Richard Stockton College of New Jersey
MSW Program
Academic Year 2011-2012 Assessment Report
Report prepared by
Maya Lewis, Chair, MSW Assessment Committee
Diane Falk, MSW Program Director
Foundation Course Evaluations
The following tables report students’ self-assessments of their mastery of course objectives for three academic years in the Foundation Year and their self-assessments of their mastery of course objectives for two academic years in the Concentration Year of the MSW Program.
The course evaluations were administered near the end of each semester. Students were instructed to either rate their mastery of course objectives, using a 5-point Likert scale, where: 1 = Very much disagree ; 2 = Disagree ; 3 =Neither agree nor disagree; 4 = Agree; and 5 = Very Much Agree, or students were instructed to rate their master of course objectives, using a 5-point Likert scale, where: 1 = No confidence at all; 2 = Very little confidence; 3 = Some confidence; 4 = Good amount of confidence; 5 = Quite a lot of confidence.
Table 1
HUMAN BEHAVIOR IN THE SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT 1 (SOWK 5101)
MEAN SCORE
1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5Very much disagree / Disagree / Neither agree nor disagree / Agree / Very much agree
ITEM / MEAN SCORES
ACADEMIC YEAR / 2009-2010 / 2010-2011 / 2011-2012
1. I can identify how social systems promote or deter people in maintaining or achieving well-being. / 4.55 / 4.20 / 4.00
2. I can define “theory” and the connection between theory, research, human behavior, and social work practice. / 4.50 / 4.20 / 4.13
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. / 4.60 / 4.20 / 4.31
4. I can demonstrate knowledge of biases and cultural limitations in theories relating to human behavior in the social environment. / 4.50 / 4.10 / 4.06
5. I can demonstrate the ability to think critically. / 4.75 / 4.30 / 4.38
6. I am able to explore personal biases and stereotypes that can affect my understanding of human behavior. / 4.65 / 4.30 / 4.38
7. I can demonstrate how biological, psychological, socio-cultural, spiritual, and physical forces affect the functioning of diverse individuals, families, groups, and communities. / 4.65 / 4.10 / 4.56
8. I can examine and critically evaluate the values underlying human behavior theories and their relevance to social work values and principles. / 4.45 / 4.10 / 4.25
9. I can identify the importance of understanding physical, social and psychological human development in assessing and planning practice interventions. / 4.60 / 4.40 / 4.31
10. I can identify and understand the developmental stages of the life span from conception through childhood. / 4.55 / 4.40 / 4.56
As this Table 1 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 4.00 on a scale of 1 to 5.
Table 2
SOCIAL ORGANIZATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTS (SOWK 5120)
MEAN SCORE
1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5Very much disagree / Disagree / Neither agree nor disagree / Agree / Very much agree
ITEM / MEAN SCORES
ACADEMIC YEAR / 2009-2010 / 2010-2011 / 2011-2012
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. / 4.48 / 4.73 / 4.25
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. / 4.38 / 4.82 / 4.38
3. I can describe how complex organizations can both implement social policies and communicate unmet social service needs to policy makers. / 4.14 / 4.55 / 4.13
4. Using systems theory, I can develop an organizational analysis of one social service agency. / 4.33 / 4.73 / 4.06
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. / 4.29 / 4.64 / 4.00
6. I can articulate strategies for working effectively within organizational structures to carry out social work purposes, even when those structures are imperfect. / 4.33 / 4.36 / 4.13
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. / 4.33 / 4.64 / 4.25
8. I am able to analyze the functioning of one social service organization and understand the impact of organizational functioning on practice. / 4.38 / 4.73 / 4.25
9. I am able to identify areas of less than effective organizational functioning and suggest creative approaches to enhancing organizational functioning. / 4.29 / 4.45 / 4.00
In the Social Organizations and Environments course, students were equally confident, with no score falling below 4.00.
Table 2a
FOUNDATION SOCIAL WELFARE POLICY (SOWK 5130)
MEAN SCORE
1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5Very much disagree / Disagree / Neither agree nor disagree / Agree / Very much agree
ITEM / MEAN SCORES
ACADEMIC YEAR / 2009-2010 / 2010-2011 / 2011-2012
1. I understand the historical, social, economic and political development of social welfare policy in the United States. / 4.18 / 4.22 / 4.24
2. I understand how social welfare policy is an expression of multiple and competing societal goals, values and social philosophies of a society. / 4.12 / 4.11 / 4.56
3. I understand the roles that social workers can play in development, implementation, and evaluation of social welfare policy. / 4.47 / 4.00 / 4.63
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). / 4.29 / 4.00 / 4.50
5. I am able to plan and implement at least one change strategy on an organizational, local, state or federal level. / 3.76 / 4.00 / Objective changed
6. I am familiar with debates and developments in key social policy arenas and have explored one social policy area in more depth. / 4.35 / 3.89 / 4.38
7. I have explored potential professional social work roles, including advocacy and policy practice. / 4.18 / 4.00 / Objective dropped
8. I can apply class material to live situations. / 4.31 / 4.22 / 4.63
In the Foundation Social Welfare Policy course, students’ self-assessment yielded a mean score of less than the desired 4.0 in Objective 5 in the first year of the program. 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. Eventually we decided that this was not a reasonable goal for the foundation-level course in social welfare policy, and we made some changes in the objectives for this course. See the next table and following narrative.
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.
Table 2b
FOUNDATION SOCIAL WELFARE POLICY REVISED (SOWK 5130)
MEAN SCORE
1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5Very much disagree / Disagree / Neither agree nor disagree / Agree / Very much agree
ITEM / MEAN SCORES
ACADEMIC YEAR / 2009-2010 / 2010-2011 / 2011-2012
1. I understand the historical, social, economic and political development of social welfare policy in the United States. / 4.18 / 4.22 / 4.24
2. I understand how social welfare policy is an expression of multiple and competing societal goals, values and social philosophies of a society. / 4.12 / 4.11 / 4.56
3. I understand the roles that social workers can play in development, implementation, and evaluation of social welfare policy. / 4.47 / 4.00 / 4.63
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). / 4.29 / 4.00 / 4.50
5. I am able to develop knowledge and skills for policy practice, advocacy, and change strategies on organizational, local, state, and federal levels / N/A / N/A / 4.06
6. I am familiar with debates and developments in key social policy arenas and have explored one social policy area in more depth. / 4.35 / 3.89 / 4.38
7. I can apply class material to live situations. / 4.31 / 4.22 / 4.63
8. I can demonstrate an understanding of basic concepts and processes in social policy formulation and implementation and analyze social policies in a systematic manner. / N/A / N/A / Not available
In preparation for the admission of Stockton’s first MSW Advanced Standing cohort, the program reviewed its policy course materials and made a number of revisions in order to ensure that Foundation Policy Course materials were parallel to the types of materials covered in typical BSW policy courses. These efforts necessitated (a) the revision of course objective 5, (b) the deletion of original course objective 7, and (c) the addition of a new course objective (currently listed as course objective 8). Table 2b has been added to account for these revisions in our assessment of course objectives. As a result of these revisions, data is not applicable for course objectives 5 and 8 for academic years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011. In an oversight, objective 8 was omitted from the assessment instrument in the Fall of 2011, so self-efficacy data is not available on that new objective yet.
Table 3
FOUNDATION SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE 1 (SOWK 5601)
MEAN SCORE
1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5Very much disagree / Disagree / Neither agree nor disagree / Agree / Very much agree
ITEM / MEAN SCORES
ACADEMIC YEAR / 2009-2010 / 2010-2011 / 2011-2012
1. I can identify the historical context, purpose and objectives of social work practice. / 4.57 / 4.25 / 4.40
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. / 4.67 / 4.50 / 4.53
3. I have developed self- awareness and understand the professional “use of self” in social work practice consistent with professional values and ethics. / 4.48 / 4.50 / 4.67
4. I can understand, clarify and interpret interventive roles in working with varied sizes, levels, and contexts of client systems. / 4.19 / 4.25 / 4.27
5. I can apply the advanced generalist practice model to working with diverse individuals, families, and groups. / 4.38 / 4.00 / 4.47
6. I can demonstrate skills in engagement, problem identification, goal setting, data collection, assessment, contracting, planning and implementing interventions, evaluation, and termination. / 4.62 / 4.08 / 4.33
7. I can apply ecosystems, strengths-based, and empowerment perspectives of practice in working with client systems. / 4.38 / 4.17 / 4.53
8. I understand cultural competence standards and can demonstrate beginning competency in applying those standards in work with diverse individuals, families, and groups. / 4.57 / 4.50 / 4.47
9. I can use supervision appropriately in a practice setting. / 4.62 / 4.42 / 4.33
10. I am able to write effectively using a variety of formats. / 4.48 / 4.42 / 4.40
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. / 4.15 / 4.30 / 4.38
In all cohorts of the Foundation Social Work Practice course, students were quite confident, with no score falling below 4.00.
Table 4
Field 1 (SOWK 5901)
MEAN SCORE
1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5Very much disagree / Disagree / Neither agree nor disagree / Agree / Very much agree
ITEM / MEAN SCORES
ACADEMIC YEAR / 2009-2010 / 2010-2011 / 2011-2012
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. / 4.57 / 3.92 / 4.60
2. I am able to practice with an understanding of the effects of oppression, discrimination, respect for diversity, human rights, social and economic justice. / 4.62 / 4.42 / 4.60
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. / 4.43 / 4.33 / 4.53
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. / 4.14 / 4.08 / 4.33
5. I can effectively apply skills in engagement, problem identification, goal setting, data collection, contracting, assessment, treatment planning, evaluation and termination with client systems. / 4.43 / 4.00 / 4.33
6. I am able to practice with an understanding of the connection between theoretical, conceptual frameworks, evidenced-based research methodologies, and the evaluation of practice outcomes. / 4.14 / 4.00 / 4.20
7. I am able to apply ecosystems, strengths-based and empowerment perspectives of practice in work with client systems. / 4.52 / 4.42 / 4.53
8. I can demonstrate an understanding of cultural competence standards and barriers to ethical and cultural competency in practice settings. / 4.48 / 4.67 / 4.60
9. I am able to use supervision appropriate to professional development and autonomous practice. / 4.48 / 4.33 / 4.53
10. I am able to write effectively using a variety of formats. / 4.48 / 4.08 / 4.53
Students’ self-assessments 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 in the second cohort’s students’ ability to use ethical guidelines and critical thinking to resolve ethical dilemmas encountered in the field. The program reflected on reasons for the decrease in confidence between cohorts 1 and 2 and found ways to emphasize ethics more in this course and others. The result was that the third cohort scored significantly higher in this area (course objective 1).