distance learning is used to denote non-traditional teaching approaches. Salas, Kosarzycki, Burke, and Stone (2002) define the term as including both distance education (a term commonly used in academia) and distance training (a term commonly used in industry) (p. 137). Related terms include open learning, online education, and distance education. Horwath and Shardlow (2000) and Collins (2008) view the terms as compatible while others view distance learning as being one element of a larger subset of non-traditional learning (Bourn & Bootle, 2005). The social work education accreditation body in the United States, Council on Social Work Education (CSWE), further describes the term distance education to mean: any means of delivering part or all of a course or courses on line or through the Web, or through television or other media where students neither meet physically as in the traditional classroom setting, nor meet simultaneously via one of the aforementioned distance education media. (Vernon et al., 2009, p. 265) More succinctly stated, Quinn, Fitch, and Youn (2011) assert that distance education include asynchronous or synchronous course offerings which take place outside of institutional settings. Purpose of Study The purpose of this research is to gain a more thorough understanding of social work educators general attitudes regarding gatekeeping within traditional and online program formats. Sowbel (2012) contends that social work faculty must face the reality of screening out unsuitable candidates evenly, directly, and courageously (p. 29). This 7

18 study will gather information as to what degree certain areas of gatekeeping suitability factors are included or emphasized by the social work educators within the context of their institution s traditional and non-traditional social work programs. Indeed, many researchers attest to the need of more consistent and reliable measures of suitability criteria for purposes of gatekeeping (Brear et al., 2008). Although this research is informed by numerous studies focused on the standardization of gatekeeping, the overall intent is not to sort out the ambiguous nature of gatekeeping norms and observance. Rather, the purpose of this study is to ascertain faculty interest in gatekeeping and perceived program practice in the context of an expanding distance learning (specifically online) educational arena. By focusing on gatekeeping perceptions of social work education administrators, academic and field faculty in a distance learning or online context, it is anticipated that a greater understanding will be gained of faculty and administrative motivations and intent. If it is discovered that gatekeeping and measures of suitability are in fact an important role for social work educators, further efforts can then be made to operationalize gatekeeping in academic institutions for both traditional and distance learning programs. Similarly, if it is discovered that gatekeeping and measures of suitability are deployed differentially across program models, social work educators and accreditation bodies may choose to emphasize consistent gatekeeping procedures as the social work education arena continues to grapple with the changing landscape of educational offerings. Hence, this study has the potential to inform the social work profession in several ways by investigating social work educator s attitudes towards gatekeeping within traditional and online programs. 8

19 Significance of Gatekeeping Study and the Practice of Social Work Gatekeeping practices and conflicts in social work education are rooted in the history of the profession and its associated values. Values consistent with the tenants of the social work profession, such as meeting the needs of the community, are ingrained in practice mores (Tam, 2003). The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) Code of Ethics (National Association of Social Workers, 1996) guides the work of social work practitioners primarily from the context of a patient-client relationship. Although the NASW Code of Ethics provides an overarching template for conduct and professionalism, the lack of implied significance to educators causes some to question how the NASW Code of Ethics applies to the gatekeeping function in social work education (Strom-Gottfried & D'Aprix, 2006). Given the lack of definitive guidance in this area from the primary social work professional organization, it is crucial to find out where social work educators stand on issues of gatekeeping. For instance, Robinson (1979) noted that institutions of higher education have an obligation to choose students capable of acceptance of self and others, while concluding that face-to-face interaction may be the only effective means to ascertain student appropriateness. This sentiment runs counter to efforts to promote asynchronous online social work program models. Regarding the focus on online education, institutions of higher education are mindful of the competitive environment in which distance education programs are being offered (Rovai, 2003). As programs push to gain or maintain a competitive edge, the 9

20 issue of gatekeeping garners significance and highlights the quandary inherent in the topic. Finally, the Council on Social Work Education, the accreditation body for social work undergraduate and graduate programs, has supplied standards that Wilson (1999) argues have evolved to accommodate shifts in both the organization of education and how the classroom operates (p. 326). However, Wilson (1999) also contends the Commission on Accreditation arm of this organization views the chief purpose of its existence is to maintain high program standards, thereby run[ning] counter to institutional or higher education pressures to adopt a given technology prior to (or without) considering its appropriateness for social work content and program goals (p. 330). Research Questions and Hypotheses The research hypotheses and corresponding research questions for this study are rooted in the issues of gatekeeping within traditional and online programs discussed in the social work research and have been carefully formulated to bring new insight to the field. Each hypothesis is presented first and is followed by the successive research question and sub-questions designed to test the research hypothesis. The first hypothesis in this study contends that a significant difference does exist between what is important to faculty and what is actually emphasized in social work programs regarding the assessment and screening of students professional suitability to practice social work. Therefore, the first research question and sub-questions are as follows: 10

21 1. What are faculty perceptions regarding assessment and screening of students professional suitability to practice social work? a. Is there a significant difference between what is important to faculty and what is actually emphasized in traditional social work programs regarding the assessment and screening of students professional suitability to practice social work? b. Is there a significant difference between what is important to faculty and what is actually emphasized in online/hybrid social work programs regarding the assessment and screening of students professional suitability to practice social work? c. Are there any differences between what is emphasized in traditional programs and what is emphasized in hybrid/online programs in assessment and screening of students professional suitability to practice social work? The second research hypothesis is as follows: Faculty background and characteristics have influence on their perceived importance of assessment and screening of students professional suitability to practice social work. The corresponding research question and sub-questions are as follows: 2. Do faculty s background and characteristics have influence on their perceived importance of assessment and screening of students professional suitability to practice social work? a. Is there a significant difference between field faculty and non-field faculty on their perceived importance of assessing and screening of students professional suitability to practice social work? 11

22 b. Does the length of experience in nonacademic social work practice have any impact on perceived importance of assessing and screening of students professional suitability to practice social work? c. Does the length of direct experience in online/hybrid social work programs have any impact on perceived importance of assessing and screening of students professional suitability to practice social work? d. Is there a significant difference between faculty with a pure administrative role and faculty with a teaching role on their perceived importance of assessing and screening of students professional suitability to practice social work? e. Do years of social work education involvement have any impact on perceived importance of assessing and screening of students professional suitability to practice social work? Framework for Analysis The basis for practice and standards in the profession of social work is the National Association of Social Workers (2014) Code of Ethics, which provides a conduct guide for social workers. The code includes the values upon which social work practice is to be based, including ethical dimensions of practice. The core values are as follows: (a) service, (b) social justice, (c) dignity and worth of a person, (d) importance of human relationships, (e) integrity, and (f) competence (National Association of Social Workers, 2014). Issues of suitability are inherent in the code of ethics. It is assumed most social workers practice under these guidelines and the very spirit of this set of professional 12

23 mores is the basis of gatekeeping efforts. This study used a quantitative survey approach, summarized in the next section, to operationalize these constructs. Overview of Methodology Through use of a quantitative inquiry described in chapter 3, the results of this study are intended to offer higher education programs of social work, including distance learning social work programs, pertinent information needed for maintaining the integrity of the profession while continuing to support client care. A cross-sectional survey design was utilized in order to capture and measure attitudes of academic faculty, field faculty and administrators during one point in time (Creswell, 2008, p. 389). According to Creswell (2008), survey designs within various field of study help researchers identify trends in attitudes, opinions, behaviors, characteristics of a large group of people (p. 61). Therefore, a cross-sectional descriptive design was specifically created to capture and measure academic faculty, field faculty, and administrator perceptions regarding the research questions posed in this study. The survey was made available to a large sampling of social work faculty throughout the United States. National social work educator listserves were utilized in order to reach participants and solicit responses to the survey instrument. Limitations of the Study Several limitations of this study are noted. The first limitation centers on the use of a survey data collection instrument. Engle and Schutt (2005) caution that although electronic surveys offer versatility, efficiency, and generalizability (p. 222), survey design is not necessarily conducive for completion of questionnaires. Related to the 13

24 survey instrument, the study response rate may have been impacted by the potential burnout of faculty members regarding the completion of an online survey instrument. Lastly, the wording of the survey questions, especially terminology related to gatekeeping and suitability, may have different meaning for different faculty. This may have led to biased responses as the wording of the inquiry may not have the same meaning to all respondents regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, age or class (Engel & Schutt, 2005, p. 270). While each of these study limitations may seem negligible in light of the potential implications that this study has for informing the social work profession, steps were taken to further minimize the existent limitations inherent to conducting survey research. Organization of the Dissertation Chapter 2 of this dissertation provides a research-based overview of issues pertaining to social work gatekeeping and suitability. More specifically, the chapter includes an overview for examining the relationship between social work education gatekeeping and professional suitability as well as discussion on the focal point and level of gatekeeping within professional academic programs in social work. The chapter also includes information on emergent issues related to this field of study such as distance learning, legal issues, and ethics. Chapter 3 includes a description of the specific methodology for this study. This chapter of the dissertation describes the study s overall quantitative research design. The chapter additionally describes the study setting, data sources, instruments, procedures, data collection and data analysis used in this research. 14