RICHARD STOCKTON COLLEGE OF NEW JERSEY
MSW PROGRAM ASSESSMENT REPORT
ACADEMIC YEAR 2010-2011
Assessment Plan
Multiple measures are being used for the assessment of the attainment of MSW Program Objectives. These include:
Assessment of Attainment of Foundation Objectives
 Critical Thinking Assessment at Entrance to MSW Program (faculty assessment of students’ critical thinking abilities, as applied to a case
study, at admission—in particular, students’ scores on the items of the Critical Thinking Assessment that are most closely related to the
MSW Foundation Program Objectives)
 Foundation course evaluations (students’ self-assessments of how well they achieved stated course objectives—in particular the course
objectives that are most closely related to MSW Foundation Program Objectives)
 Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluations of Field Performance (field instructors’ assessment of student achievement of MSW Foundation
Program Objectives in field at the end of each semester of the Foundation Year)
 Summary of Faculty Service to College and Community (data collected from faculty members)
Assessment of Attainment of Concentration Objectives
 Critical Thinking Assessment at Exit from MSW Program (faculty assessment of students’ critical thinking abilities, as applied to a case
study, at exit—in particular, students’ scores on the items of the Critical Thinking Assessment that are most closely related to the MSW
Concentration Program Objectives)
 Concentration course evaluations (students’ self-assessments of how well they achieved stated course objectives—in particular the
course objectives that are most closely related to MSW Concentration Program Objectives)
 Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluations of Field Performance (field instructors’ assessment of student achievement of MSW Program
Concentration Objectives in field at the end of each semester of the Concentration Year)
 Exit Survey (students’ assessment of degree to which Program meets its stated objectives)
 Portfolio Project at End of Concentration Year (faculty assessment of degree to which students evidence professional competencies at
end of concentration year)
 Licensure Pass Rates (% of those who take the New Jersey LSW Examination and pass on the first try)
 Alumni Survey
Revised 6-16-11
Page 1
Assessment Data
At this point in our new MSW Program, we have collected and analyzed two years of data from students, field instructors, and faculty members.
The following discussion will summarize our findings and how we are using those findings to affirm and improve the educational program.
Critical Thinking Assessment at Entrance to MSW Program
Our first project was to assess the educational needs of students at entrance to the MSW Program. This was accomplished by having all newly
admitted students take a Critical Thinking Assessment at Entrance. This assessment was developed by a social work program faculty member
who teaches research in the undergraduate program, Dr. William Reynolds. He had attended a week-long faculty development program at
Stockton during the summer preceding the beginning of the MSW Program. During that week, collaborating with a member of Stockton’s
Philosophy Program, Dr. Reynolds developed an instrument that was originally designed to be a pre- and post-test of students’ mastery of
knowledge and critical thinking to be given at the beginning and end of their senior year in the undergraduate social work program. Upon
examining the instrument, Dr. Diane Falk, the MSW Program Director, saw its potential as an instrument to assess MSW students, both at
entrance to and exit from the MSW Program. Dr. Falk modified the instrument, adding items that would assess MSW Program Goals and
Objectives, and then developed a rubric to be used in evaluating the results. The Critical Thinking Assessment at Entrance asked all entering
students to read a case study, several research articles pertaining to similar cases, and several sections of the NASW Code of Ethics. Students
were challenged to examine the case material, then apply the findings of studies and select elements of the Code of Ethics to the case in a
written recommendation to a judge who would be making a decision about appropriate placement of the adolescent boy central to the case. Dr.
Reynolds and Dr. Falk then reviewed the students’ essays, applying the rubric to come up with a percentage score for the group on each
subscale. (The subscales were designed to reflect the MSW Program Goals, and particular items under each subscale were designed to measure
MSW Program Objectives.) Results of the analysis of this Critical Thinking Assessment are presented in Table 17 below.
We first used this instrument to get a beginning assessment on our MSW Program Goals by examining the scores that the group achieved on the
subscales, which as a whole reflected Program Goals. This gave us a very general idea of where our first class of students was at the very
beginnings of their journey through the MSW Program. Most of them came into the Program with some experience in the human services, so it
was not surprising that they scored highest in the area of having some knowledge about generalist social work practice. Their scores on the
ability to apply this knowledge to working with diverse populations were dramatically lower and only somewhat better in the areas of having
some knowledge about the social contexts of practice or the values and ethics that guide social work practice. Their ability to think critically,
write effectively, and use quantitative and qualitative research methods were only very slightly higher, although it would seem reasonable to
expect such abilities in college graduates, no matter what their academic background had been.
Revised 6-16-11
Page 2
Although we administered the second part of the Critical Thinking Assessment to the graduating students, we have not yet had a chance to score
it. Results will be reported at a future MSW Program meeting.
Foundation Course Evaluations
The following tables report students’ self-assessments of their mastery of course objectives in the first three semesters of the Program. Linkage
between the course objectives and Program Objectives will be summarized in the summary tables, Table 35: “Implementation of Plan for
Assessment of Foundation Year Program Objectives, with Results” and Table 36: “Implementation of Plan for Assessment of Concentration Year
Program Objectives, with Results” at the end of this section.
Table 20
HUMAN BEHAVIOR IN THE SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT I
SOWK 5101
MEAN SCORE (5-POINT SCALE, 5 = “VERY MUCH AGREE”)
ITEM
ACADEMIC YEAR
1. I can identify how social systems promote or deter people in maintaining or achieving well-being.
2. I can define “theory” and the connection between theory, research, human behavior, and social work practice.
3. I can identify how variations in human situations (due to the transaction of bio-psycho-socio- cultural, spiritual, political and
economic forces) may either encourage or impede self-determination and the individual’s worth and dignity.
4. I can demonstrate knowledge of biases and cultural limitations in theories relating to human behavior in the social
environment.
5. I can demonstrate the ability to think critically.
6. I am able to explore personal biases and stereotypes that can affect my understanding of human behavior.
7. I can demonstrate how biological, psychological, socio-cultural, spiritual, and physical forces affect the functioning of
diverse individuals, families, groups, and communities.
8. I can examine and critically evaluate the values underlying human behavior theories and their relevance to social work
values and principles.
9. I can identify the importance of understanding physical, social and psychological human development in assessing and
planning practice interventions.
10. I can identify and understand the developmental stages of the life span from conception through childhood.
MEAN SCORES
2009-2010
2010-2011
4.55
4.50
4.20
4.20
4.60
4.20
4.50
4.10
4.75
4.65
4.30
4.30
4.65
4.10
4.45
4.10
4.60
4.40
4.55
4.40
As this Table 20 shows, students in both cohorts of the Foundation Human Behavior course felt fairly confident that they had mastered the
course objectives. Every rating was at least 4.10 on a scale of 1 to 5.
Revised 6-16-11
Page 3
Revised 6-16-11
Page 4
Table 21
SOCIAL ORGANIZATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTS
SOWK 5120
MEAN SCORE (5-POINT SCALE, 5 = “VERY MUCH AGREE”)
ITEM
ACADEMIC YEAR
1. I understand the extent to which social work services are delivered through at least one complex organization and can
describe how the organization was established, is funded, and managed.
2. I can articulate the potential power of social service organizations to enhance human well being, advance social justice and
human rights, and support ethical and culturally competent practice.
3. I can describe how complex organizations can both implement social policies and communicate unmet social service needs
to policy makers.
4. Using systems theory, I can develop an organizational analysis of one social service agency.
5. I understand the extent to which social work has become a global profession, working within intergovernmental,
governmental, and nongovernmental organizations worldwide to create a more humane world.
6. I can articulate strategies for working effectively within organizational structures to carry out social work purposes, even
when those structures are imperfect.
7. I understand the dynamic interaction between social service organizations and their environments and can describe several
environmental factors currently affecting the functioning of one such organization.
8. I am able to analyze the functioning of one social service organization and understand the impact of organizational
functioning on practice.
9. I am able to identify areas of less than effective organizational functioning and suggest creative approaches to enhancing
organizational functioning.
MEAN SCORES
2009-2010
2010-2011
4.48
4.73
4.38
4.82
4.14
4.55
4.33
4.73
4.29
4.64
4.33
4.36
4.33
4.64
4.38
4.73
4.29
4.45
In the Social Organizations and Environments course (both cohorts), students were equally confident, with no score falling below 4.00.
Revised 6-16-11
Page 5
Table 22
FOUNDATION SOCIAL WELFARE POLICY
SOWK 5130
MEAN SCORE (5-POINT SCALE, 5 = “VERY MUCH AGREE”)
ITEM
ACADEMIC YEAR
1. I understand the historical, social, economic and political development of social welfare policy in the United States.
2. I understand how social welfare policy is an expression of multiple and competing societal goals, values and social philosophies
of a society.
3. I understand the roles that social workers can play in development, implementation, and evaluation of social welfare policy.
4. I have explored how social policy is implemented and some of the intended and unintended consequences of policy on client
populations, with particular attention to oppressed and/or disadvantaged populations (including racial and ethnic minorities,
women, disabled persons, gays and lesbians, children, older persons, and other groups with distinctive needs).
5. I am able to plan and implement at least one change strategy on an organizational, local, state or federal level.
6. I am familiar with debates and developments in key social policy arenas and have explored one social policy area in more
depth.
7. I have explored potential professional social work roles, including advocacy and policy practice.
8. I can apply class material to live situations.
MEAN SCORES
2009-2010
2010-2011
4.18
4.22
4.12
4.11
4.47
4.00
4.29
4.00
3.76
4.00
4.35
3.89
4.18
4.31
4.00
4.22
In the Foundation Social Welfare Policy course, the 2009-2010 cohort students’ self-assessment yielded a mean score of less than the desired 4.0
in Objective 5. Students may have felt that they understood most of the material of this course, but they apparently felt a bit unsure of their
ability to plan and implement at least one change strategy on an organizational, local, state or federal level. This is understandable for students
in their first semester of an MSW Program. We may have to consider whether this is a reasonable goal for the foundation-level course in social
welfare policy.
In the second cohort, students’ self-assessment yielded a mean score of less than the desired 4.0 in Objective 6. Reasons for this are being
explored by the professor who teaches this course. It should be noted that in the second cohort there was one student who rated her level of
achievement of every course objective as “1,” indicating that she felt she had achieved no mastery at all of any of the course objectives. It
appears likely that this student misread the scale, rather than felt she learned absolutely nothing. If this hypothesis is true, then the results for
the second cohort would be significantly higher.
Revised 6-16-11
Page 6
Table 23
FOUNDATION SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE
SOWK 5160
MEAN SCORE (5-POINT SCALE, 5 = “VERY MUCH AGREE”)
ITEM
ACADEMIC YEAR
1. I can identify the historical context, purpose and objectives of social work practice.
2. I can identify professional values and ethics that direct and guide practice; I also am able to practice with an understanding
of human rights and social justice.
3. I have developed self- awareness and understand the professional “use of self” in social work practice consistent with
professional values and ethics.
4. I can understand, clarify and interpret interventive roles in working with varied sizes, levels, and contexts of client systems.
5. I can apply the advanced generalist practice model to working with diverse individuals, families, and groups.
6. I can demonstrate skills in engagement, problem identification, goal setting, data collection, assessment, contracting,
planning and implementing interventions, evaluation, and termination.
7. I can apply ecosystems, strengths-based, and empowerment perspectives of practice in working with client systems.
8. I understand cultural competence standards and can demonstrate beginning competency in applying those standards in
work with diverse individuals, families, and groups.
9. I can use supervision appropriately in a practice setting.
10. I am able to write effectively using a variety of formats.
11. I am able to evaluate research and practice interventions, including evidence-based practice models, to assess their
strengths and limitations for use in practice.
MEAN SCORES
2009-2010
4.57
2010-2011
4.25
4.67
4.50
4.48
4.19
4.38
4.50
4.25
4.00
4.62
4.38
4.08
4.17
4.57
4.62
4.48
4.50
4.42
4.42
4.15
4.30
In both cohorts of the Foundation Social Work Practice course, students were quite confident, with no score falling below 4.00.
Revised 6-16-11
Page 7
Table 24
Field I
SOWK 5901
MEAN SCORE (5-POINT SCALE, 5 = “VERY MUCH AGREE”)
ITEM
ACADEMIC YEAR
1. I am able to practice with an understanding of core social work values, and ethics, and can use ethical guidelines and critical
thinking to resolve ethical dilemmas.
2. I am able to practice with an understanding of the effects of oppression, discrimination, respect for diversity, human rights,
social and economic justice.
3. I have developed self- awareness and an understanding of the professional “use of self” in social work practice consistent
with professional values and ethics.
4. I can demonstrate skill in applying the advanced generalist practice model in work with diverse individuals, families, and
groups as well as the varied roles and functions of a generalist social work practitioner.
5. I can effectively apply skills in engagement, problem identification, goal setting, data collection, contracting, assessment,
treatment planning, evaluation and termination with client systems.
6. I am able to practice with an understanding of the connection between theoretical, conceptual frameworks, evidencedbased research methodologies, and the evaluation of practice outcomes.
7. I am able to apply ecosystems, strengths-based and empowerment perspectives of practice in work with client systems.
8. I can demonstrate an understanding of cultural competence standards and barriers to ethical and cultural competency in
practice settings.
9. I am able to use supervision appropriate to professional development and autonomous practice.
10. I am able to write effectively using a variety of formats.
MEAN SCORES
2009-2010
2010-2011
4.57
3.92
4.62
4.42
4.43
4.33
4.14
4.08
4.43
4.00
4.14
4.52
4.00
4.42
4.48
4.48
4.48
4.67
4.33
4.08
Finally, in both cohorts students’ self-assessment of their mastery in the first semester field course were fairly strong. The only area that failed to
reach to desired minimum of 4.0 on a scale of 1 to 5 was their ability to use ethical guidelines and critical thinking to resolve ethical dilemmas
encountered in the field. The program needs to examine reasons for the decrease in confidence between cohorts 1 and 2 and find ways to
ensure that students are gaining an understanding of ethical dilemmas and how to resolve them.
Revised 6-16-11
Page 8
Table 25
HUMAN BEHAVIOR IN THE SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT II
MEAN SCORE (5-POINT SCALE, 5 = “VERY MUCH AGREE”)
ITEM
ACADEMIC YEAR
1. I understand the effects of oppression on human behavior based on, social class, race, ethnicity, culture, gender, sexual
orientation, age, religion, and disability status.
2. I am able to examine critically the variations in human situations due to the transaction of bio-psycho-socio-cultural,
spiritual, political and economic forces that may either encourage or impede self-determination and the individual’s worth
and dignity.
3. I am able to think critically as evidenced in class discussions and written assignments.
4. I am able to explore personal biases and stereotypes that can affect my understanding of human behavior.
5. I know how biological, psychological, socio-cultural, spiritual, and physical forces affect diverse individuals, family, groups,
and community functioning.
6. I am able to examine and critically evaluate the values underlying human behavior theories and their relevance to social
work values and principles.
7. I am able to identify contributions of physical, social, and psychological development in assessing and understanding
human behavior and their relevance to practice interventions at all levels.
8. I am able to identify and understand the developmental stages of the life span from middle childhood through elder
development.
9. I am able to articulate the interconnections between early and later life experiences and how inequities in early life and
across the life span become related to older adults.
MEAN SCORES
2009-2010
2010-2011
4.78
4.38
4.50
4.56
4.72
4.46
4.46
4.46
4.56
4.38
4.11
4.23
4.22
4.23
4.61
4.54
4.56
4.31
Students in the second semester of Human Behavior in the Social Environment also felt quite confident of their mastery of the topics.
Revised 6-16-11
Page 9
Table 26
RACE, ETHNICITY, DIVERSITY
MEAN SCORE (5-POINT SCALE, 5 = “VERY MUCH AGREE”)
ITEM
ACADEMIC YEAR
1. I am able to demonstrate an understanding of the historical and contemporary significance of racial, ethnic,
cultural and socially diverse groupings in the U.S and the global community.
2. I am able to demonstrate an understanding of key concepts which shape perceptions of human differences,
including race, class, gender, ethnicity, national origin, culture, language, immigration status, sexual orientation,
marital status, age, political ideology, religion, and disability status.
3. I can demonstrate an understanding of the impact of social and cultural forces on identity formation and human
behavior.
4. I can demonstrate an understanding of the negative effects of racism, discrimination, social exclusion and
oppression on socially-designated minority groups.
5. I can demonstrate an understanding of the ways in which racism, prejudice, and stereotyping are embedded
within American culture, and affect the distribution of power within the social structures of the society.
6. I am able to demonstrate a commitment to the values and ethics of the social work profession in working with
diverse client populations.
7. I can demonstrate an understanding of how diverse communities are impacted by the unequal distribution of
social resources.
8. I can demonstrate an understanding of social policy, organizational and social service programming interventions
and how they affect different client populations in diverse communities.
9. I can demonstrate an appreciation of the relationship between one's own socialization and one’s interactions
with others whose backgrounds are different.
10. I can demonstrate knowledge about how our sociocultural attitudes can influence our judgments about clients'
strengths and vulnerabilities.
MEAN SCORES
2009-2010
2010-2011
4.50
4.73
4.50
4.73
4.45
4.73
4.60
4.82
4.65
4.82
4.75
4.73
4.55
4.64
4.35
4.64
4.70
4.80
4.75
4.89
Similarly, students in Race, Ethnicity, Diversity were quite confident of their mastery of the competencies.
Revised 6-16-11
Page 10
Table 27
FOUNDATION SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE II
MEAN SCORE (5-POINT SCALE, 5 = “VERY MUCH AGREE”)
ITEM
ACADEMIC YEAR
1. I identify as a professional social worker and conduct myself accordingly.
2. I apply professional values and ethics principles that guide professional practice.
3. I demonstrate self-awareness and the “use of self” appropriately in my professional practice.
4. I apply the advanced generalist practice model to work with diverse organizations,
communities, and families.
5. I demonstrate skills in engagement, problem identification, goal setting, data collection, assessment, contracting,
planning and implementing interventions, evaluation, and termination.
6. I apply ecosystems, strengths-based and empowerment perspectives of practice in work with client systems of
varied sizes
7. I incorporate cultural competence standards in practice with diverse organizations, communities, groups, and
families.
8. I use supervision appropriately in practice settings.
9. I write effectively using a variety of formats
10. I evaluate research and practice interventions inclusive of social policy and evidence-based practice models to
assess their strengths and limitations for use in varied practice contexts.
MEAN SCORES
2009-2010
4.72
4.67
4.61
2010-2011
4.62
4.46
4.54
4.39
4.46
4.56
4.38
4.50
4.31
4.56
4.39
4.56
4.46
4.62
4.36
4.22
4.33
Students in the second foundation practice course rated their level of competence highly.
Revised 6-16-11
Page 11
Table 28
FOUNDATION SOCIAL WORK RESEARCH
MEAN SCORE (5-POINT SCALE, 5 = “VERY MUCH AGREE”)
ITEM
ACADEMIC YEAR
1. I am able to imagine when research is used and critically examine the components of the research process.
2. I am able to formulate, measure, and analyze a researchable problem.
3. I am able to critically analyze the use of a single case design.
4. I am able to conduct appropriate data analysis.
5. I am able to identify the concerns inherent in research that are relative to vulnerable populations (sample
selection, measurement instruments, etc.) and analyze both quantitative and qualitative data.
6. I am able to use the Internet to obtain material pertinent to evaluation of practice at the individual and the larger
social system level and critically to evaluate web resources.
7. I am able clearly to describe ethical concerns that must be addressed when conducting research.
8. I demonstrate professional values and ethics in social work research.
MEAN SCORES
2009-2010
4.25
3.80
3.90
3.55
2010-2011
3.54
3.08
3.23
2.92
4.05
3.77
4.15
4.20
4.22
4.00
4.08
4.08
In the first cohort (2009-2010), the Foundation Social Work Research course had three areas where students’ ratings did not reach the desired
minimum of 4.00. These findings were reported to the faculty for consideration in the next round of teaching this course. It is of some concern
that students in the 2010-2011 cohort appeared to feel even less confident that those in the first cohort. The very low scores in Objectives 2, 3,
and 4 are especially troublesome. It has been suggested that some examination of the sequencing of topics in the Foundation Research and
Advanced Research courses may be appropriate. Further discussion of this should occur in the Curriculum Committee and among those teaching
the research sequence. Modifications should be put in place before Fall 2011.
Revised 6-16-11
Page 12
Table 29
FIELD II
MEAN SCORE (5-POINT SCALE, 5 = “VERY MUCH AGREE”)
ITEM
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
I apply core social work values, ethics, ethical guidelines and critical thinking to resolve ethical dilemmas.
I demonstrate self- awareness and the professional “use of self in social work practice consistent with
professional values and ethics”.
I apply cultural competence standards of practice and address barriers to ethical and cultural competence in
practice.
I understand the effects of oppression, discrimination, respect for diversity, human rights, social and economic
justice; as well as strategies to promote shared power, distributive justice, equity, and civil and human rights.
I demonstrate skill in applying the advanced generalist practice approach in work with organizations and
communities that serve diverse individuals, families, and groups.
I effectively apply skills in engagement, problem identification, goal setting, data collection, contracting,
assessment, planning interventions, evaluation, termination and advocacy with organizations and communities
within ethical standards.
I practice with an understanding of the connection between theoretical, conceptual frameworks, evidence-based
research methodologies, and the evaluation of practice outcomes.
I write effectively using a variety of formats.
MEAN SCORES
4.59
4.45
4.59
4.36
4.53
4.45
4.41
4.45
4.29
4.18
4.41
4.27
4.29
4.50
4.18
4.09
In the second semester of field, students in both cohorts felt fairly confident about their mastery of the course objectives.
Revised 6-16-11
Page 13
Table 30
ADVANCED SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE WITH DIVERSE INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES
SOWK 5603
MEAN SCORE (5-POINT SCALE, 5 = “VERY MUCH AGREE”)
ITEM
ACADEMIC YEAR
1. I am able to integrate a wide range of knowledge and skills with goals, strategies and values pertinent to empowermentoriented social work functions in work with individuals and families.
2. I am able to engage in culturally competent practice at the individual and family levels.
3. I am able to address barriers to ethical culturally competent practice in work with individuals and families.
4. I use supervision effectively to develop the ability to function autonomously in practice settings.
5. I am able to apply research findings to assess practice outcomes and the effectiveness of their interventions at the
individual and family level.
6. I am able to apply the axes model presented in the DSM IV-TR as one component of the assessment with individuals.
7. I am able to assess the dynamics of individuals and families from diverse cultural and economic groups.
8. I am able to apply culturally competent early and middle stage intervention skills in work with diverse individuals and
families.
9. I am able to formulate plans for treatment that are culturally sensitive and address the dynamics of individuals and families.
10. I understand and am able to apply the process of termination with diverse individuals and families.
MEAN SCORES
2009-2010
2010-2011
Not applicable
4.15
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
4.45
4.30
4.60
Not applicable
4.10
Not applicable
Not applicable
4.10
4.25
Not applicable
4.15
Not applicable
Not applicable
4.20
4.30
Students in the Advanced Social Work Practice with Diverse Individuals and Families course felt fairly confident that they had mastered the
course objectives. Every rating was at least 4.1 on a scale of 1 to 5.
Revised 6-16-11
Page 14
Table 31
ADVANCED CULTURAL COMPETENCE
SOWK 5250
MEAN SCORE (5-POINT SCALE, 5 = “VERY MUCH AGREE”)
ITEM
ACADEMIC YEAR
1. I am able to practice with self-awareness, sensitivity to diversity, and knowledge of how clients’ experiences with privilege,
power, and oppression may affect their willingness and ability to engage with helping professionals.
2. I understand social work’s ongoing commitment to advance human rights and social and economic justice and how this
commitment relates to cultural competence.
3. I understand the negative effects of discrimination, social exclusion, and oppression based on personal and communal
history, social class, race, color, ethnicity, national origin, culture, language, immigration status, gender, sex, sexual
orientation, marital status, age, political ideology, religion, and disability status.
4. I am able to explain how dominant groups can be relatively unaware of their privilege and power and why this is
problematic.
5. I appreciate the standpoints and draw upon the strengths of people who have been disadvantaged by and struggled against
discrimination, social exclusion, and oppression.
6. I am able to practice using models of engagement, communication, assessment, and intervention that are responsive to the
needs of diverse client systems.
7. I am committed to a lifelong process of becoming culturally competent.
8. I am able to identify and address barriers to ethical, culturally competent practice.
9. I am able to engage in critical analysis of the impact of agency and social policies on diverse client systems and understand
social work’s role in advocating for agency and social policies that are equitable and responsive to client need.
10. I have developed leadership skills in assisting agencies to examine the experience of diverse groups in using agency services
and to enhance agency cultural competence.
11. I am able to evaluate studies published in the social work literature related to cultural competence, apply findings to
practice, and evaluate their own practice interventions.
MEAN SCORES
2009-2010
2010-2011
Not applicable
4.33
Not available
4.44
Not applicable
4.33
Not applicable
4.39
Not applicable
4.33
Not applicable
4.06
Not applicable
Not applicable
4.61
4.17
Not applicable
4.11
Not applicable
4.17
Not applicable
4.29
Students in the Advanced Cultural Competence course felt relatively confident about their mastery of the material as well.
Revised 6-16-11
Page 15
Table 32
ADVANCED SOCIAL WORK RESEARCH
SOWK 5240
MEAN SCORE (5-POINT SCALE, 5 = “VERY MUCH AGREE”)
ITEM
ACADEMIC YEAR
1. I am able to understand social science research as an enterprise that can be informed by different scientific paradigms or
philosophies.
2. I am able to articulate the basic assumptions inherent in the research process and the influence of gender, race, ethnicity,
social class, sexual orientation, age, disability, and other factors on the research process.
3. I am able to identify how research that focuses on majority populations disenfranchises the minority vulnerable
populations.
4. I understand both qualitative and quantitative research methods of conducting research.
5. I am able to identify the steps involved in conducting social research.
6. I am able to identify and understand the ethical issues involved in conducting and reporting research, including the social
work values and ethics that are pertinent to conducting and monitoring a research study.
7. I am able critically to consume (understand, analyze, interpret and utilize) research studies in the social work/human
service field.
8. I am able critically to evaluate the accuracy, objectivity, and usefulness of websites.
9. I am able to prepare a proposal using all of the steps in the research process.
10. I am able to present the results of the study orally and/or in written form.
11. I am able to utilize data analysis techniques of SPSS.
12. I am able to utilize qualitative data analysis techniques.
13. I am able to conduct a practice evaluation that evaluates the impact of interventions on the outcomes desired for clients.
MEAN SCORES
2009-2010
2010-2011
Not applicable
4.00
Not applicable
4.07
Not applicable
4.07
Not applicable
Not applicable
4.25
4.13
Not applicable
4.13
Not applicable
4.27
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
4.20
3.73
4.07
3.06
4.00
4.00
In the Advanced Social Work Research course, there were two areas where students were less certain of their abilities (see boldfaced items).
Again, these results are being presented to the faculty for their consideration. Working with SPSS was the weakest area, so more emphasis on
giving students instruction on SPSS and some assignments using it are being considered.
Revised 6-16-11
Page 16
Table 33
ADVANCED SOCIAL WELFARE POLICY
SOWK 5230
MEAN SCORE (5-POINT SCALE, 5 = “VERY MUCH AGREE”)
ITEM
ACADEMIC YEAR
1. I understand key definitions and concepts of social welfare policy as they pertain to the United States but also within
the context of comparative and global analysis.
2. I respect that the identification and meaning of social problems are socially constructed, highly contested according to
varying philosophical, economic and political ideologies, and subject to amelioration through analysis and social action.
3. I can identify my positions on philosophical, economic and political spectra as they pertain to enhancing the well-being
and the chances of the poor and oppressed in United States society.
4. I understand the causes, dimensions, and impacts of poverty on policy practice.
5. I can identify the various dimensions—policies, structures, functions, services—of the contemporary United States
social welfare state and identify policies that affect practice and discriminate against or fail to help vulnerable groups
and populations at risk.
6. I am able to demonstrate an understanding of basic concepts and processes in social policy formulation, practice, and
implementation and analyze social policies in a systematic manner.
7. I am able to integrate the social work values of opportunity, social justice, and equality into policy analysis and
practice, and recommendations for policy improvement.
8. I am able to demonstrate ability to practice policy advocacy by evaluating social policies and utilizing social work values
to recommend improvements in federal, state, and local policies and programs.
MEAN SCORES
2009-2010
2010-2011
Not applicable
4.81
Not applicable
4.88
Not applicable
Not applicable
4.75
4.75
Not applicable
4.88
Not applicable
4.88
Not applicable
4.81
Not applicable
4.69
Students appeared to feel quite confident of their level of competence in their level of mastery of course material. In this course, no score fell
below 4.69.
Revised 6-16-11
Page 17
Table 34
INTEGRATIVE SEMINAR
SOWK 5604
MEAN SCORE (5-POINT SCALE, 5 = “VERY MUCH AGREE”)
ITEM
ACADEMIC YEAR
1. I am able to demonstrate knowledge of group and community process and skills in facilitating diverse groups.
2. I am able to critically analyze and appropriately apply relevant human behavior, practice theory, and global social
welfare policies to practice situations, focusing on how they inform work with diverse, at-risk populations.
3. I can demonstrate and apply knowledge from biopsychosocial assessments of client systems in a manner that reflects
cultural competence.
4. I am able to critically analyze and evaluate the impact of social policies on client systems.
5. I can evaluate research and apply findings to practice as well as evaluate practice interventions.
6. I am able to identify and address barriers to ethical, culturally competent practice.
7. I can use supervision and consultation appropriate to self-directed practice grounded in the application of the NASW
Code of Ethics, and demonstrate an awareness of the importance of continued professional growth.
8. I am able to demonstrate good critical thinking and write effectively using a variety of formats
9. I am able to use computer skills for professional purposes.
10. I am able to integrate knowledge, skills, and values developed across the Foundation and Concentration Curricula.
MEAN SCORES
2009-2010
Not applicable
2010-2011
4.89
Not applicable
4.61
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
4.72
4.67
4.67
4.72
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
4.83
4.72
4.83
4.88
Students appeared to feel quite confident of their level of competence in their level of mastery of course material. In this course, no score fell
below 4.61.
Revised 6-16-11
Page 18
Table 35
AGING: ADVANCED PRACTICE
SOWK 5540
MEAN SCORE (5-POINT SCALE, 5 = “VERY MUCH AGREE”)
ITEM
ACADEMIC YEAR
1. Understand the nature of social gerontology, historical, contemporary, and cross
2. Understand the social consequences of physical aging and cognitive changes including current research on the causes of
aging, physiological changes with age, changes in sensory function, chronic diseases, and promoting well-being in older age.
3. Understand factors related to love, intimacy and sexuality in old age including attitudes and beliefs about sexuality in later
life, age-related physiological changes related to aging, the impact of chronic diseases on sexual activity, and gay and
lesbian partnerships in later life.
4. Understand some of the social theories of aging; and the importance of social support.
5. Understand the issues involved with aging and minority populations including older women’s needs, health status, and
social status.
6. Understand the social policies that can address social problems relevant to older adults including income security
programs, private pensions, Medicare and Medicaid.
7. Ability to identify best practice strategies with older adults that promote resilience across all client systems and to use
those strategies in developing culturally appropriate individualized service plans.
8. Ability to develop and implement best practice interventions strategies based on research findings to enhance client
empowerment and resilience in older adults.
9. Ability to apply best practice intervention strategies using micro/mezzo/macro methods of social work practice with older
adults.
10. Ability to critically evaluate their own practice within the context of best practice standards for working with older adults,
to identify factors that contribute to the success or failure of an intervention, and to develop alternative strategies to
address barriers to effective practice.
11. Articulate the historical development of policies relevant to social work practice with older adults.
12. Identify major micro and macro issues in professional practice with older adults.
13. Compare and contrast social work and other health professions in terms of their perspectives on older adult issues in order
to promote interdisciplinary collaboration and teamwork.
MEAN SCORES
2009-2010
2010-2011
Not applicable
4.50
Not applicable
4.50
Not applicable
4.50
Not applicable
4.50
Not available
4.38
Not applicable
4.25
Not applicable
4.13
Not applicable
4.25
Not applicable
4.13
Not applicable
4.25
Not applicable
Not applicable
4.13
4.63
Not applicable
4.38
Students in this elective course, Aging: Advanced Practice, were confident that they had developed mastery of the course objectives.
Revised 6-16-11
Page 19
Table 36
LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT I: LEADING AND MANAGING HUMAN SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS
SOWK 5561
MEAN SCORE (5-POINT SCALE, 5 = “VERY MUCH AGREE”)
ITEM
MEAN SCORES
ACADEMIC YEAR
1. I am able to identify leadership styles and how personal flaws can interfere with good leadership.
2. I understand the value of and how to complete a strategic plan for a human services organization.
3. I am able to establish an inspiring mission & vision statement with values that guide employee behavior.
4. I am able to prepare measurable goals and objectives for businesses.
5. I am able to identify resistance to change and strategies to minimize the impact on the organization.
6. I am able to make decisions by analyzing problems and using innovation, contingency planning and other skill sets to
monitor results and take corrective action.
7. I learned how to diagnose a time management problem, use priority establishment skills, avoid procrastination and
avoid time wasting efforts.
8. I am able to recruit and match the right staff person to the right job.
9. I am able to conduct a nondiscriminatory job interviews while responding appropriately to candidates who are covered
by legal regulations.
10. I am able to take corrective action to deal with unproductive employees and to terminate employees properly as
required.
11. I am able to prepare program and agency budgets, and monitoring systems for income and expenses.
12. I am able to determine managerial budget decisions based on variances and implementing cost cutting measures when
appropriate.
13. I am able to write effective grant/funding proposals.
14. I am able to conduct effective business meetings.
15. I am able to refine top-down and bottom-up communication strategies.
16. I am able to develop well functioning business teams and task forces to achieve action.
17. I am able to distinguish between governance and management in working with a Board of Trustees.
2009-2010
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
2010-2011
4.57
4.79
4.79
4.57
4.29
Not applicable
4.21
Not applicable
4.57
4.57
Not applicable
Not applicable
4.64
4.08
Not applicable
Not applicable
4.07
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
4.21
4.29
4.36
4.29
4.50
3.86
Students in this elective, which is one of the three required courses for the Leadership and Management Elective Specialization, were confident
in most areas, aside from one. Feedback to the instructor will be given. It may be that this course has too many objectives to cover in one
semester, so faculty will consider the option of eliminating a few of the objectives, some of which may be touched upon in one of the other
courses in this sequence. The wording of Objective 17 may have seemed a bit unclear to students completing the survey.
Revised 6-16-11
Page 20
Table 37
LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT 2: SUPERVISION AND CONSULTATION
SOWK 5562
MEAN SCORE (5-POINT SCALE, 5 = “VERY MUCH AGREE”)
ITEM
ACADEMIC YEAR
1. I can identify and define the purpose, role, and functions of supervision and consultation in clinical and managerial
human service organizational contexts.
2. I am able to apply knowledge of the basic elements of ethics, professional values, and legal issues to the process of
supervision and consultation through application to case studies.
3. I am able to analyze supervisory relationships and responsibilities related to interactions within multicultural contexts.
4. I can compare and contrast theories and models of supervision/leadership as they apply to individual and group
supervision, including identification and self-assessment of supervision/leadership styles through experiential exercises
and examination of empirical literature.
5. I can describe 3 levels of supervisee development and give examples of supervisory responses to each level.
6. I can integrate concepts of diversity into the context of supervision.
7. I am able to relate aspects of competence, informed consent, due process, and multiple relationships to risk
management in supervisory practice.
8. I can compare and contrast similarities and differences between supervision and consultation.
9. I can identify advantages of a strength-oriented approach to supervision.
10. I have fundamental competency-based skill in beginning, maintaining, and evaluating supervisor and supervisee
performance outcomes including supervisor formats and documentation.
11. Identify and discuss 3 strategies to decrease risk of burnout and increase career-enhancement activities as supervisors
and consultants.
MEAN SCORES
2009-2010
2010-2011
Not applicable
4.75
Not applicable
Not applicable
4.75
4.75
Not applicable
Not applicable
4.50
4.50
4.50
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
4.50
4.50
4.50
Not applicable
4.50
Not applicable
4.67
Not applicable
Students appeared to feel quite confident that they had mastered the material in this course, with no score falling below 4.50.
Revised 6-16-11
Page 21
Table 38
LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT 3: PROGRAM PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT, AND FUNDING
SOWK 5563
MEAN SCORE (5-POINT SCALE, 5 = “VERY MUCH AGREE”)
ITEM
ACADEMIC YEAR
1. I can articulate how social work values and ethics and have a commitment to advancing human rights that can guide
leaders and managers in designing programs that are responsive to the needs of vulnerable populations.
2. I can articulate the steps involved in creating a logic model to design a program including identifying: assessing needs;
identifying the target population; establishing goals and objectives; developing intervention strategies; and measuring
outputs, outcome, and impact.
3. I am able to draw connections between theory and program design.
4. I can identify a social problem or condition and conduct a needs assessment, as a prelude to designing a new program.
5. I can select appropriate intervention strategies to address the needs of the targeted population.
6. I am able to design a program that will effectively deliver the intervention chosen.
7. I can use management information systems to monitor service outputs.
8. I understand approaches to budgeting and design a budget for a proposed program.
9. I can identify sources of funding for new programs, and develop a grant proposal.
10. I can design an approach to monitoring service provision, evaluating program effectiveness, and determining impact.
11. I can identify and discuss 3 strategies to decrease risk of burnout and increase career-enhancement activities as
supervisors and consultants.
MEAN SCORES
2009-2010
2010-2011
Not applicable
4.54
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
4.77
4.38
4.46
4.62
4.31
4.00
4.00
4.38
4.31
Not applicable
4.46
Students in this third and final course in the Leadership and Management Elective Specialization also appeared to be confident about their
mastery of the course material; in no area did scores fall below. 4.00.
Revised 6-16-11
Page 22
Table 39
SPANISH LANGUAGE FOR SOCIAL WORK
SOWK 5520
MEAN SCORE (5-POINT SCALE, 5 = “VERY MUCH AGREE”)
ITEM
ACADEMIC YEAR
1. I have developed interpersonal, interpretive and presentational skills in Spanish.
2. I can compare and contrast Spanish and English and have greater insight into my own language and culture in the
context of professional social work practice.
3. I have developed communication strategies; i.e. I am able to say things in different ways, derive meaning from context,
understand, produce gestures effectively, and maintain patience in the communication process.
4. I have had conversational practice in Spanish through fieldwork in a placement that serves Spanish-speaking clients
and have been able to develop a project that will help Spanish-speaking clients served by a community agency or
institution.
5. I can identify social work values, which stress individual dignity, self-determination, respect for difference, adequacy of
social provisions, and responsive social programs, and am sensitized to the conflicts and ethical issues that might arise
when social workers do not use appropriate communication skills in their intervention with Spanish speaking clients.
MEAN SCORES
2009-2010
Not applicable
2010-2011
4.60
Not applicable
4.40
Not applicable
4.60
Not applicable
4.80
Not applicable
5.00
Students also rated themselves as highly confident in this elective course, with no scores falling below 4.40.
The following two tables examine the linkages between the course objectives that are most closely related to Foundation and Concentration
Program Objectives. As the tables demonstrate, the only course objectives that did not meet the threshold for success (minimum of a mean of
4.0) were: Course Objectives 5 and 6 in the Foundation Social Welfare Policy course and Foundation Social Work Research Course Objectives 1
and 2. Faculty members who teach these courses are reflecting on approaches to increasing students’ confidence in their abilities in these four
areas.
Revised 6-16-11
Page 23
TABLE 40
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLAN FOR ASSESSMENT OF FOUNDATION YEAR PROGRAM OBJECTIVES, WITH RESULTS
MSW FOUNDATION PROGRAM OBJECTIVE
MEASURED BY
GROUP MEAN SCORE MEAN SCORES
(5-POINT SCALE, 5=”VERY MUCH AGREE”)
2009-10
2010-11
THRESHHOLD
FOR SUCCESS
Foundation Objective 1.1: Understand the
effects of oppression based on personal
and communal history, social class, race,
color, ethnicity, culture, language,
immigration status, gender, sex, sexual
orientation, marital status, age, political
ideology, religion, and disability status.
Course evaluation: Race, Ethnicity,
Diversity (Course Objectives 1-5)
Course Objective 1
Course Objective 2
Course Objective 3
Course Objective 4
Course Objective 5
4.50
4.50
4.45
4.60
4.65
4.73
4.73
4.73
4.82
4.82
Average of
4.0 on 5point scale
Foundation Objective 2.1: Apply
knowledge of the biological, psychological,
environmental, and social variables that
affect human development and behavior.
Course evaluations:
HBSE I (Course Objectives 1, 4, 7, 9,
10) and HBSE II (Course Objective 5)
HBSE I Course Objective 1
HBSE I Course Objective 4
HBSE I Course Objective 7
HBSE I Course Objective 9
HBSE I Course Objective 10
HBSE II Course Objective 5
4.55
4.50
4.65
4.60
4.55
4.56
4.20
4.10
4.10
4.40
4.40
4.38
Average of
4.0 on 5point scale
Foundation Objective 2.2: Demonstrate an
understanding of theories, including the
generalist social work perspective, the
ecosystems perspective, the strengths
perspective, and empowerment practice as
ways to conceptualize social work practice
with diverse individuals, families, and
communities.
Course evaluation:
Foundation Social Work Practice I
(Course Objectives 5, 7) and
Foundation Social Work Practice II
(Course Objectives 4, 6)
FSWP I Course Objective 5
FSWP I Course Objective 7
FSWP II Course Objective 4
FSWP II Course Objective 6
4.38
4.38
4.39
4.50
4.00
4.17
4.46
4.31
Average of
4.0 on 5point scale
Revised 6-16-11
Page 24
TABLE 40
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLAN FOR ASSESSMENT OF FOUNDATION YEAR PROGRAM OBJECTIVES, WITH RESULTS
MSW FOUNDATION PROGRAM OBJECTIVE
MEASURED BY
GROUP MEAN SCORE MEAN SCORES
(5-POINT SCALE, 5=”VERY MUCH AGREE”)
2009-10
2010-11
THRESHHOLD
FOR SUCCESS
Foundation Objective 2.3: Use generalist
social work skills, including problem
identification, goal setting, data collection,
contracting, implementation of plan,
differential use of interventive roles,
evaluation, and termination.
Course evaluation: Foundation Social
Work Practice I (Course Objectives 1,
4, 5, 6)
Course evaluation: Foundation Social
Work Practice II (Course Objectives 4,
5)
FSWP I Course Objective 1
FSWP I Course Objective 4
FSWP I Course Objective 5
FSWP I Course Objective 6
FSWP II Course Objective 4
FSWP II Course Objective 5
4.57
4.19
4.38
4.62
4.39
4.56
4.25
4.25
4.17
4.08
4.46
4.38
Average of
4.0 on 5point scale
Foundation Objective 3.1: Understand the
history of the social work profession and its
current structures and issues in an era of
globalization and information technology.
Course evaluation: Foundation Social
Welfare Policy (Course Objective 1)
FSWPol Course Objective 1
4.18
4.22
Average of
4.0 on 5point scale
Foundation Objective 3.2: Critically
analyze and evaluate the impact of social
policies on client systems, workers, and
agencies.
Course evaluation: Foundation Social
Welfare Policy (Course Objectives 2, 5,
6)
FSWPol Course Objective 2
FSWPol Course Objective 5
FSWPol Course Objective 6
4.12
3.76
4.35
4.11
4.00
3.89
Average of
4.0 on 5point scale
Foundation Objective 4.2: Have a clear
understanding of cultural competence
standards.
Course evaluation: Field 2 (Course
Objective 3)
Field 2 Course Objective 3
4.43
4.45
Average of
4.0 on 5point scale
Foundation Objective 6.1: Evaluate,
design, and conduct research studies, apply
findings to practice, and evaluate their own
practice interventions.
Course evaluation: Foundation
Research (Course Objectives 1, 2)
Course Objective 1
Course Objective 2
4.25
3.80
3.54
3.08
Average of
4.0 on 5point scale
Revised 6-16-11
Page 25
TABLE 41
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLAN FOR ASSESSMENT OF CONCENTRATION YEAR PROGRAM OBJECTIVES, WITH RESULTS
MSW CONCENTRATION PROGRAM
OBJECTIVE
MEASURED BY
GROUP MEAN SCORE MEAN SCORES
(5-POINT SCALE, 5=”VERY MUCH AGREE”)
2009-10
2010-11
4.33
Concentration Objective 1.1:
Demonstrate advanced self-awareness and
comfort about different customs and
worldviews
Course evaluations: Advanced
Cultural Competence (Course
Objective 1)
Integrative Seminar (Course
Objectives 1, 2, 4, 6)
ACC Course Objective 1
IS Course Objective 1
IS Course Objective 2
IS Course Objective 4
IS Course Objective 6
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
4.89
4.61
4.67
4.72
Concentration Objective 1.2:
Engage in culturally competent practice with
diverse individuals, families, and communities
 Apply knowledge of diverse help-seeking
behaviors
 Apply understanding of language and
communication needs of diverse
individuals, families, and communities
 Use research methods and ethnographic
interviewing techniques to understand
the historical experiences and oppression
of diverse individuals, families, and
communities
 Develop and implement comprehensive
assessments, identifying culturally
normative behavior as distinguished from
dysfunctional behavior
 Develop and implement culturally
appropriate interventions for diverse
individuals, families, and communities
 Identify appropriate community resources
that are culturally relevant to the needs of
diverse individuals, families, and
communities
Course evaluations: Advanced
Cultural Competence (Course
Objectives 2, 5, 6, 7)
Advanced Social Work Practice
(Course Objectives 2, 7, 8, 9)
Integrative Seminar (Course
Objectives 1, 2, 4, 7)
ACC Course Objective 2
ACC Course Objective 5
ACC Course Objective 6
ACC Course Objective 7
ASWP Course Objective 2
ASWP Course Objective 7
ASWP Course Objective 8
ASWP Course Objective 9
IS Course Objective 1
IS Course Objective 2
IS Course Objective 4
IS Course Objective 7
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
4.44
4.33
4.06
4.61
4.45
4.25
4.15
4.20
4.89
4.61
4.67
4.83
Revised 6-16-11
THRESHHOLD
FOR SUCCESS
Average of
4.0 on 5point scale
Average of
4.0 on 5point scale
Page 26
TABLE 41
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLAN FOR ASSESSMENT OF CONCENTRATION YEAR PROGRAM OBJECTIVES, WITH RESULTS
MSW CONCENTRATION PROGRAM
OBJECTIVE
MEASURED BY
GROUP MEAN SCORE MEAN SCORES
(5-POINT SCALE, 5=”VERY MUCH AGREE”)
2009-10
2010-11
THRESHHOLD
FOR SUCCESS
Concentration Objective 2.1:
Engage in self-directed practice
 Apply specialized theoretical
perspectives; knowledge of biological,
psychological, environmental, and
social variables; and advanced
knowledge and skills creatively and
with minimal direction in working with
diverse individuals, families, and
communities
Course evaluations: Advanced Cultural
Competence (Course Objectives 1, 5,
6, 7)
Advanced Social Work Practice
(Course Objective 1)
Integrative Seminar (Course
Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 8)
ACC Course Objective 1
ACC Course Objective 5
ACC Course Objective 6
ACC Course Objective 7
ASWP Course Objective 1
IS Course Objective 1
IS Course Objective 2
IS Course Objective 3
IS Course Objective 4
IS Course Objective 8
Not
applicable
4.33
4.33
4.06
4.61
4.15
4.89
4.61
4.72
4.67
4.72
Average of 4.0
on 5
Concentration Objective 3.1:
Critically analyze, evaluate, and advocate
for social policies that respect the cultural
values, norms, and behaviors of diverse
individuals, families, and communities.
Course evaluations: Advanced Cultural
Competence (Course Objective 9)
Advanced Social Welfare Policy (All
Course Objectives)
ACC Course Objective 9
ASWPol. Course Objective 1
ASWPol. Course Objective 2
ASWPol. Course Objective 3
ASWPol. Course Objective 4
ASWPol. Course Objective 5
ASWPol. Course Objective 6
ASWPol. Course Objective 7
ASWPol. Course Objective 8
Not
applicable
4.11
4.81
4.88
4.75
4.75
4.88
4.88
4.81
4.69
Average of 4.0
on 5
Revised 6-16-11
Page 27
TABLE 41
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLAN FOR ASSESSMENT OF CONCENTRATION YEAR PROGRAM OBJECTIVES, WITH RESULTS
MSW CONCENTRATION PROGRAM
OBJECTIVE
MEASURED BY
GROUP MEAN SCORE MEAN SCORES
(5-POINT SCALE, 5=”VERY MUCH AGREE”)
2009-10
2010-11
THRESHHOLD
FOR SUCCESS
Concentration Objective 3.2:
Critically analyze and evaluate the impact
of social policies on diverse communities,
client systems, workers, and agencies.
Course evaluations: Advanced Cultural
Competence (Course Objectives 3, 9)
Advanced Social Welfare Policy (All
Course Objectives)
Integrative Seminar (Course
Objectives 5)
ACC Course Objective 3
ACC Course Objective 9
ASWPol. Course Objective 1
ASWPol. Course Objective 2
ASWPol. Course Objective 3
ASWPol. Course Objective 4
ASWPol. Course Objective 5
ASWPol. Course Objective 6
ASWPol. Course Objective 7
ASWPol. Course Objective 8
IS Course Objective 5
Not
applicable
4.33
4.11
4.81
4.88
4.75
4.75
4.88
4.88
4.81
4.69
4.67
Average of 4.0
on 5
Concentration Objective 3.3:
Advocate for, and work towards change in
social policies, organizations, and service
delivery systems when those systems fail
adequately to address the needs and
promote the well-being of diverse
individuals, families, and communities
Course evaluations: Advanced Cultural
Competence (Course Objectives 2, 6,
9)
Advanced Social Welfare Policy
(Course Objective 8)
ACC Course Objective 2
ACC Course Objective 6
ACC Course Objective 9
ASWPol Course Objective 8
Not
applicable
4.44
4.06
4.11
4.69
Average of 4.0
on 5
Concentration Objective 3.4:
Advocate for policies and procedures that
ensure diversity and inclusion in social
service organizations
Course evaluations: Advanced Cultural
Competence (Course Objectives 2, 5,
6, 9)
Advanced Social Welfare Policy
(Course Objective 8)
ACC Course Objective 2
ACC Course Objective 5
ACC Course Objective 6
ACC Course Objective 9
ASWPol Course Objective 8
Not
applicable
4.44
4.33
4.06
4.11
4.69
Average of 4.0
on 5
Revised 6-16-11
Page 28
TABLE 41
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLAN FOR ASSESSMENT OF CONCENTRATION YEAR PROGRAM OBJECTIVES, WITH RESULTS
MSW CONCENTRATION PROGRAM
OBJECTIVE
MEASURED BY
GROUP MEAN SCORE MEAN SCORES
(5-POINT SCALE, 5=”VERY MUCH AGREE”)
THRESHHOLD
FOR SUCCESS
2009-10
2010-11
Concentration Objective 4.1:
Have an advanced-level understanding of
codes of ethics that guide social work
practice, including the NASW Code of
Ethics (NASW, 1999) and the International
Federation of Social
Workers/International Association of
Schools of Social Work Ethics in Social
Work Statement of Principles
(IFSW/IASSW, 2004)
Course objectives: Advanced Research
(Course Objective 6)
Integrative Seminar (Course Objectives
7)
AR Course Objective 6
IS Course Objective 7
Not
applicable
4.13
4.83
Average of
4.0 on 5
Concentration Objective 4.2:
Apply ethical guidelines to complex
ethical dilemmas involving diverse
individuals, families, and communities to
arrive at ethically-informed decisions
Course evaluation: Integrative Seminar
(Courses Objectives 7)
IS Course Objective 7
Not
applicable
4.83
Average of
4.0 on 5
Concentration Objective 4.3:
Address barriers to ethical, culturally
competent practice
Course evaluations: Advanced Cultural
Competence (Course Objectives 4, 6, 8)
Advanced Social Work Practice (Course
Objectives 3, 7)
Integrative Seminar (Course Objectives
7)
ACC Course Objective 4
ACC Course Objective 6
ACC Course Objective 8
ASWP Course Objective 3
ASWP Course Objective 7
IS Course Objective 7
Not
applicable
4.39
4.06
4.17
4.30
4.25
4.83
Average of
4.0 on 5
Revised 6-16-11
Page 29
TABLE 41
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLAN FOR ASSESSMENT OF CONCENTRATION YEAR PROGRAM OBJECTIVES, WITH RESULTS
MSW CONCENTRATION PROGRAM
OBJECTIVE
MEASURED BY
GROUP MEAN SCORE MEAN SCORES
(5-POINT SCALE, 5=”VERY MUCH AGREE”)
2009-10
2010-11
THRESHHOLD
FOR SUCCESS
Concentration Objective 4.4:
Take leadership roles in promoting cultural
competence within the social work
profession and in human service policies,
programs, and organizations
Course evaluations: Advanced Cultural
Competence (Course Objective 10)
Advanced Research (Course
Objectives 2, 3)
Integrative Seminar (Course
Objectives 7)
ACC Course Objective 10
AR Course Objective 2
AR Course Objective 3
IS Course Objective 7
Not
applicable
4.17
4.07
4.07
4.83
Average of 4.0
on 5
Concentration Objective 5.1:
Use supervision and consultation
appropriate to autonomous practice,
grounded in the application of the NASW
Code of Ethics
Course evaluations: Advanced Social
Work Practice (Course Objective 4)
Integrative Seminar (Course
Objectives 8)
ASWP Course Objective 4
IS Course Objective 8
Not
applicable
4.60
4.72
Average of 4.0
on 5
Concentration Objective 5.2:
Prepare for social work licensure and
commit to maintaining currency and
effectiveness through reading the
professional literature, participating in
continuing professional education, and
pursuing advanced certification in specialty
areas when appropriate
Course evaluations: Advanced Cultural
Competence (Course Objective 7)
Advanced Social Work Practice
(Course Objective 6)
ACC Course Objective 7
ASWP Course Objective 6
Not
applicable
4.61
4.10
Average of 4.0
on 5
Concentration Objective 6.1:
Using critical thinking, apply research
methodologies to practice, policy, and
service delivery issues, and evaluate
practice interventions.
Course evaluations:
Advanced Research (Course
Objectives 4, 7, 8, 9)
Advanced Social Work Practice
(Course Objective 5)
Integrative Seminar (Course
Objectives 6, 9, 10)
AR Course Objective 4
AR Course Objective 7
AR Course Objective 8
AR Course Objective 9
IS Course Objective 6
IS Course Objective 9
IS Course Objective 10
Not
applicable
4.25
4.27
4.20
3.73
Average of 4.0
on 5
Revised 6-16-11
4.72
4.83
4.88
Page 30
Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation of Field
The instrument for assessing student field performance was designed to elicit a more objective evaluation of MSW Program outcomes. Unlike
the self-assessment of mastery of course or program objectives, which is completed by students, or the Critical Thinking Assessment at Entrance,
which is rated by faculty, the Field Evaluation is completed by field instructors, who are in a position to observe directly how students integrate
classroom learning across the curriculum and apply it to real-life situations in the field. This, we believe, is the most objective and comprehensive
evaluation of how successful the MSW Program is meeting its Program Objectives.
Field learning provides an essential arena for practice and assessment of learning outcomes. Specifically, field experiences are designed to
support classroom instruction and the achievement of learning outcomes specified in the MSW program goals and objectives. Field experiences
are elicited in some courses as illustrations of theories, concepts, and evidence-based practice models taught in the classroom. While the field
internship itself is structured by learning contracts, learning activities derived from program goals and objectives, and performance evaluations,
integration of theory and practice is achieved through the interface of curriculum content and applied student experience. Field evaluation of
student performance is therefore an important aspect of learning outcome assessment because its evaluation design is grounded within the
goals and objectives of the MSW Program.
The student field evaluation instrument was systematically designed to assess desired learning outcomes. The student, field instructor, and Field
Coordinator mutually rate student performance using a Likert Scale according to specified parameters. Additionally the field instructor provides
a written narrative addressing student strengths, needed improvement areas, tasks assigned and completed, and prognosis for potential success
in professional practice.
During the 12th week of the semester, final student evaluations are completed again through a mutual process by the student, field instructor
and Field Coordinator reviewing student performance in reference to task completion, use of self, professional values and ethics, and mastery of
knowledge as agreed upon in the learning contract developed over the course of the semester. The final evaluation is completed in writing by
the field instructor and has both qualitative and quantitative components as noted above.
Qualitative Data Analysis (Dominant Themes Emergent from Analysis of Field Instructor Narratives)
In 2009-2010, qualitative data was only available for Semesters 1 and 2 of the Foundation Year. Here are the findings:
I. Summary of student activities
 Participating in an orientation to agency/service delivery
 Observing groups (task or treatment), group facilitation or group presentations
Revised 6-16-11
Page 31








Assessing, treatment planning, monitoring of service delivery, discharge planning
Reviewing and/or discussing professional values and ethics
Participating in cultural diversity/cultural sensitivity tasks
Facilitating groups (parenting skills, social skills, therapy, support)
Conducting counseling
Participating in multidisciplinary meetings
Participating in agency training and skill building activities (documentation, interventions, grant writing, policy and procedure
manual construction, court procedures, insurance and utilization review)
Participating in weekly supervision
II. Student strengths
 Enthusiastic, motivated to learn
 Serious, responsible, cooperative, disciplined, dependable, structured
 Nonjudgmental
 Caring, compassionate
 Prepared, focused, organized
 Good time-management skills
 Good documentation skills
 Good assessment, interpersonal, interviewing, communication, and critical thinking skills
 Able to establish rapport
 Knowledge of and adherence to social work values and ethics
 Able to integrate theory with practice
 Able to identify culturally sensitive issues
III. Areas that need improvement
 Self confidence
 Self-awareness
 Punctuality
 Better use of supervision
 More exposure to applied learning opportunities
 Writing case and process notes
 Conducting more comprehensive assessments
Revised 6-16-11
Page 32








Employing use of self in counseling
Using social work model in counseling techniques, not intuition
Improving interview skills with diverse populations, improved cultural competence
More familiarity with additional therapeutic interventions
More exposure to policy
More exposure to work with children and families
Enhanced ability to recognize psychopathology
More familiarity and practice with DSM IV diagnoses
IV. Student potential
 All students were thought to have professional potential
 Students exhibited the necessary skills—were able to express empathy, had a great level of insight into people’s problems, and
adhered closely to social work values and ethics
V. Other
 One field instructor offered a comment that the student’s personal history of MS, mental illness, and recovery from alcoholism was
an asset to becoming a client/consumer advocate.
In 2010-2011, qualitative data was analyzed for both the final field evaluations in the Foundation and Concentration Years (Field II and Field IV):
Qualitative Data Analysis Field II (Spring 2011) – Dominant Themes Emergent from Analysis of Field Instructor Narratives
I.
Summary of Student Activities
 Facilitating groups (parenting skills, therapy, support, social skills)
 Biopsychosocial assessments, treatment planning, discharge planning
 Observation of individual counseling sessions
 Home, field, and school visits with supervisors
 Data entry and collection
 Individual counseling
 Enhancing skills such as documentation/progress notes, grant compliance
 Attended weekly supervision, staff meetings, treatment team meetings
 Referrals to community resources, case management
Revised 6-16-11
Page 33
II.
Student Strengths
 Enthusiastic, motivated to learn, passionate, tenacious, perseverant
 Able to skillfully establish rapport with clients
 Reliable, flexible, engaged in agency work
 Good communication, nonjudgmental, calm and supportive
 Integrate theory and practice, good documentation skills
 Ability to anticipate potential problems
 Competent in research and theory
III.
Areas in need of improvement
 Building self-confidence with different client situations
 Time management/multitasking
 Less directive and more process oriented toward self-determination
IV.
Student Potential
 All students were thought to have professional potential
 Students possessed the necessary skills – empathy and concern for clients, respect for cultural diversity, insight into clients’
problems
V.
Other
 One field instructor mentioned that we should allow students to drive agency vans as they are covered under their insurance and
would be able to have more autonomy and client interaction
Qualitative Data Analysis – Field IV ( Dominant Themes Emergent from Analysis of Field Instructor Narratives)
I.
Summary of Student Activities
 Attended weekly staff meetings and supervision, including treatment team meetings
 Initial assessments (biopsychosocial), treatment planning and intervention, discharge planning and resource attainment
 Individual, family, and group counseling
 Developed in-service training and educational resource development
 Quality assurance committee activities (i.e. updating resource management)
Revised 6-16-11
Page 34



Administrative/leadership activities including, grant writing and grant compliance
Constructed IEP’s , treatment planning, and process notes
Data collection and analysis
II.
Student Strengths
 Willingness to learn/motivated
 Demonstrates empathy, positive demeanor, and adherence to ethics
 Good documentation, knowledge of community resources
 Strong assessment and intervention
 Ability to connect theory to practice
 Consistent connection of theory to practice
 Ability to be autonomous
 Works well with culturally diverse clients
III.
Areas that need improvement
 Self confidence in the ability to provide assessment, interventions and discharge planning
 Dealing with difficult client situations
 Time management
 Improve/enhance clinical skills and use of DSM – IV
IV.
Student Potential
 All students were thought to have professional potential
 Many of the comments indicated that students were hard workers with a desire to hire students at their agencies on a full-time
basis
The qualitative analysis of the narrative section of students’ field evaluation show us that students are getting a range of good learning
experiences in their field placements. Those experiences increase in depth during the year, as students move from observation to participation
with others to independent activity. Field instructors see the students as having many strengths, and they also realistically perceive the areas
where students need to grow professionally. There appears to be steady progression from the first semester to the second and from the first
year to the second, as students gain confidence and experience. Field instructors see all of the students as having professional potential.
Revised 6-16-11
Page 35
Quantitative Data Analysis (Field Instructor Ratings of Student Performance, Using a 5-point Likert Scale)
Table 42
Quantitative Field Data (Threshold for success: 85% met or exceeded expectations)
PROGRAM OBJECTIVE TO BE MEASURED
Foundation Objective 1.1: Understand the
effects of oppression based on personal and
communal history, social class, race, color,
ethnicity, culture, language, immigration
status, gender, sex, sexual orientation,
marital status, age, political ideology,
religion, and disability status.
Rating
2009-2010
Semester 1
2009-2010
Semester 2
Intern excelled
54.4%
66.7%
25.0%
36.4%
Functioning above expectations
32.1%
27.8%
50.0%
54.5%
Met expectations
9.0%
5.6%
0.0%
9.1%
Not as yet met expectations
4.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
No indication will meet expectations
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Not applicable or not available
0.0%
0.0%
25.0%
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100%
Intern excelled
50.0%
72.2%
33.3%
63.6%
Functioning above expectations
32.1%
16.7%
50.0%
27.3%
Met expectations
13.4%
5.6%
0.0%
9.1%
Not as yet met expectations
0.0%
5.6%
0.0%
0.0%
No indication will meet expectations
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Not applicable or not available
4.5%
0.0%
16.7%
0.0
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Intern excelled
37.5%
50.0%
25.0%
27.3%
Functioning above expectations
37.5%
44.4
33.3%
45.5%
Met expectations
20.5%
5.6%
25.0%
27.3%
Not as yet met expectations
4.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
No indication will meet expectations
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Not applicable or not available
0.0%
0.0%
16.7%
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
TOTAL
Foundation Objective 1.2: Practice with an
understanding of human rights, social
justice, and respect for diversity.
TOTAL
Foundation Objective 2.1: Apply knowledge
of the biological, psychological,
environmental, and social variables that
affect human development and behavior.
TOTAL
Revised 6-16-11
2010-2011
Semester 1
2010-2011
Semester 2
Page 36
PROGRAM OBJECTIVE TO BE MEASURED
Rating
2009-2010
Semester 1
2009-2010
Semester 2
2010-2011
Semester 1
2010-2011
Semester 2
Foundation Objective 2.2: Demonstrate an
understanding of theories, including the
generalist social work perspective, the
ecosystems perspective, the strengths
perspective, and empowerment practice as
ways to conceptualize social work practice
with diverse individuals, families, and
communities.
Intern excelled
49.0%
50.0%
33.3%
45.5%
Functioning above expectations
18.1%
38.9%
8.3%
27.3%
Met expectations
28.4%
11.1%
41.7%
27.3%
Not as yet met expectations
4.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
No indication will meet expectations
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Not applicable or not available
0.0%
0.0%
16.7%
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Foundation Objective 2.3: Use generalist
social work skills, including problem
identification, goal setting, data collection,
contracting, implementation of plan,
differential use of interventive roles,
evaluation, and termination.
Intern excelled
49.0%
61.1%
25.0%
36.4%
Functioning above expectations
37.5%
38.9%
25.0%
45.5%
Met expectations
4.5%
0.0%
33.3%
18.2%
Not as yet met expectations
4.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
No indication will meet expectations
4.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Not applicable or not available
0.0%
0.0%
16.7%
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Intern excelled
30.0%
50.0%
16.7%
18.2%
Functioning above expectations
43.0%
33.3%
41.7%
54.5%
Met expectations
18.0%
16.7%
25.0%
18.2%
Not as yet met expectations
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
9.1%
No indication will meet expectations
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0
Not applicable or not available
0.0%
0.0%
16.7%
0.0
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100%
TOTAL
TOTAL
Foundation Objective 3.1: Understand the
history of the social work profession and its
current structures and issues in an era of
globalization and information technology.
TOTAL
Revised 6-16-11
Page 37
PROGRAM OBJECTIVE TO BE MEASURED
Foundation Objective 3.2: Critically analyze
and evaluate the impact of social policies on
client systems, workers, and agencies.
Rating
2009-2010
Semester 1
2009-2010
Semester 2
Intern excelled
37.0%
61.1%
41.7%
63.6%
Functioning above expectations
30.0%
33.3%
16.7%
18.2%
Met expectations
24.0%
5.6%
25.0%
18.2%
Not as yet met expectations
4.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
No indication will meet expectations
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Not applicable or not available
4.5%
0.0%
16.7%
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100%
Intern excelled
45.9%
61.1%
33.3%
36.4%
Functioning above expectations
49.6%
33.3%
8.3%
27.3%
Met expectations
4.5%
5.6%
41.7%
36.4%
Not as yet met expectations
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
No indication will meet expectations
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Not applicable or not available
0.0%
0.0%
16.7%
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.00%
Intern excelled
45.5%
50.0%
41.7%
58.3%
Functioning above expectations
29.2%
44.4%
33.3%
25.0%
Met expectations
22.7%
5.6%
8.3%
8.3%
Not as yet met expectations
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
8.3%
No indication will meet expectations
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Not applicable or not available
4.5%
0.0%
16.7%
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
TOTAL
Foundation Objective 3.3: Function within
the structures of organizations and service
delivery systems and, if necessary, identify
and seek changes.
TOTAL
Foundation Objective 4.1 Understand core
social work values, identify ethical
dilemmas, and use ethical guidelines and
critical thinking skills to resolve them
TOTAL
Revised 6-16-11
2010-2011
Semester 1
2010-2011
Semester 2
Page 38
PROGRAM OBJECTIVE TO BE MEASURED
Foundation Objective 4.2: Have a clear
understanding of cultural competence
standards.
Rating
2009-2010
Semester 1
2009-2010
Semester 2
Intern excelled
54.8%
50.0%
41.7%
58.3%
Functioning above expectations
18.1%
50.0%
25.0%
25.0%
Met expectations
18.1%
0.0%
16.7%
16.7%
Not as yet met expectations
4.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
No indication will meet expectations
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Not applicable or not available
4.5%
0.0%
16.7%
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100%
Intern excelled
45.5%
61.1%
33.3%
75.0%
Functioning above expectations
41.0%
38.9%
33.3%
8.3%
Met expectations
9.0%
0.0%
16.7%
8.3%
Not as yet met expectations
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
8.3%
No indication will meet expectations
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Not applicable or not available
4.5%
0.0%
16.7%
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Intern excelled
45.5%
61.1%
33.3%
41.7%
Functioning above expectations
22.7%
33.3%
8.3%
33.3%
Met expectations
27.3%
5.6%
41.7%
25.0%
Not as yet met expectations
4.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
No indication will meet expectations
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Not applicable or not available
0.0%
0.0%
16.7%
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
TOTAL
Foundation Objective 4.3: Identify barriers
to ethical, culturally competent practice.
TOTAL
Foundation Objective 5.1: Demonstrate an
understanding of the professional use of
self, especially the importance of selfawareness.
TOTAL
Revised 6-16-11
2010-2011
Semester 1
2010-2011
Semester 2
Page 39
PROGRAM OBJECTIVE TO BE MEASURED
Foundation Objective 5.2 Carry out selfdirected practice and use supervision and
consultation appropriate to autonomous
practice, grounded in the application of the
NASW Code of Ethics.
Rating
2010-2011
Semester 2
66.7%
33.3%
41.7%
Functioning above expectations
41.0%
27.7%
16.7%
41.7%
Met expectations
4.5%
5.6%
33.3%
8.3%
Not as yet met expectations
4.5%
0.0%
0.0%
8.3%
No indication will meet expectations
4.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.05
Not applicable or not available
0.0%
0.0%
16.7%
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Intern excelled
18.1%
44.4%
0.0%
8.3%
Functioning above expectations
13.6%
27.8%
16.7%
16.7%
9.0%
11.1%
8.3%
8.3%
30.1%
0.0%
8.3%
16.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
29.2%
16.7%
66.7%
50.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.00
Intern excelled
22.7%
44.4%
8.3%
16.7%
Functioning above expectations
22.7%
33.3%
33.3%
50.0%
9.0%
11.1%
8.3%
16.7%
36.6%
0.0%
25.0%
8.3%
Met expectations
No indication will meet expectations
Not applicable or not available
TOTAL
Met expectations
Not as yet met expectations
No indication will meet expectations
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Not applicable or not available
9.0%
11.1%
30.8%
8.3%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100%
TOTAL
Revised 6-16-11
2010-2011
Semester 1
45.5%
Not as yet met expectations
Foundation Objective 6.2: Write effectively
in a variety of formats used in social work
practice.
2009-2010
Semester 2
Intern excelled
TOTAL
Foundation Objective 6.1: Evaluate, design,
and conduct research studies, apply findings
to practice, and evaluate their own practice
interventions.
2009-2010
Semester 1
Page 40
Table 43
Quantitative Field Data: Concentration (Threshold for success: 85% met or exceeded expectations)
PROGRAM OBJECTIVE TO BE MEASURED
Concentration Objective 1.1:
Demonstrate advanced self-awareness and
comfort about different customs and
worldviews
Revised 6-16-11
Rating
2009-2010
Semester 1
2009-2010
Semester 2
2010-2011
Semester 1
2010-2011
Semester 2
Intern excelled
N.A.
N.A.
25.0%
60.0%
Functioning above expectations
N.A.
N.A.
65.0%
35.0%
Met expectations
N.A.
N.A.
10.0%
5.0%
Not as yet met expectations
N.A.
N.A.
0.0%
0.0%
No indication will meet expectations
N.A.
N.A.
0.0%
0.0%
Not applicable or not available
N.A.
N.A.
0.0%
0.0%
TOTAL
N.A.
N.A.
100.0%
100.0%
Page 41
PROGRAM OBJECTIVE TO BE MEASURED
Concentration Objective 1.2:
Engage in culturally competent practice with
diverse individuals, families, and
communities
 Apply knowledge of diverse helpseeking behaviors
 Apply understanding of language and
communication needs of diverse
individuals, families, and communities
 Use research methods and
ethnographic interviewing techniques
to understand the historical
experiences and oppression of diverse
individuals, families, and communities
 Develop and implement comprehensive
assessments, identifying culturally
normative behavior as distinguished
from dysfunctional behavior
 Develop and implement culturally
appropriate interventions for diverse
individuals, families, and communities
 Identify appropriate community
resources that are culturally relevant to
the needs of diverse individuals,
families, and communities
Revised 6-16-11
Rating
2009-2010
Semester 1
2009-2010
Semester 2
2010-2011
Semester 1
2010-2011
Semester 2
Intern excelled
N.A.
N.A.
20.0%
70.0%
Functioning above expectations
N.A.
N.A.
60.0%
30%
Met expectations
N.A.
N.A.
20.0%
0.0%
Not as yet met expectations
N.A.
N.A.
0.0%
0.0%
No indication will meet expectations
N.A.
N.A.
0.0%
0.0%
Not applicable or not available
N.A.
N.A.
0.0%
0.0%
TOTAL
N.A.
N.A.
100.0%
100%
Page 42
PROGRAM OBJECTIVE TO BE MEASURED
Rating
2009-2010
Semester 1
2009-2010
Semester 2
2010-2011
Semester 1
2010-2011
Semester 2
Concentration Objective 2.1:
Engage in self-directed practice
 Apply specialized theoretical
perspectives; knowledge of
biological, psychological,
environmental, and social
variables; and advanced knowledge
and skills creatively and with
minimal direction in working with
diverse individuals, families, and
communities
Intern excelled
N.A.
N.A.
40.0%
75.0%
Functioning above expectations
N.A.
N.A.
35.0%
25.0%
Met expectations
N.A.
N.A.
25.0%
0.0%
Not as yet met expectations
N.A.
N.A.
0.0%
0.0%
No indication will meet expectations
N.A.
N.A.
0.0%
0.0%
Not applicable or not available
N.A.
N.A.
0.0%
0.0%
TOTAL
N.A.
N.A.
100.0%
100%
Concentration Objective 3.1:
Critically analyze, evaluate, and advocate for
social policies that respect the cultural
values, norms, and behaviors of diverse
individuals, families, and communities.
Intern excelled
N.A.
N.A.
25.0%
55.0%
Functioning above expectations
N.A.
N.A.
55.0%
30.0%
Met expectations
N.A.
N.A.
20.0%
15.0%
Not as yet met expectations
N.A.
N.A.
0.0%
0.0%
No indication will meet expectations
N.A.
N.A.
0.0%
0.0%
Not applicable or not available
N.A.
N.A.
0.0%
0.0%
TOTAL
N.A.
N.A.
100.0%
100.0%
Intern excelled
N.A.
N.A.
20.0%
60.0%
Functioning above expectations
N.A.
N.A.
50.0%
40.0%
Met expectations
N.A.
N.A.
25.0%
0.0%
Not as yet met expectations
N.A.
N.A.
5.0%
0.0%
No indication will meet expectations
N.A.
N.A.
0.0%
0.0%
Not applicable or not available
N.A.
N.A.
0.0%
0.0%
TOTAL
N.A.
N.A.
100.0%
100.0%
Concentration Objective 3.2:
Critically analyze and evaluate the impact of
social policies on diverse communities,
client systems, workers, and agencies.
Revised 6-16-11
Page 43
PROGRAM OBJECTIVE TO BE MEASURED
Concentration Objective 3.3:
Advocate for, and work towards change in
social policies, organizations, and service
delivery systems when those systems fail
adequately to address the needs and
promote the well-being of diverse
individuals, families, and communities
Concentration Objective 3.4:
Advocate for policies and procedures that
ensure diversity and inclusion in social
service organizations
Concentration Objective 4.1:
Have an advanced-level understanding of
codes of ethics that guide social work
practice, including the NASW Code of Ethics
(NASW, 1999) and the International
Federation of Social Workers/International
Association of Schools of Social Work Ethics
in Social Work Statement of Principles
(IFSW/IASSW, 2004)
Revised 6-16-11
Rating
2009-2010
Semester 1
2009-2010
Semester 2
2010-2011
Semester 1
2010-2011
Semester 2
Intern excelled
N.A.
N.A.
15.0%
60.0%
Functioning above expectations
N.A.
N.A.
40.0%
25.0%
Met expectations
N.A.
N.A.
40.0%
15.0%
Not as yet met expectations
N.A.
N.A.
0.0%
0.0%
No indication will meet expectations
N.A.
N.A.
0.0%
0.0%
Not applicable or not available
N.A.
N.A.
5.0%
0.0%
TOTAL
N.A.
N.A.
100.0%
100.0%
Intern excelled
N.A.
N.A.
20.0%
55.0%
Functioning above expectations
N.A.
N.A.
30.0%
20.0%
Met expectations
N.A.
N.A.
45.0%
20.0%
Not as yet met expectations
N.A.
N.A.
0.0%
0.0%
No indication will meet expectations
N.A.
N.A.
0.0%
0.0%
Not applicable or not available
N.A.
N.A.
5.0%
5.0%
TOTAL
N.A.
N.A.
100.0%
100.0%
Intern excelled
N.A.
N.A.
35.0%
65.0%
Functioning above expectations
N.A.
N.A.
50.0%
30.0%
Met expectations
N.A.
N.A.
15.0%
5.0%
Not as yet met expectations
N.A.
N.A.
0.0%
0.0%
No indication will meet expectations
N.A.
N.A.
0.0%
0.0%
Not applicable or not available
N.A.
N.A.
0.0%
0.0%
TOTAL
N.A.
N.A.
100.0%
100.0%
Page 44
PROGRAM OBJECTIVE TO BE MEASURED
Concentration Objective 4.2:
Apply ethical guidelines to complex ethical
dilemmas involving diverse individuals,
families, and communities to arrive at
ethically-informed decisions
Concentration Objective 4.3:
Address barriers to ethical, culturally
competent practice
Concentration Objective 4.4:
Take leadership roles in promoting cultural
competence within the social work
profession and in human service policies,
programs, and organizations
Revised 6-16-11
Rating
2009-2010
Semester 1
2009-2010
Semester 2
2010-2011
Semester 1
2010-2011
Semester 2
Intern excelled
N.A.
N.A.
25.0%
55.0%
Functioning above expectations
N.A.
N.A.
60.0%
35.0%
Met expectations
N.A.
N.A.
10.0%
10.0%
Not as yet met expectations
N.A.
N.A.
5.0%
0.0%
No indication will meet expectations
N.A.
N.A.
0.0%
0.0%
Not applicable or not available
N.A.
N.A.
0.0%
0.0%
TOTAL
N.A.
N.A.
100.0%
100.0%
Intern excelled
N.A.
N.A.
20.0%
65.0%
Functioning above expectations
N.A.
N.A.
50.0%
30.0%
Met expectations
N.A.
N.A.
30.0%
5.0%
Not as yet met expectations
N.A.
N.A.
0.0%
0.0%
No indication will meet expectations
N.A.
N.A.
0.0%
0.0%
Not applicable or not available
N.A.
N.A.
0.0%
0.0%
TOTAL
N.A.
N.A.
100.0%
100.0%
Intern excelled
N.A.
N.A.
10.0%
40.0%
Functioning above expectations
N.A.
N.A.
55.0%
40.0%
Met expectations
N.A.
N.A.
35.0%
10.0%
Not as yet met expectations
N.A.
N.A.
0.0%
0.0%
No indication will meet expectations
N.A.
N.A.
0.0%
0.0%
Not applicable or not available
N.A.
N.A.
0.0%
10.0%
TOTAL
N.A.
N.A.
100.0%
100.0%
Page 45
PROGRAM OBJECTIVE TO BE MEASURED
2010-2011
Semester 1
2010-2011
Semester 2
N.A.
30.0%
60.0%
N.A.
60.0%
35.0%
N.A.
N.A.
10.0%
5.0%
Not as yet met expectations
N.A.
N.A.
0.0%
0.0%
No indication will meet expectations
N.A.
N.A.
0.0%
0.0%
Not applicable or not available
N.A.
N.A.
0.0%
0.0%
TOTAL
N.A.
N.A.
100.0%
100.0%
Concentration Objective 5.2:
Prepare for social work licensure and
commit to maintaining currency and
effectiveness through reading the
professional literature, participating in
continuing professional education, and
pursuing advanced certification in specialty
areas when appropriate
Intern excelled
N.A.
N.A.
35.0%
65.0%
Functioning above expectations
N.A.
N.A.
55.0%
30.0%
Met expectations
N.A.
N.A.
10.0%
5.0%
Not as yet met expectations
N.A.
N.A.
0.0%
0.0%
No indication will meet expectations
N.A.
N.A.
0.0%
0.0%
Not applicable or not available
N.A.
N.A.
0.0%
0.0%
TOTAL
N.A.
N.A.
100.0%
100.0%
Concentration Objective 6.1:
Using critical thinking, apply research
methodologies to practice, policy, and
service delivery issues, and evaluate practice
interventions.
Intern excelled
N.A.
N.A.
30.0%
40.0%
Functioning above expectations
N.A.
N.A.
40.0%
50.0%
Met expectations
N.A.
N.A.
20.0%
10.0%
Not as yet met expectations
N.A.
N.A.
0.0%
0.0%
No indication will meet expectations
N.A.
N.A.
0.0%
0.0%
Not applicable or not available
N.A.
N.A.
10.0%
0.0%
TOTAL
N.A.
N.A.
100.0%
100.0%
Concentration Objective 5.1:
Use supervision and consultation
appropriate to autonomous practice,
grounded in the application of the NASW
Code of Ethics
Revised 6-16-11
Rating
2009-2010
Semester
1
2009-2010
Semester 2
Intern excelled
N.A.
Functioning above expectations
N.A.
Met expectations
Page 46
As the above demonstrates, across the cohorts there were only two areas where students, in the judgment of their field instructors, did not
reach our “85 % met expectations” threshold for success. These were in Foundation Objectives 6.1 (“Evaluate, design, and conduct research
studies, apply findings to practice, and evaluate their own practice interventions”) and 6.2 (“Write effectively in a variety of formats used in
social work practice”). It is quite understandable why, at the end of the first semester, students would not yet be able to evaluate, design and
conduct research studies, because the Foundation Research course is taken in the second semester. In fact, in 2009-2010, students did much
better in the second semester after they had completed the Foundation Research course. In 2010-2011, however, in the second semester nearly
17% of the students were rated as not meeting expectations in Objective 6.1. Our target of at least 85% of students meeting minimum
expectations was not met in this area.
Writing effectively in a variety of formats used in social work practice is a challenge for our students. Many students still have not gained
sufficient familiarity with the various modes of writing required in their field agencies, although they do have solid writing ability. For these
students, increased familiarity with documentation requirements, plus additional instruction on documentation in the classroom and in the field,
should help them to achieve the desired level of writing effectiveness. Some students, however, have more serious writing challenges and need
extra help in meeting standards. To address this area of weakness in our students, we have established a pilot program this year, “MSW
Academic Support Program.” Six students were identified as in need of additional help in writing and were assigned to a faculty member for
guidance and extra support. The Office of Graduate Studies provided our program with funding for a Graduate Assistant to be available for extra
help in writing. Although, in theory, this appeared like a good approach to providing extra assistance to students with writing difficulties, we
have found that students have not used the program very effectively. Despite the underuse of the extra help, students in both 2009-2010 and
2010-2011 were rated as much improved in their writing at the end of the academic year. Perhaps this indicates that students get considerable
constructive feedback from both their classroom and field instructors on their writing throughout the foundation year, and this feedback
eventually pays off.
Exit Survey
Graduating students were asked to complete an Exit Survey in one of their final class sessions. The Exit Survey asked graduating students to rate
their level of preparation on all of the program objectives, foundation and concentration-level. The Survey also asked several open-ended
questions, which encouraged students to share their overall impressions of the program and how well it prepared them for the next phase of
their lives. The following table summarizes the results of Stockton’s first Exit Survey, which was administered in late April 2011 to 17 of the 19
graduating students.
Revised 6-16-11
Page 47
PROGRAM OBJECTIVE
Table 44
Exit Survey (Foundation Program Objectives)
(N=17)
Scale: 1=Unprepared, 2=Minimally Prepared, 3=Prepared, 4=Well Prepared, 5=Very Well Prepared
QUESTION
MEAN SCORES
GRADUATING CLASS OF
Foundation Objective 1.1
1.
Foundation Objective 1.2
Foundation Objective 2.1
2.
3.
Foundation Objective 2.2
4.
Foundation Objective 2.3
5.
Foundation Objective 3.1
2011
6.
Foundation Objective 3.2
7.
Foundation Objective 3.3
8.
Foundation Objective 4.1
9.
Foundation Objective 4.2
Foundation Objective 4.3
Foundation Objective 5.1
10.
11.
12.
Foundation Objective 5.2
13.
Foundation Objective 6.1
Foundation Objective 6.2
14.
15.
Revised 6-16-11
Understand the effects of oppression based on personal and communal history, social class,
race, color, ethnicity, culture, language, immigration status, gender, sex, sexual orientation,
marital status, age, political ideology, religion, and disability status.
Practice with an understanding of human rights, social justice, and respect for diversity.
Apply knowledge of the biological, psychological, environmental, and social variables that
affect human development and behavior.
Demonstrate an understanding of theories, including the generalist social work perspective,
the ecosystems perspective, the strengths perspective, and empowerment practice as ways to
conceptualize social work practice with diverse individuals, families, and communities.
Use generalist social work skills, including problem identification, goal setting, data collection,
contracting, implementation of plan, differential use of interventive roles, evaluation, and
termination.
Understand the history of the social work profession and its current structures and issues in an
era of globalization and information technology.
Critically analyze and evaluate the impact of social policies on communities, client systems,
workers, and agencies.
Function within the structures of organizations and service delivery systems and, if necessary,
identify and seek changes.
Understand core social work values, identify ethical dilemmas, and use ethical guidelines and
critical thinking skills to resolve them.
Have a clear understanding of cultural competence standards.
Identify barriers to ethical, culturally competent practice.
Demonstrate an understanding of the professional use of self, especially the importance of
self-awareness.
Carry out self-directed practice and use supervision and consultation appropriate to
autonomous practice, grounded in the application of the NASW Code of Ethics.
Evaluate, design, and conduct research studies.
Write effectively in multiple formats used in social work practice.
4.78
4.89
4.78
4.61
4.78
4.44
4.67
4.78
4.89
4.67
4.78
4.89
4.83
4.00
4.56
Page 48
PROGRAM OBJECTIVE
GRADUATING CLASS OF
Concentration Objective 1.1
Concentration Objective 1.2
Concentration Objective 2.1
Concentration Objective 3.1
Concentration Objective 3.2
Concentration Objective 3.3
Concentration Objective 3.2
Concentration Objective 3.3
Concentration Objective 4.1
Concentration Objective 4.2
Concentration Objective 4.3
Concentration Objective 5.1
Concentration Objective 5.2
Concentration Objective 6.1
Revised 6-16-11
Table 45
Exit Survey (Concentration Program Objectives)
(N=17)
Scale: 1=Unprepared, 2=Minimally Prepared, 3=Prepared, 4=Well Prepared, 5=Very Well Prepared
QUESTION
MEAN SCORES
2011
16. Demonstrate advanced self-awareness and comfort about different customs and worldviews.
17. Engage in culturally competent practice with diverse individuals, families, and communities.
18. Engage in self-directed practice.
19. Critically analyze, evaluate, and advocate for social policies that respect the cultural values,
norms, and behaviors of diverse individuals, families, and communities.
20. Critically analyze and evaluate the impact of social policies on diverse communities, client
systems, workers, and agencies.
21. Advocate for, and work towards change in social policies, organizations, and service delivery
systems when those systems fail adequately to address the needs and promote the well-being
of diverse individuals, families, and communities.
22. Advocate for policies and procedures that ensure diversity and inclusion in social service
organizations.
23. Have an advanced-level understanding of codes of ethics that guide social work practice,
including the NASW Code of Ethics (NASW, 1999) and the International Federation of Social
Workers/International Association of Schools of Social Work Ethics in Social Work Statement
of Principles (IFSW/IASSW, 2004).
24. Apply ethical guidelines to complex ethical dilemmas involving diverse individuals, families,
and communities to arrive at ethically-informed decisions.
25. Address barriers to ethical, culturally competent practice.
26. Take leadership roles in promoting cultural competence within the social work profession and
in human service policies, programs, and organizations.
27. Use supervision and consultation appropriate to autonomous practice, grounded in the
application of the NASW Code of Ethics.
28. Prepare for social work licensure and commit to maintaining currency and effectiveness
through reading the professional literature, participating in continuing professional education,
and pursuing advanced certification in specialty areas when appropriate.
29. Using critical thinking, apply research methodologies to practice, policy, and service delivery
issues, and evaluate practice interventions.
4.78
4.78
4.67
4.56
4.50
4.56
4.39
4.56
4.50
4.61
4.44
4.56
4.56
4.39
Page 49
Clearly students rated their preparation in all of the foundation and concentration program objectives as excellent. In no area did their scores
fall below a mean of 4.00 on a scale of 1 to 5.
Open-Ended Questions
30. Overall what do you believe that you are best prepared for as you move into your first post- MSW position?
Micro practice
o Clinical client interaction
o Engaging, contracting, goal identification
o Self-directed practice.
o I feel prepared to work with a variety of individuals in both urban and rural settings. I feel as though I can be effective in helping
clients identify strengths and help meet needs.
o I am most qualified to be a mental health counselor. I have also applied to be an adjunct instructor at ACCC.
o I believe I am best prepared for 1:1 practice with diverse groups.
o Individual and group counseling
o I feel I am best prepared for client interactions and discussions
Cultural competence
o I am best prepared in cultural diversity, recognizing barriers
o I feel best prepared in terms of cultural competence
o Engaging in effective cultural competent practice
o Understanding and recognizing diverse vulnerable oppressed populations
o Being much more open-minded to other cultures/people’s conditions
o I can now work with confidence and a sense of validation. I am best prepared to work with oppressed and marginalized
individuals.
Application of theory
o Applying theory to client cases
o The class instruction that taught social work fundamentals and how to link, identify, and integrate it into practice.
o Using theories and follow evidence-based practice
o Applying theory to help explain social problems
Advocacy
o Advocating and working for change
o Advocacy
Revised 6-16-11
Page 50
Other
o
o
o
o
Macro practice
Professional use of self
Needs assessments, evaluation studies
I feel confident with my education and work skills and feel that I will do my best to represent this program confidently in the
community.
31. What are you least prepared for?
Mental health interventions
o Intervention strategies during therapy with different DSM diagnoses
o Applying appropriate interventions to a variety of mental health issues
o I feel apprehensive about diagnosing a client and moving toward a treatment approach.
o DSM diagnostics!
o I feel I am least prepared for counseling as we really didn’t go into much detail in interventions and diagnostic criteria.
Research
o Conducting individual research studies
o Research-based practice
o Research!
Micro practice
o Working one-on-one with clients/insurance
o Direct practice with individuals and families
Application of theory
o Use of theories and integration of theory to practice
I am prepared
o Fortunately, I feel prepared in most ways.
o I feel prepared.
Other
o I still refuse to work in any kind of supervisory or management position—too much red tape.
o Any work involving children
o I am the least prepared for coping skills to deal effectively with any subsequent failures I may face.
o Learning all that a new job requires
Revised 6-16-11
Page 51
32. What do you wish you had been prepared for?
Mental health interventions, diagnosis
o Wanted information as to techniques to use in therapy and how to implement them
o More work on interventions. I feel I did not get enough knowledge here.
o Clinical/individual sessions
o More clinical focus, diagnosis, treatment approaches, psychopharmacology
o DSM diagnostic!
o More clinical discussions to have a better understanding.
Research skills
o Maybe a bit more in-depth into research
o Research!
No wishes
o I feel prepared in all of the areas of social work I want to practice in.
o I am prepared for the field I am most interested in.
o As a individual with limited social work experience, it provided me with the ? knowledge and valuable strategies in addressing
issues in ? social work.
Equity in grading
o To be able to process the grading inequities and different levels of evaluation. Different standards for different individuals.
o The surprising standards of graduate school for some, as opposed to other students
Application of theory
o Theoretical applications
Other
o I wish I’d have been prepared on ways to effectively work with individuals inside the human service arena that do not have social
work degrees.
o After taking the one semester of Spanish for social work, I wished there could be a sort of Spanish track—maybe one whole year
to improve my Spanish. This course was extremely helpful and useful.
o No response
33. What are the strengths of the MSW Program?
Good professors
o The majority of the professors are great and take a sincere interest in your learning
o Wonderful and caring faculty
Revised 6-16-11
Page 52
o
The MSWs first two years has been excellent and I am sure it will only get better. The strengths lie in the caliber of professors. I
am very impressed.
o The staff is wonderful. They show genuine interest and care for students and are open to student input.
o Involvement/interest of instructors, professors
o The faculty was very invested in student learning
o Caring and qualified staff
o The new professors who add a positive dimension to the program. Thank you for judging content of work with greater emphasis
than APA format.
o Professors
o I found all the professors very intelligent about their topics.
o The strengths include the diversity of the professors and their backgrounds in the social work field.
Broad knowledge taught
o Short length of time, broad scope education
o Generalist knowledge. We are well-rounded and have global knowledge.
o Limited track areas such as different concentrations during second year.
Program structure
o The schedule and cohorts
o The small group size lent itself to mutual aid
o The Saturday classes were great.
Concentration in working with diverse clients
o Facilitation of cultural competence and ethical consideration
o Emphasis on diversity, cultural competent practice
Other
o Internship placements
o Our class also worked very well together.
34. What are the Program’s limitations?
Limitations of electives/elective specializations
o Lack of specificity. There was a management track with three management courses. There should also be a clinical track or at
least clinical electives.
o Lack of many electives
o Don’t offer enough additional tracks, i.e., possibly elder track or child welfare track
o The program is still small so there are few electives, but as the program grows that will change.
Revised 6-16-11
Page 53
Limitations within core courses
o Theories were glossed over
o The second year practice courses are too general and teach what was taught the first semester. [Need to be] more intervention
based.
Lack of equitable treatment of students
o Lack of holding individuals responsible for equal amounts of effort and work in group presentations.
o Students who are unfairly pushed through when they do not contribute to work, miss class, etc. Very disappointing!
General comments
o Any limitations involve the newness of the program. Any kinks in terms of organization will surely be worked out in the future.
o Nothing.
o Fitting in a lot of relevant coursework into 4 semesters
o Sometimes felt like there was so much work that “overtook learning”—not complaining about all work, more with maybe the
amount at times during program.
o Being the first class, I think there were some unknowns that students had to overcome.
o The program limitations include that since it is new the kinks needed to be worked out.
o The location in AC also was a burden.
o Another limitation is because it is new, there was no advanced standing.
Students’ perceptions of what the MSW Program best and least prepared them to do and of the MSW Program’s strengths and limitations
depend, not only on the structure and content of the Program, but also on the experiences and strengths they brought to the Program and the
effort they put forth in their studies and field experiences. Overall, students reported that they felt most prepared to do direct (micro) practice
and to do so with a solid understanding of working with diverse clients. This perception suggests that the Program is doing what it intends to do:
prepare students for advanced social work practice with diverse individuals, families, and communities. They also reported that the Program
gave them strong preparation in the application of theory to practice. Even so, a couple of students reported that they felt relatively unprepared
to do direct practice. A likely explanation is that some students’ field placements gave them little opportunity to do direct practice, since their
main assignments were in administrative or research areas.
There were several students who indicated that they felt unprepared to assign DSM diagnoses to clients and to move from a specific diagnosis to
a mental health intervention tailored to that diagnosis. Given student interest in this topic, the content of the Advanced Practice class had been
significantly modified to include coverage of the DSM and examination of various diagnostic groupings and approaches to treating various
disorders. A textbook on DSM was included, and a number of sessions were devoted to these topics. Students apparently did not see this as
sufficient. The course also focused on helping students solidify their mastery of generalist social work skills. Even though many students did not
appear to be able to apply generalist social work skills to their practice, as demonstrated by their posting of online practice journals, they
Revised 6-16-11
Page 54
indicated that they had covered such material in their first year and were eager to move onto therapeutic interventions suitable to mental
health disorders. A number of students enrolled in this cohort had majored in psychology, and quite a few of them had jobs in behavioral health
settings. Given student demand for more intensive coverage of the DSM and mental health disorders and treatments, the current plan is to offer
an elective in “Psychopathology, Psychopharmacology, and Cultural Neuroscience.” Students who have strong interest in mental
health/behavioral health will be free to explore their interests by taking this elective. In addition to this program modification, the entire practice
sequence, from the foundation practice courses to the concentration year courses, will be reviewed and modified to assure that students gain
competency in generalist practice knowledge, values, and skills during the foundation courses and then can move onto more advanced
perspectives in their second (or advanced standing) year.
It is quite clear that graduating students recognized the quality and dedication of the professors who teach in the MSW Program. Eleven out of
the 17 respondents (65%) mentioned this as the Program’s greatest strength. Mention was also made of the breadth of knowledge conveyed,
the Program structure (the schedule, having cohorts, and small size), and the focus on working with diverse clients. The main limitation
mentioned was the lack of a broad selection of electives and “tracks.” Students did recognize that these limitations were related to the relative
newness and small size of the Program. One troubling comment from two students suggested that there was inequitable treatment of students.
This related to students’ perception that some students were allowed to get full credit for group assignments, even when they had put forth
little to no effort, and that some students were allowed to miss class, while others lived up to attendance policies. The faculty needs to consider
how to lessen such perceptions in the future.
Portfolio Project at End of Concentration Year
All graduating students completed a substantial portfolio assignment. Examples of students’ completed work on this assignment will be
presented to the faculty. Since the project was done in an iterative process throughout the semester, the end results reflect the modifications
suggested by the instructor. Nonetheless they demonstrate what students are capable of producing at the end of the MSW Program.
Licensure Pass Rates (% of those who take the New Jersey LSW Examination and pass on the first try)
The official record of licensure pass rates will not be available to us right away, although I understand that it is available under the Open Public
Records Act. As of this date, nine students have reported to me that they passed to LSW Exam. With their written permission, I reported to
Michael Walker, Director of the Board of Social Work Examiners, that the following students who passed the LSW Exam had completed all
requirements for their MSW degree: Leslie K. Koehler, Amy L. Frantz, Matthew S. Moskovitz, Amber L. Belesky, MaryBeth Cross, Lori M. DobsonMulhern, and Kathy S. Krawczyk. Since I did not have written permission, I did not include Kate Werner, Ashley Cropper, and William Long, but
they also indicated to me that they passed. No student has reported failure to pass.
Alumni Survey
An Alumni Survey has been developed, but it will not be distributed until graduates have been out for a year.
Revised 6-16-11
Page 55
Informal Assessment Mechanisms that Also Contribute to Program Enhancement
Developing a new MSW Program involves a great deal of “putting our heads together.” The original curriculum design team assessed community
need and faculty interests. Responding to that assessment, the team developed the program’s mission, goals, and objectives, then constructed a
curriculum plan that would reflect the mission and implement the program goals and objectives. But program development does not stop with
the original design. The original design is a prototype, which must be tested in the real world of faculty, students, and field agencies. When
something does not seem to be working in the classroom, the faculty suggests modifications and refinements to improve the original design, and
it experiments with teaching and learning approaches. Some of this work occurs in the Curriculum Committee; some occurs among faculty
members teaching in the same sequence; some naturally occurs as a faculty member reflects on his or her experience with the students. A
number of small modifications have occurred in this fashion, rather than through the more formal assessment methods, such as course
evaluations, critical thinking examinations, or field evaluations. One example is that the two professors who are teaching the two courses in the
social welfare policy sequence discovered that the original plan, which offered content on policy practice, occurred in the first course, with the
advanced course focusing on the history of social welfare policy. They decided that students could not really be expected to engage in policy
practice before having an understanding of the history of social welfare policy. So they redesigned the two courses and put the material in a
more logical and educationally sound order. Another example is that the professor who is teaching the Advanced Cultural Competence course
found that one assignment in the course would work more effectively if done as a group project. In response to students concerns, the professor
who is teaching the Advanced Social Work Practice course revised the course syllabus to incorporate material on the DSM-IV-TR and
psychopathology. Further reflection on the part of those who teach in the practice sequence, along with feedback from students, have resulted
in the decision to do some rearranging and reconstructing of the practice courses. The lively interchange of ideas among the faculty is an
important program development and renewal tool, and it functions to generate new approaches. The new approaches are then subjected to
more formal assessment procedures once they have been implemented, and the process continues.
Summary of Faculty Service to College and Community
The following is a sample of faculty service to the local, state, national, and international community during the past five years. It does not
include service provided to the Social Work Program or to the College. If anyone has something new to add, please let me know.
Service on Boards
AtlantiCare Behavioral Health, Atlantic County, NJ, 1997 – present (Chair, Quality Management Committee, 2001-2009)
Member, Institutional Review Board, University of Louisville, 2008-2010
Alternate Member, Institutional Review Board, University of Louisville, 2006-2008
Chair of the Quality Management Subcommittee of the AtlantiCare Behavioral Health Board, February, 2010-present
Member, Board of Directors, AtlantiCare Behavioral Health, April 2009 – present
Member, Board of Directors, The Hispanic Alliance of Atlantic County, June 2007 – October 2007
Member, Board of Directors, The Alcove Center for Grieving Children and Families, 2002 – 2007
Revised 6-16-11
Page 56
New Jersey State Federation of Colored Women’s Clubs, Inc., Executive Board
Human Services Committee of Glassboro
Convenient Care Association
Atlantic Cape Community College
United Way of Atlantic County
Cape Atlantic Workforce Improvement Board – 2002 – present
Mainland Chamber of Commerce
Atlantic County Chamber of Commerce
Kessler/AtlantiCare Home Care Board of Directors
Gilda’s Club South Jersey
Allen Community Life Center
National Convenient Care Association – 2006 – Present
Volunteer Consulting
Advisor and volunteer, Real Partners Uganda, Brigantine, NJ, 2010-present
Pro Bono Data Analysis Consultant for: Making Health Care Affordable for New Jersey: Real Families, Real Health Care Stories (December
2009), New Jersey Citizen Action
Consultant, Atlantic Cape Community College Human Services Program (June-Oct. 2007)
Volunteer Grant Reviewing
Grant reviewer, The Educational Foundation of America, 2008
Volunteer Direct Service Work
Hospice volunteer
Volunteer, Herald Social Service Center, Oakland, Fall 2006
Wissahickon Neighborhood Association, Philadelphia, PA
Peer Reviewing for Journals and Conferences
Chair, Evaluations of programs for housing and homelessness Session, American Evaluation Association Annual Conference, November
2009, Orlando, FL.
Peer Reviewer, Annals of Long-Term Care: Clinical Care & Aging, A Clinical Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
Proposal Reviewer, Human Services Technical Information Group, American Evaluation Association Annual Meeting (2007 & 2009).
Abstract Reviewer, Social Research Policy & Practice Section, Gerontological Society of America Annual Scientific Meeting (2007 & 2009).
Proposal Reviewer, Council on Social Work Education Annual Meeting (2009)
Revised 6-16-11
Page 57
Manuscript Reviewer, Journal of HIV/AIDS and Social Services
Manuscript Reviewer, The Journal of Gertontology and Geriatrics Education, 2007
Manuscript Reviewer, Families in Society, 1999-present
Member, Editorial Board, Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics
Volunteer Liaison Work
Liaison to Influencing State Policy, for R. Stockton College (2009-present)
Social Work Liaison (for NASW-NJ), Society on Aging of New Jersey, 11/2007-present
Policy Representative, from Stockton College to AGHE (Association for Gerontologists in Higher Education): received periodic policy
alerts, share them in-house, and act upon them. 2005-present
Volunteer Work for Professional Associations
Elected Committee Member, NASW-NJ, CCNLI
Invited Member, NASW-NJ By-laws Task Force
Appointed Liaison, The Joint Commission, Long-term Care and Technical committee (NASW-DC representative
Member, BPD Gerontology Committee
Member, Association of Baccalaureate Program Directors Technology Committee
Other Voluntary Activities
Research Chair, SCOSA—Stockton College’s Center on Successful Aging, 2007-present
Workshop convenors at numerous professional conferences
Curriculum Development Committee, Tourette Syndrome Association of New Jersey; planning CEU programs through Rutgers
University’s continuing education program 2008-present
Volunteer, AM1450 Chinese Radio Station, San Francisco, 2007
As the summary shows, the MSW faulty has been engaged in a wide variety of community volunteer activities during the past few years, through
the critical building phase of the new MSW Program and, in the case of new faculty members, throughout their Ph.D. completion work. It is
notable that the MSW Program Director was awarded the 2010 Stockton Faculty Community Engagement Award for her volunteer work locally
and internationally. Throughout the years prior to the development of a graduate program, the Social Work Program faculty has always been
one of the most highly engaged group of faculty members in the College and in the community. It is anticipated that this tradition will be
duplicated by the new faculty members hired for the MSW Program. If we are to create students who are engaged in their communities and
profession, the most effective way to do that is through modeling. This we are fully committed to do.
Summary of Evaluation of Program Outcomes
Revised 6-16-11
Page 58
In summary, at this point in the development of the MSW Program, we have a detailed plan to evaluate the achievement of program goals and
objectives, but we have not yet had an opportunity to implement all aspects of the plan (since we have only been in operation for two years).
For example, we have not yet had a chance to administer the Alumni Survey, and only have an informal report of the pass rate for the LSW
(100%!). What we have done so far is to assess the educational needs of our entering class and use that feedback to inform our teaching. We
have heard the perspective of our students on how confident they feel about their mastery of course objectives (and, by deduction, of program
objectives) in the first two years, and we have obtained feedback from our field instructors on their perspective on our students’ progress on
achieving program objectives. From the results of our inquiries, it appears that, aside from a few areas, our program has been meeting its
objectives. We are encouraged by these results and plan to continue diligently to work with our students to assure that they all meet the
thresholds we have set for our program. Program evaluation and using its results to enhance the program is a continuous process, and we intend
to create and maintain a sustainable cycle of program evaluation and enhancement.
Revised 6-16-11
Page 59