YSU Branding: CV, PPT and
Posters
Azadeh Masalehdan Block, MSW, Ph.D.
Useful YSU websites
Official Logos and Guidelines
 http://web.ysu.edu/gen/ysu/Officia
l_YSU_Trademarks_m352.html
Why FORMAT matters
 Professionalism
 Representative of YSU
 Lead by example (for students)
Curriculum Vitae: Tips
 Everything since your professional
terminal degree (MA, MS, MSW)
 Do not include from post college – pre
grad school (looks like padding)
 Create order
 Date commonalities (use same
format throughout)
 Date, number, name on each page
Poster: Tips
 Large enough font to be readable 3
feet away
 Use approved YSU logo
Basic Guidelines for “what to expect”
from a poster session:
http://web.ysu.edu/gen/coe_generated_bin/documents/basic_
module/ERE_Poster_Submission_Guidelines.pdf
Poster creation TIPS
How to make a poster using PPT:
 http://web.ysu.edu/gen/ysu_generated_bin/doc
uments/basic_module/How_to_Make_a_Poster_
Using_PowerPoint_Article.pdf
How to make a BEAUTIFUL poster
website:
 http://www.ischool.pitt.edu/sisint/studentservic
es/community/posters.pdf
BSW Student Competence in Critical Thinking and Engaging Diversity
Introduction
The Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) accredits BSW
programs in the US and Canada. CSWE’s 2008 Educational and
Program Accreditation Standards stipulate 10 areas of competence
for BSW education. Each academic year we evaluate our students
across these 10 areas of competence in both classroom and field
education. This year we reported on competencies 2.1.3: Applies
Critical Thinking to inform and communicate practice judgments and
2.1.4: Engages diversity and difference in practice.
Method- Measure 2: Evaluation of students
A Field Learning Evaluation is completed each semester of a student’s
field education by the Field Educator to evaluate the student’s
performance within their practicum placement. The data presented here
is from the 2nd term of the student’s field education.
The Field Evaluation assesses the students’ achievement of the mastery
of Program Competencies (SLO’s) via operationalized Practice
Behaviors, utilizing the same performance rating scale mentioned
We recognize the importance of measuring our student outcomes above.
from a variety of angles and stakeholders. From the perspectives of
the students AS students, AS alumni and from the perspective of Overall, the Program has set a benchmark score of “2- Emerging
their professors and field education supervisors. We strive to provide Competence” or better for each competency/learning outcome, based
data that is meaningful to our students, faculty, college, university, on Program expectations that competency in each of the designated 10
advisory board and community partners. Social work is a profession CSWE competencies will be demonstrated by students in the BSW
that depends on us working effectively with and within the program.
community.
Results
Method, Measure 1: Evaluation of alumni
66 BSW alumni mailed back a completed survey. Survey questions
specifically focus on Council on Social Work Education (CSWE)
competencies and practice behaviors. This is an indirect assessment
measure.
The rubric used by the alumnus to measure their self-assessed
competence using a set performance rating scale (which students are
familiar with since this same scale was used in their field placement
in the BSW program), with “0” representing “Unacceptable
Competence”, “1” representing “Insufficient Competence”, “2”
representing
“Emerging
Competence”,
“3”
representing
“Competence”, and “4” representing “Exemplary Competence”.
A total of 66 alumni returned the survey in the summer of 2013.
Based on outcome data (using the 0-4 performance rating scale), for
Competency 2.1.3: “Critical Thinking” a mean score of 3.33 was
recorded; for competency 2.1.4: “Diversity” a mean score of 3.25
was recorded.
A total of 32 students were assessed via Field Evaluations during the
2012-2013 academic year. Based on outcome data (using the 0-4
performance rating scale), , for Competency 2.1.3: “Critical
Thinking” a mean score of 3.23 was recorded for the first term and a
score of 3.36 was recorded for the second term; for competency 2.1.4:
“Diversity” a mean score of 3.22 was recorded for the first term and a
score of 3.32 was recorded for the second term.
Overall, the Program has set a benchmark score of “3- Competence”
or better for each competency/learning outcome, based on Program
expectations that competency in each of the designated 10 CSWE
competencies will be demonstrated by graduates of the BSW
program.
Presented by Azadeh Masalehdan Block, Ph.D., MSW and Karla A. Wyant, MSSA, LISW-S, Department of Social Work
Discussion
Our students are meeting the benchmarks set forth by our program.
For Competency 2.1.3: “Critical Thinking”:
The majority of our students feel confident in their ability to ability
to apply Critical Thinking to inform and communicate practice
judgments. Within each competency there are several “practice
behaviors” – our students felt most confident (mean score 3.5) in
their ability to distinguish, appraise and integrate multiple sources of
knowledge, including research-based knowledge, and practice
wisdom. A small number of students still struggle with their ability
to apply Critical Thinking to inform and communicate practice
judgments at this time. Within each competency there are several
practice behaviors- our students lowest score, 3.14 (which still
indicates competence) was of their ability to analyze models of
assessment, prevention, intervention and evaluation.
For Competency 2.1.4: “Diversity”
The majority of our students feel confident in their ability to engage
diversity and difference in practice. Within each competency there
are several practice behaviors – our students felt most confident
(mean score 3.4) in their ability to recognize the extent to which a
culture’s structures and values may oppress, marginalize, alienate,
create or enhance privilege and power. A small number of students
still struggle with their ability to engage diversity and difference in
practice at this time. Within each competency there are several
practice behaviors – our students’ lowest score, 3 (which still
indicates competence) was in their ability to view themselves as
learners and engage those whom they work as informants.
Modifications to our program assessment
As a result of these and other aspects of our assessment our
department chose to modify the benchmarks for first semester and
second semester field learning. Initially we had a benchmark of 3 or
“competence” for both terms for all 10 areas of competence.
We realized that our first semester students are just beginning their
field experience, which is the signature pedagogy in BSW education,
therefore a benchmark of 2, or “emerging competence” would be
more appropriate for the first semester of their field, and that a score
of 3 would be a more appropriate benchmark for the second semester
of field. We hope that this results in a change in the scoring from the
perspective of the field educators who will now see a “2” as an
appropriate benchmark for students in the first semester.
PowerPoint: Tips
 Only write main points on slides
 AVOID reading slides verbatim
 Engage audience
 Appropriate pictures; audio, video
Assessing Cultural
Humility (Competence) in
a BSW Student Population
Azadeh Masalehdan Block, MSW, PhD
Council on Social Work Education
Annual Conference
Tampa, FL
Presentation Objectives
 Participants will be able to describe cultural
humility (competence) in BSW education
 Participants will be able to compare the pre-
test and post-test cultural humility
(competence) of participants at a community
college located BSW degree completion
program and a traditional university located
BSW program.
 Participants will be able to interpret the
results from the study and determine if the
CBMCS could be used in the learner’s own
institutional setting.
Background
 Census data forecasts the number of individuals
identifying themselves as minorities will
outnumber the majority by the year 2042 (US
Census, 2012).
 Individuals in social services must take into
account the increasing diversity in client
populations and ensure cultural humility to
deliver those services competently and ethically
(Gabbard 2011, Jackson & Samuels 2011, Jani,
Ortiz, Pierce & Sowbell 2011, Krentzman &
Townsend 2008, Davis 2007
Why the shift from competence
to humility?
 Recent training at YSU on Cultural
Humility
 Recognized that competence indicates
completion: finality
 Humility as a process, never complete,
always striving to do more
 Be more introspective
 Learn more about others
Humility vs. Competence
 Hook (2014) defines cultural humility as an
ongoing process at both the interpersonal and
intrapersonal levels,

as opposed to a skill that can be mastered as is implied
with the term cultural competency
 Research suggests that the construct of cultural
humility can contribute to more effective
therapeutic alliances (Hook, 2014; Hook, Davis,
Owen, Worthington & Utsey, 2013).
NASW Code of Ethics on Cultural
Humility
 “Social workers should understand culture and its
function in human behavior and society,
recognizing the strengths that exist in all
cultures” (Section 1.05.a)
 “Social workers should have a knowledge base of
their clients’ cultures and be able to demonstrate
competence in the provision of services that are
sensitive to clients’ cultures and to differences
among people and cultural groups” (Section
1.05.b)
Key Components of Cultural
Humility
 Krentzman and Townsend (2008) examined what
skills were needed and noted that cultural
competence (humility) entails “…having the
beliefs, knowledge and skills necessary to work
effectively with individuals different from one’s
self; that cultural competence includes all forms
of differences; and that issues of social justice
cannot be overlooked” (p. 8).
 Exploring one’s own concepts of culture to
include, for example, the elements of race,
ethnicity, class, gender or sexual orientation
encourages students to gain insight into their own
perceptions of culture and the role they play in
societal oppression.
Theory – Literature Review
 Similarly, Critical Race theory describes the
dilemma of how in the quest to “equalize
oppressions under a multicultural umbrella
unintentionally promotes a color-blind mentality
the eclipses the significance of institutionalized
racism” (Abrams & Moio, 2009, p. 245).
 Colorblindness hurts our quest for cultural
humility
 Jani, Ortiz, Pierce and Sowbell (2011) emphasized
the importance of nondiscrimination and
establishing a safe learning environment in which
students can learn to understand, appreciate and
respect diversity.
Literature Review
 Davis (2007) examined the reports of clients and
providers in pediatric mental health settings and,
through concept mapping, identified that often
providers’ and clients’ perceptions of culture do
not line up.
 Understanding of the complexity of culture
requires awareness on behalf of the therapist
pertaining to the impact culture can have on
client’s needs.
Literature Review
 Tori and Ducker (2004) explored the potential to
increase multicultural values within a graduate
psychology program and to maintain these
changes over time.
 In addition, this study aimed to evaluate the
programs ability to maintain advancements in
long term gains in cultural humility.
 Tori and Ducker (2004) highlighted that open
communication between students and faculty is
pivotal in addressing cultural issues in the
classroom; this includes willingness to embrace
necessary conflict pertaining to cultural
differences
What we know about BSW
students
 We lack a literature specific to social
workers or to social work students
 This study aims to begin this work with
students and then take this assessment
to social workers in the field
 In this study we used California Brief
Multicultural Competence Scale (CBMCS)
in its original form to see its
strengths/places for improvement
 Major weakness is focus on mental health to
the detriment of other aspects of generalist
education
CSWE 2008 EPAS
Standard 2.1.4: Engages diversity and difference in
practice and its related practice behaviors (PB),
specifically students will be able to:
 recognize the extent to which a culture’s structures and
values may oppress, marginalize, alienate, or create or
enhance privilege and power (PB 14);

gain sufficient self-awareness to eliminate the influence
of personal biases and values in working with diverse
groups (PB 15);

recognize and communicate their understanding of the
importance of difference in shaping life experiences (PB
16);

view themselves as learners and engage those with
whom they work as informants (PB 17) (Council on
Social Work Education, 2008).
The Course
 Cultural Diversity Practice
 Upper division BSW course
 Focuses on cultural awareness, bias and
humility as well as understanding and
empathizing with the experiences of diverse
populations (racial, ethnic, socioeconomic
status, gender, age, sexual orientation,
religion and physical or mental disability).
The Course, cont’d
 Students apply theory, differential
assessment and learn intervention/and
self-reflection skills
 Skills are critical to effective social work
practice with populations that may, or
may not, differ from themselves.
Course Assignments
 Standardized across all sections
 Ethnographic case study (own family)
 Religious diversity assignment
 Research paper on an at-risk/vulnerable
population group
 TWO reflective journals about specific themes
related to cultural diversity, oppression,
discrimination, and social/economic justice
 A personal plan for culturally “competent” social
work practice
Method
 (Baseline) Administer CBMCS
within 2 weeks of course start date
 (Follow up) Administer CBMCS
AGAIN within 2 weeks of course
end date
 Administer to all BSW students (at
main and CC campuses)
California Brief Multicultural
Competence Scale (CBMCS)
 21 questions
 Four Factors:
 Multicultural Knowledge (MC)
 Awareness of Cultural Barriers (AC)
 Sensitivity and Responsiveness to
Consumers (SRC)
 Socio-cultural Diversities (SCD)
CBMCS
 Internal consistency reliability,
Cronbach’s alpha ranged from .75
to .90.
 Criterion related validity is
demonstrated by the predictable
correlations between the MCI
subscale and the questionnaire
subscales (Gamst et al., 2004).
Participants
 77 consented; 54 completed both
baseline and follow up
 Table 1 (demographics, next slide)
 Students at MC were significantly
younger
 Groups did not different in
distribution of race, parental status
or financial independence
Table 1 - Demographics
N
Age M(SD)
MC
CC
41
13
27.02
36.42
(9.67)
(11.4)
t(51) = -2.84, p = 0.006
Mann-Whitney U = 80.5, p < 0.001
Year in School (%)
Freshman
0.00
0.08
Sophomore
0.00
0.23
Junior
0.37
0.54
Senior
0.63
0.08
Unknown
0.00
0.08
Fisher’s exact test, p = 0. 092
Race (%)
White
0.71
0.85
Black
0.24
0.00
Hispanic
0.00
0.00
Unknown
0.05
0.15
Table 1 – Demographics
Parent (%)
MC
CC
Yes
0.27
0.46
No
0.73
0.46
Unknown
0.00
0.08
Fisher’s exact test, p = 0. 167
Fisher’s exact test, p = 0. 073
Financial Support
Financially Independent
0.54
0.85
Parent Support
0.37
0.08
Unknown
0.10
0.08
Results
 No significant interaction effects for ANOVA in
regards to race, parental status and financial
independence
 Main effect for race on AC subscale such that
African American students scored higher than
Caucasian students (F[1,47] =13.96, p = 0.001).
 Main effect for parental status on MK subscale
such that parents with children scored lower than
those without at both time points (F[1, 50] =
5.00, p = 0.030).
Results
 Scores from all subscales increased at both
campuses (Main effect of time point: ps < 0.001).
 Significant campus x time point interaction on the
SCD subscale.
 Follow up t-tests indicated that for this scale,
while students from both campuses showed
increased scores over time, students at the CC
campus scored lower than those at the MC at
baseline, but this difference was gone at followup.
Figure 1. Scores on the CBMCS Subscales by
timepoint and campus (CC: Solid; MC: Dashed)
MK
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
CC
MC
BL
CC
MC
BL
FU
CC
MC
BL
FU
SRC
4
Results
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
AC
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
FU
SCD
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
CC
MC
BL
FU
Discussion
 Overall students saw a significant
increase in their self-reported
cultural humility after taking the
Cultural Diversity Practice course
 Gives course good standing in terms of
university, departmental and CSWE
assessment processes of cultural
humility
 Indicates students are doing work
necessary to improve their cultural
humility.
Discussion
 African American students have more awareness
in terms of multicultural awareness BEFORE the
course; but after the course White student
knowledge has caught up to them
 Highlights experience of being a minority in the
US and how racism, racial disparities, affect
baseline perceptions of multicultural
awareness
 Indicates empathy building on part of
Caucasian students
 Demonstrates capacity of course to impart
importance of multicultural awareness
Discussion
 Being a parent seemed to buffer one’s
multicultural knowledge, such that those students
with children tended to demonstrate less
attainment of such knowledge at both baseline
and follow up.
 Parents in young or middle adulthood are
primarily focused on the tasks of raising their
family, and perhaps are less focused on exploring
or learning more about other cultures.
Discussion
 Community college students did significantly
worse on the multicultural knowledge subscale at
the baseline time point but by follow up scored
similarly to the main campus students.
 Our community college sample is predominantly
rural and Caucasian.
 This rural population is more isolated and has less
exposure to diverse populations than our more
urban Caucasian students at the main campus.
 Multicultural knowledge comes from exposure,
experience and non-competitive relationships
with those of a different racial, ethnic, religious,
economic background
Strengths/Limitations
 Sample size
 Pedagogical differences in training
(cultural humility)
 Some questions in the measure
focuses on mental health; which is
not the exclusive or even primary
focus of BSW education
Directions for Current/Future
Research
 Growing sample size
 Conducted full day Cultural Humility training for
adjunct and full time faculty (grant from YSU
Office of Assessment)
 Adapting CBMCS for use with social work
population: Brief Multicultural Humility Scale –
Social Work (BMHS-SW)
 Including more sites- If interested in becoming a
partner site please contact me at
amblock@ysu.edu

Can lead to opportunities to assess data and explore other
variables for publication
CV Sample
 Open up CV template (YSU)
 Open up my example