School of Social Work Assessment Summary and Plan Program Information

Transcription

1 School of Social Work Assessment Summary and Plan Program Information Degree Program(s): BASW and MSW Department: Social Work Department Chair: Jack Wall Phone: Report Prepared by: Report Laurie Drabble (MSW) Meekyung Han (BASW) Phone: a) Intentionality: Summarize previous plans and assessment reports, address how current efforts relate to plans (how current PLO fit into schedule and plans) Assessment in the School is coordinated through the Executive Committee, with active involvement of the School s Assessment Coordinator, the Coordinators of the BASW and MSW Programs, and the Director of Field Education. The assessment involves an overall assessment of competencies using both direct measures of student achievement of specific practice behaviors associated with competencies as well and indirect measures of student selfefficacy in relation to competencies. In addition to assessing program objectives through aggregate analysis of student mastery of social work competencies, quantitative and qualitative data are gathered on student perceptions of the educational program. Prior assessment plans and reports were based on separate program objectives and student learning outcomes that were defined for the BASW and MSW program respectively. In general, student learning objectives met or exceeded benchmarks in the past. Where aggregate scores were marginally below benchmarks, we routinely calibrated courses and the curriculum for improved student learning. Furthermore, we have consistently sought opportunities to improve student learning and the quality of the learning environment based on other program evaluation. CURRENT EFFORTS: The Commission on Accreditation (COA) of the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) shifted to competency based accreditation model for the current Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (EPAS). Consequently, the primary focus of the BASW and MSW programs over the past two years has been on re-aligning program objectives, student learning objectives, and assessment tools/activities to align with these new requirements. The 10 competencies required through the EPAS are similar in undergraduate and graduate programs, but graduate programs define (and measure) advanced version of these competencies. TIMELINES/PLANS: As described in the matrix on the following page, our programs have working with the revised program objectives over the past two years. We are currently implementing new assessment measures (and processes). Assessment will be completed on all program objectives over the remainder of our re-accreditation and program planning cycle, which ends in 2015/2016.

2 b) Updated matrix: SCHEDULE OF ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES: Program assessment schedule aligned with seven-year accreditation cycle. C = data Collected D = results Discussed I= changes (if any) Implemented P=Plan SLO # AY 11/12 AY 12/13 AY 13/14 AY 14/15 AY 15/16 BASW PROGRAM 1. Identify as social worker P C** C** D 2. Apply ethical principles P C** C** D 3. Apply critical thinking P C** C** D 4. Engage diversity and differences P C** C** D I 5. Advance human rights/social P C** C** D economic justice 6. Engage in research informed P C** C** D practice/ practice informed research 7. Apply knowledge of human behavior P C** P C** D I & social environment 8. Policy practice P C** P C** D 9. Respond to contexts that shape P C** C** D practice 10.a. Engage in practice P C** C** D 10.b. Assess practice (individuals, P C** C** D groups, orgs and communities) 10.c. Intervention practice P I C** C** D 10.d. Evaluate practice P C** C** D MSW PROGRAM 1. Identify as social worker P C** C** D 2. Apply ethical principles P C** C** D 3. Apply critical thinking P I C** C** D 4. Engage diversity and differences P C** C** D 5. Advance human rights/social P C** C** D economic justice 6. Engage in research informed P C** C** D I practice/ practice informed research 7. Apply knowledge of human behavior P C** P C** D I & social environment 8. Policy practice P C** P C** D I 9. Respond to contexts that shape P C** C** D practice 10. a. Engage in practice P C** C** D 10.b. Assess practice (individuals, P C** C** D groups, orgs and communities) 10.c. Intervention practice P C** C** D 10.d. Evaluate practice P C** C** D * Planning Development of new learning objectives, revised course syllabi, and assessment tools based on Council of Social Education revised Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (EPAS). ** Collection of assessment data for revised learning objectives. All program objectives to be assessed over a two-year time frame (as two years of data are required for reaccreditation, scheduled for 2015).

3 c) PLO assessed this past year: Data (measurable); Interpretation of data, reflection, what did they learn from it, what worked, what didn't work We elected to examine 2011/2012 data for all graduating students in field practice in the BASW (N=69) and in the advanced year of the MSW program (N=114). Specifically, we examined field measures that map back to five program objectives in the advanced year of the MSW program and seven program objectives in the BASW program. The attached tables summarize field evaluation data from graduating students. Since this is the last year of assessment based on the current Program Objectives, we also included the previous year s results as a comparison to highlight the aforementioned efforts on strengthening the curriculum during the AY comparing to the pervious year. Field evaluations were completed by field instructors, and represent a direct measure of student performance in relation to field education objectives. Scores were created for field objectives that included more than one measure of student performance. The tables provide the categorical distribution of final scores. All items were rated on a 5 point scale (with 1=poor and 5=outstanding). The categorical variables were collapsed for the purpose of this analysis to represent scores less than 3 (considered poor ), scores that were at least 3 but less than 4 ( good or acceptable ), and all scores of 4 and above ( very good to outstanding ). Our benchmark was 80% of responses above the very good to outstanding score of 4, and a mean rating of at least 4 within the objective. MSW: All five program objectives measures for the MSW program exceeded the 80% benchmark, including an objective related to applying and multi-systems perspective in practice that fell below the benchmark in 2010/2011. BASW: Overall, over 95% of students were scored at the midpoint of 3 or above on all objectives. Also, the mean scores of all objectives exceeded the benchmark level of 4.0. In comparison to the previous year s aggregated data, all objectives showed a higher level of competency. d) Plans for closing the loop: How will data/reflection be used to improve student learning? Data from assessment and other process evaluation feedback (e.g., through student surveys or town hall meetings) are discussed in BASW and MSW curriculum committee meetings. Curriculum changes are proposed in the respective programs and approved in the larger monthly faculty meeting. We use assessment data, student feedback and feedback from partners in the field to improve each of the programs. Use of data to improve student learning by program are described below. MSW PROGRAM: Although benchmarks were met in relation to multi-systems practice objectives, the MSW curriculum committee has continued to identify strategies for strengthening the curriculum in this area. First, the curriculum committee has already implemented changes to allow advanced students to take additional elective courses that provide learning opportunities in multi-systems practice (practice at individual, organizational, and community levels). Second, the curriculum committee has elected to maintain and clarify a community project component of the advanced year curriculum, which is designed to provide students with learning opportunities in addressing

4 organizational and community level concerns (in addition to individual practice). Finally, the MSW program committee identified specific courses where student learning related to evidencebased practice will be integrated into syllabi (foundation practice, foundation research, and advance practice courses). As part of this third initiative, research faculty are planning development of online modules that may be used across sections of the foundation course to facilitate consistency in student learning. These efforts will be evaluated over the next academic years. BASW PROGRAM: The overall improvement of our students performance in the field placement can be attributed to the program s ongoing efforts and process of changing the curriculum to improve the quality of learning. The BASW program has been working toward integrating the courses to help students see connections and apply their knowledge, skills and values into practice. Furthermore, the BASW program has been promoting the communications among faculty and field instructors to review student progress and devise success strategies in a streamlined manner. Lastly, in comparison to last year, there were few field instructors who classified as unable to assess across the objectives. As presented in the previous year s report (AY ), we had an ongoing active dialogue with the field agencies and students about the objectives to clarify the objectives. In alignment with reaccreditation standards, curriculum changes are underway for the BASW program as well. The BASW faculty including the field faculty liaisons meets monthly to discuss the ways to strengthen the program and to improve the students learning. Further, by soliciting anonymous feedback from juniors about the BASW structure, the contents of the program, the overall curriculum, and the pre-field experience, we proactively identify the areas for improvement for students learning experience. e) Summary: Pulling together plans, activities, reflection, closing the loop. As described above, the BASW and MSW programs have revised our program objectives (competencies) to align with new requirements from the Council on Social Work Educations. Furthermore, we have begun a systematic review of all syllabi to integrate new competency based leaning objectives into both the graduate and the undergraduate program. Also new assessment tools were developed over the past AY and were implemented in AY 2011/2012. In the interim, we have continued to conduct assessment of the learning objectives presented in students learning agreement with the field agency. Assessment of each program objectives, and discussion of assessment findings, will be completed over the remainder of our re-accreditation and program planning cycle, which ends in 2015/2016. f) Plans: Consistent with assessment requirements for our accreditation body, the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE), we plan to assess all program objectives (competencies) over the coming two years. Over the past two years, we revised our program objectives and have updated syllabi to align student learning with the new CSWE competencies and practice behaviors. We have also revised key assessment tools, which were administered in April/May 2013 for analysis and discussion in 2013/2014. As described above, all program objectives will

5 be assessed and discussed by the end of the current program cycle, which also coincides with our re-accreditation (reaffirmation) cycle. We have held monthly-based curriculum meetings in both the BASW and MSW program to move toward a competency-based curriculum. In this process, we have continued to examine opportunities to support and measure effective student practice behaviors. One of the substantial attention has been paid was to strengthening consistency and accountability in student writing. To this end, a new writing policy is currently being piloted in the MSW program and resources have been allocated to support a writing tutor. The BASW program has also taken several measures to improve students writing and verbal communication skill and SW100W: Writing Workshop, which is designed to provide a specific writing competency within the social work profession was re-offered in Fall 2011 and Spring Attachments: Summary of Assessment Findings Spring 2013 (based on 2011/2012 field evaluation of student competency) I. MSW PROGRAM INFORMATION AND ASSESSMENT SUMMARY Table 1: MSW Level - Assessment of Program Objectives Based on Scales from MSW Field Instructor Evaluations of Student Performance Graduating Students Spring 2012 (Rated 1 to 5, with 1 = poor and 5 = outstanding; N= 114) Program Objective Demonstrates skills for refining and advancing the quality of their practice and professional development (PO-M. 4.4) Objective 2: Apply in multi-systems practice effective assessments and intervention skill, grounded in theory (PO-M 1.5) Objective 3: Demonstrates effective communication skills with diverse clients (PO-M 2.8) Objective 4: Students will demonstrate a thorough understanding of policies & programs (PO-M. 3.5) Objective 5: Students will identify strategies to resolve ethical dilemmas in practice settings (PO-M. 1.4) % Poor ) % Good ) % Very Good to Outstanding (4-5) % Very Good to Outstanding 4-5) % 9.6% 89.4% 82.6% 1.3% 14.5% 84.2% 71.7% * 0.0% 13.3% 86.7% 87.2% 1.3% 7.9% 90.8% 79.6% 0.9% 6.5% 92.5% 85.0% Overall Assessment 0.0% 6.3% 93.7% 95.9% * Below Benchmark of 80%

6 Table 2: BASW Level - Assessment of Program Objectives Based on Scales from BASW Field Instructor Evaluations of Student Performance Graduating Students Spring 2012 (Rated 1 to 5, with 1 = poor and 5 = outstanding; N=69) Student Learning Objective % Poor ) Objective 1: Ability to apply transcultural perspective in relationships with individuals, families and groups (B 1.1) Objective 2: Demonstrates knowledge and critical thinking by using problem-solving approaches in initiating and terminating change efforts with individuals, families and groups in the context of the broader communities in which they are imbedded (B 2.4) Objective 3: Ability to understand and work effectively within an organizational setting and to promote changes using social work values and ethical principles (B 3.4) Objective 4: Ability to communicate effectively both orally and in writing with persons from different racial, cultural, ethnic or sexual orientation (B 2.3) Objective 5: Demonstrates an awareness of personal self and professional self to show sensitivity to the ways in which personal issues affect professional practice (B 2.2) Objective 6: Demonstrates cultural competence in he/his generalist SW practice approach with diverse populations-at-risk, and other disenfranchised, oppressed, populationsat-risk (B 3.1) Objective 7: Demonstrate knowledge and skills necessary to promote economic and social justice and the ability to identify action needed, and when appropriate, to develop and implement activities toward change (B 4.1) % Good ) % Very Good to Outstandi ng 4-5) Spring 2012 Mean (sd) 0% 8.7% 91.3% 4.61 (.59) 4.5% 16.4% 79.1%* 4.29 (.67) 0% 4.3% 95.7% 4.62 (.51) 1.5% 8.8% 89.7% 4.51 (.60) 1.6% 11.5% 86.9% 4.52 (.56) 0% 10.7% 89.3% 4.60 (.58) 0% 17.2% 82.8%* 4.31 (.75) ^Due to missing data, percentages are calculated after missing data are excluded. * Below Benchmark of 80% Spring 2011 Mean (sd) 4.38 (.56) 4.11 (.59) 4.42 (.59) 4.16 (.62) 4.24 (.64) 4.21 (.70) 3.85* (.82)