School of Social Work Assessment Summary and Plan
Program Information
Degree Program(s): BASW and MSW
Department Chair: Jack Wall
Laurie Drabble (MSW)
Report Prepared by:
Meekyung Han (BASW)
Department: Social Work
Phone: 408-924-5800
Phone: 408-924-5836
Report
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 self-efficacy 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.
b)
Updated matrix:
SCHEDULE OF ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES: Program assessment schedule aligned with
seven-year accreditation cycle.
C = data Collected
D = results Discussed
SLO #
BASW PROGRAM
1. Identify as social worker
2. Apply ethical principles
3. Apply critical thinking
4. Engage diversity and differences
5. Advance human rights/social
economic justice
6. Engage in research informed
practice/ practice informed research
7. Apply knowledge of human behavior
& social environment
8. Policy practice
9. Respond to contexts that shape
practice
10.a. Engage in practice
10.b. Assess practice (individuals,
groups, orgs and communities)
10.c. Intervention practice
10.d. Evaluate practice
MSW PROGRAM
1. Identify as social worker
2. Apply ethical principles
3. Apply critical thinking
4. Engage diversity and differences
5. Advance human rights/social
economic justice
6. Engage in research informed
practice/ practice informed research
7. Apply knowledge of human behavior
& social environment
8. Policy practice
9. Respond to contexts that shape
practice
10. a. Engage in practice
10.b. Assess practice (individuals,
groups, orgs and communities)
10.c. Intervention practice
10.d. Evaluate practice
I= changes (if any) Implemented
AY 14/15
P=Plan
AY 11/12
AY 12/13
AY 13/14
AY 15/16
P
P
P
P
P
C**
C**
C**
C**
C**
C** D
C** D
C** D
C** D
C** D
P
C**
C** D
P
C** P
C**
D
P
P
C** P
C**
C**
C**
D
D
P
P
C**
C**
C**
C**
D
D
PI
P
C**
C**
C**
C**
D
D
P
P
PI
P
P
C**
C**
C**
C**
C**
C** D
C** D
C** D
C** D
C** D
P
C**
C** D
I
P
C** P
C**
D
I
P
P
C** P
C**
C**
C**
D
D
I
P
P
C**
C**
C**
C**
D
D
P
P
C**
C**
C**
C**
D
D
I
I
* 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).
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 2011-2012 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 organizational and community level concerns (in
addition to individual practice). Finally, the MSW program committee identified specific courses where
student learning related to evidence-based 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 2010-2011), 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 2010-2011 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 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 2012.
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
% Poor
(Rating
1 – 2.99)
% Good
(Rating
3-3.99)
% Very
Good to
Outstanding
(4-5)
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 (POM 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)
Overall Assessment
* Below Benchmark of 80%
1.0%
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%
0.0%
6.3%
93.7%
95.9%
% Very Good to
Outstanding
(Rating 4-5)
2010-2011
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
(Rating
1 – 2.99)
%
Good
(Rating
3-3.99)
%
Spring
Very
2012
Good to Mean (sd)
Outstand
ing
(Rating
4-5)
91.3%
4.61
(.59)
Objective 1: Ability to apply transcultural
0%
8.7%
perspective in relationships with
individuals, families and groups (B 1.1)
Objective 2: Demonstrates knowledge and
4.5%
16.4%
79.1%*
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
0%
4.3%
95.7%
effectively within an organizational
setting and to promote changes using social
work values and ethical principles (B 3.4)
Objective 4: Ability to communicate
1.5%
8.8%
89.7%
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
1.6%
11.5%
86.9%
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
0%
10.7%
89.3%
competence in he/his generalist SW
practice approach with diverse populationsat-risk, and other disenfranchised,
oppressed, populations-at-risk (B 3.1)
Objective 7: Demonstrate knowledge and
0%
17.2%
82.8%*
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)
^Due to missing data, percentages are calculated after missing data are excluded.
* Below Benchmark of 80%
Spring
2011
Mean
(sd)
4.38
(.56)
4.29
(.67)
4.11
(.59)
4.62
(.51)
4.42
(.59)
4.51
(.60)
4.16
(.62)
4.52
(.56)
4.24
(.64)
4.60
(.58)
4.21
(.70)
4.31
(.75)
3.85*
(.82)