Comparison of Outcomes between an
Online MSW Program and a
Traditional MSW Program
Kate M. Chaffin, LAPSW
Sherry M. Cummings, PhD
Director Nashville and Online MSW Program
Assistant Professor of Practice
2015 DE Conference
Literature Review
•
Currently 20 (2013) 35 2015 designated accredited DE programs
• 9 are all online
• 11 are hybrid using online, interactive TV, and satellite campuses
•
Online education can be defined as instruction and content which
are delivered primarily over the internet (Watson & Kalmon,
2005). The term does not include printed-based correspondence
education, broadcast television or radio, videocassettes, and standalone educational software programs that do not have a significant
Internet-based instructional component (U.S. Department of
Education Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy
Development Policy and Program Studies Service, 2010).
•
Other terms used interchangeably with online are: Cyber-learning,
e-learning, web-based and virtual learning.
Social Work and Online
Trends
• Research surrounding course work comparing
F2F/online:
•
•
•
•
HBSE (Woehle and Quinn, 2009; Ligon, Markward, & Yegidis, 1999)
Research (Faul, Frey, & Barber, 2004; Banks and Faul, 2007)
Diversity (Hylton, 2006)
Human Service Administration (York, 2008)
• These studies have indicated no significant difference
between the online and face-to-face groups
Social Work and Online
Trends Con’d
• Studies also indicate no significant difference
between face-to-face and online classes in teaching
clinical skills online.
(Siebert, Siebert, and Spaulding-Givens, 2006; Siebert
and Spaulding-Givens, 2006; and Cummings, Foels, and
Chaffin, in press)
Comparing Programs
• Little research has been conducted comparing entire
MSW traditional programs with online MSW
programs
• Anderson and Fiedemann (2010) Certificate Program
• Bettmann, Thompson, and Berzoff (2009) Social Work
PhD program seminar
• Wilke and Vinton (2006) Entire online advanced
standing program
Aspects of Successful Online
Programming
• Knowledge Gained
• Skills obtained
• Student satisfaction
•
•
•
•
Ease of use of technology
Students ability to interact with instructor
Flexibility of classes
Faculty engagement
Dimensions of Online at
UTKCSW
• 2008
• Synchronous and Asynchronous
• Online program identical to F2F program
• FT, PT, AS programs
• Faculty teach in both F2F and online classes
Dimensions of Online at
UTKCSW –con’d
• Online program is composed of: Associate Dean,
Director, Field Coordinator and a staff person
• Clinical (EBIP) and Macro (MLCP)
• Blackboard and Blackboard Collaborate
• Tools for effective teaching include: discussion
boards, wikis, blogs, video role-plays, VideoAnt,
YouTube, Xtranormal
Methodology
Quasi-experimental research design
Comparison of learning outcomes
Knowledge
Skills
Satisfaction
Students (n=345) graduated in May 2011
and 2012
 Traditional (face-to-face) = 255 (73.9%)
 Online = 90 (26.1%)
Measures
• Demographics - age, race, gender, program and
concentration
• Comprehensive Exam scores
• 10 essay questions - 2008 EPAS core competencies
• 1-5 likert rating - how well demonstrated
competencies and advanced practice knowledge
and skills
• Students graduating in May 2011 and 2012 n=334
• Chronbach’s α= .91
Measures
• Overall GPA - measure of overall academic
performance
• All students graduating in May 2011-2012 - n=309
• Self-Efficacy Scale - pre and post test scores
• Students’ confidence in ability to perform core
skills related to practice
• 41 items (1-11 likert rating) -based on 2008 EPAS
• Students admitted in fall 2010 and graduated May
2012 - n = 89)
• Chronbach’s α= .91
Measures
• Field Competencies
• 8 advanced field competencies linked to
foundation core and advanced program
competencies
• Assessment, intervention, policy, leadership, ethics,
evaluation, advocacy, professional development
• End of semester evaluations by field instructors
• Students completing field in May 2011 and 2012 n= 267
• 5 point likert ratings; Chronbach’s α= .93
Measures
• Exit Surveys - students’ ratings of program
effectiveness, foundation and concentration
courses, and faculty
• Faculty - accessibility and helpfulness
• Major professor - accessibility and advising
• “Overall, to what degree do you feel that this
program provided you with the skills and
knowledge needed to begin work as a masters
prepared social worker?”
• Students graduating in May 2012 - N=148
Findings
Variable
All Students
F2F Students
Online Students
M (SD) or %
M (SD) or %
M (SD) or %
73.9%
26.1%
29.5 (8.8)
29.1 (9.1)
30.1 (8.0)
Gender (Female)
86.4
84.3
92.2
Race (Caucasian)
74.8
74.5
75.6
Full-Time
43.2
48.6
32.7
Adv Standing
32.1
22.4
29.1
Ext Study
11.6
29.0
38.2
82.6
82.7
82.2
Instruct Method
Age
Program
Concentration-EBIP
Findings
• Comp Exam Scores - ns for any of the 10
individual items or overall score
• Overall range - 15.00-50.00, M=35.1 (5.6)
• GPA
• F2F - GPA=3.7; Online- GPA=3.6*
• GPA by method and program
F2F
Online
FT
3.76 (.20)
3.70 (.26)
ESP
3.66 (.24)
3.69 (.21)
AS
3.81 (.15)
3.65 (.20)*
Findings
• Self-Efficacy - Repeated Measures ANOVA
• Main Effect of time - significant
• Pre-test - M=33.9 (4.0)
• Post-test - M=37.6 (2.8); F(1, 86) = 18.8, p = .001
• Time * Instructional Method - ns
• F(1, 86) =.10, p > .05
• Similar gain in Self-Efficacy for Traditional and
Online students
Findings
Field Competency
All Students
F2F Students
Online Students
M (SD)
M (SD)
M (SD)
Assessment
4.3 (.76)
4.2 (.77)
4.5 (.70)**
Intervention
4.1 (.80)
4.1 (.76)
4.3 (.81)*
Policy
4.0 (.80)
3.9 (.80)
4.1 (.78)*
Leadership
4.2 (.80)
4.1 (.80)
4.4 (.77)**
Ethics
4.1 (.77)
4.3 (.77)
4.5 (.72)
Evaluation
4.1 (.83)
4.0 (.82)
4.3 (.81)**
Advocacy
4.2 (.80)
4.1 (.79)
4.4. (.78) *
Prof Development
4.3 (.76)
4.3 (.76)
4.4 (.75)
Findings
Overall Field Competency Ratings - By Method &
Program
F2F
Online
All Students
32.9 (5.1)
34.8 (5.1)
Full-time
32.7 (5.0)
34.6 (6.0)
Advanced Standing 33.7 (5.0)
34.1 (5.3)
Extended Study
36.2 (4.0)**
32.1 (5.8)
Findings
Student Exit Survey Ratings by Instructional Method
M (SD)
M (SD)
M (SD)
Faculty Access
3.6 (1.0)
3.5 (1.0)
3.9 (1.0)**
Faculty Support
3.8 (1.0)
3.7 (1.1)
4.1 (.94)*
Maj Prof Access
3.1 (1.5)
2.9 (1.5)
3.6 (1.3)**
Maj Prof Advising
3.0 (1.5)
2.6 (1.5)
3.5 (1.4)***
Preparedness
3.8 (.95)
3.5 (.95)
4.3 (.76)**
Discussion
• Paucity of comparison outcomes studies for online
programs
• Discipline specific studies needed
• Current study - online students performed as well as
F2F
• Exception GPA - further investigation is needed
• Current study - satisfaction higher for online students
• Related to online program staff; students’ desire for
access to MSW program; other?
Discussion
• Further research - not only “what” by “why”
• Include additional demographic data to compare f2f and
online students - employment, hours worked, years of
experience, etc.
• Qualitative data to flesh out quantitative
• Conduct more research surrounding best practices in
online education
• Evaluation of methods of delivery especially in regards to
clinical classes since the majority of students in MSW
programs are clinical tracks
References
•
Anderson, K.H. & Friedmann, M.L. (2010). Strategies to teach family assessment and intervention
through an online international curriculum. Journal of Family Nursing, 16, 213-233.
•
Banks, A., & Faul, A. (2007). Reduction of face-to-face contact hours in Foundation Research courses:
Impact on student’s knowledge gained and course satisfaction. Social Work Education, 26 (8),
780-793.
•
Bettmann, J., Thompson, K., Padykula, N., & Berzoff, J. (2009). Innovations in doctoral education:
Distance education methodology applied. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 29 (3), 291-312.
•
Cummings, S., Foels, L., and Chaffin, K. (in press). Comparative analysis of distance education and
classroom- based formats for a clinical social work practice course. Journal of Social Work
Education.
•
Faul, A., Frey, A., & Barber, R. (2004). The effects of web-assisted instruction in a social work research
methods course. Social Work Education, 23 (1), 105-188.
•
Hylton, M. (2006). Online versus classroom-based instruction: A comparative study of learning
outcomes in a diversity course. The Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work, 11 (2), 102-114.
References
•
Ligon, J., Marward, M., & Yegidis, B. (1999). Comparing student evaluations of distance
learning and standard classroom courses in graduate Social Work education. Journal of
Teaching in Social Work, 19 (1), 21-29.
•
Maidment, J. (2005). Teaching Social Work Online: Dilemmas and Debates. Social Work
Education, 24 (2), 185-195.
•
Siebert, D.C., and Spaulding-Givens (2006). Teaching clinical social work skills online: A case
example. Social Work Education, 25 (1), 78-91.
•
Siebert D.C., Siebert, C.F., & Spaulding-Givens, J. (2006). Teaching clinical social
work skills primarily online. Journal of Social Work Education, 42, 325-336.
•
U.S. Department of Education Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development Policy
and Program Studies Service (2010). Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online
Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies. Washington,
DC. Retrieved on November 7, 2012 from:
http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf
References
•
Watson, J. F., & Kalmon, S. (2005). Keeping pace with K–12 online learning: A review of
state-levelpolicy and practice. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates. Retrieved
on November 7, 2012 from
http://www.learningpt.org/pdfs/tech/Keeping_Pace2.pdf
•
Wilke, D., and Vinton, L. (2006). Evaluation of the first-web based advanced standing
MSW program. Journal of Social Work Education, 42 (3), 607-620.
•
Woehle, R., and Quinn, A. (2009). An experiment comparing HBSE Graduate Social
Work Classes: Face-to-Face and at a distance. Journal of Teaching in Social
Work, 29 (4), 418-430.