Social Work Evaluations from Internship and Practicum ...€¦ · Social Work Evaluations from Internship and Practicum Supervisors Objective 1 Prepare advanced social work practitioners

Social Work Evaluations from Internship and Practicum Supervisors Objective 1 Prepare advanced social work practitioners who have the knowledge, skills and values to intervene with individuals, families, groups, organizations and communities, and who are committed to maintaining their professional growth through lifelong learning and continuing education. Field Instructor Assessment and MSW Student Self-Evaluation This objective is measured by 11 foundation year evaluation items and 8 concentration year evaluation items. These are Foundation Year Practice Knowledge and Skills items 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, and 16; Foundation Year Professional Behavior and Skills items 4 and 5; and Advance Year Practice Knowledge and Skills items 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 11, 12, and 14. Each item is rated on a Likert scale of 1 to 10 with higher ratings indicating higher performance (see appendix for detailed tables of these items). Average scores were produced across all items for each year for the student and field instructor evaluations. A table showing the averages for these items for the MSW Students Self- Efficacy Evaluation and the Field Instructor Evaluation with comparison statistics is given below.

MSW 2003 Cohort – Student Self Efficacy and Field Practicum Evaluation MSW Objective 1 - Foundation Year, Final Semester, Spring 2003

Item By Item Analysis Of Field Practicum Field Instructor Evaluation Of Student Ability

1.....2 = Performance is generally unacceptable. 3.....4 = Student has beginning understanding of the skill, but as yet performance is fairly uneven. 5.....6 = Performance meets basic expectations, and continuing improvement is demonstrated. 7.....8 = Performance is generally beyond basic expectations with few gaps.

9....10 = Performance is exceptional and the skill is an integrated part of the student's practice.

Field Instructor Student Item

Number Item Mean Standard

Deviation Mean Standard Deviation

Difference*= p<.05

Social Work Practice Skills

PRAC 1

Demonstration of the acceptance and use of basic social work values, ethics and principles.

7.50 1.6147 9.21 .58606 -1.71*

PRAC 2

Ability to practice ethically and respectfully with diverse populations. 7.87 1.4075 9.02 .76563 -1.15*

PRAC 4

Effectiveness in providing services to individuals and families. 8.03 1.2022 8.50 .99034 -0.47

PRAC 5

Effectiveness in providing services to groups. 7.88 1.9084 7.98 1.48648 -0.10

PRAC 6

Ability to make assessments using the ecological perspective. 7.67 1.7498 8.57 .91676 -0.90

PRAC 7

Understanding and application of social work roles. 7.57 1.5794 8.78 1.00320 -1.21

PRAC 8

Ability to understand and apply a strength’s perspective. 8.70 1.0987 9.19 .84521 -0.49

PRAC 13

Ability to identify and use community resources. 8.30 1.4368 9.00 1.09193 -0.70

PRAC 16

Development of a professional self-awareness, including the need for continued professional growth.

8.20 1.4368 9.32 .84521 -1.12*

Professional Skills and Behavior PROF 4 Relationship with co-workers. 8.53 1.2315 9.30 .81168 -0.77 PROF 5 Professional responsibility. 8.17 1.5999 8.91 1.03809 -0.74

All foundation individual items showed lower ratings from the Field Instructors in comparison with the student ratings. Practice Skill items 1, 2, and 16 were significantly lower. Only Professional Skill item 5 shows a significant correlation of .686 between the field instructors’ ratings and those of the MSW students. Five items were rated less than 8 by the Field Instructors and one for the MSW students. These were in the areas of values and ethics, service to groups, assessments, and social work roles. Of interest is the lower rating for Practice item 5 from both students and field instructors. Although the item is not significantly correlated the fact that both groups rated this toward the bottom of the list may indicate that the meaning of this may need further exploration. Perhaps students lack confidence or there may be misunderstanding as to the curriculum meaning and the behavioral definitions of the term “groupwork.”

MSW 2003 Cohort – Field Practicum Evaluation MSW Objective 1 - Concentration Year, Final Semester, Spring 2003


1.....2 = Performance is generally unacceptable. 3.....4 = Student has beginning understanding of the skill, but as yet performance is fairly uneven. 5.....6 = Performance meets basic expectations, and continuing improvement is demonstrated. 7.....8 = Performance is generally beyond basic expectations with few gaps. 9....10 = Performance is exceptional and the skill is an integrated part of the student's practice.

Field Instructor

N=18-28 Student Final

N=31-33

Item Number

Item Mean Standard Deviation Mean Standard

DeviationDifference*= p<.05

Social Work Practice Skills PRAC

1 Ability to assess and develop plans with consumers from various cultural and ethnic backgrounds 9.02 .826 8.470 1.2682 .6400*

PRAC 2

Understanding and application of social work roles related to the concentration. 9.18 .852 8.758 .8850 .3462

PRAC 3

Development and implementation of service plans for individuals and families. 8.95 .946 8.703 .9989 .2800

PRAC 6

Application of the ecological perspective in making assessments and plans for intervention. 9.00 1.028 8.797 .8694 .3125*

PRAC 8

Demonstration of the acceptance and use of basic social work values, ethics, and principles. 9.44 .934 9.364 .7631 .0800

PRAC 11

Develop intervention plans that are based on client's strengths, and driven by client's decisions. 9.09 .933 9.167 .9410 -.077

PRAC 12 Effectiveness in providing services to small groups. 9.12 .947 8.371 1.4547 .7750*

PRAC 14

Effectiveness in providing services at the community level. 8.91 1.276 8.484 1.1251 .4048

Professional Skills and Behavior For the concentration year analysis shows that on the whole students’ and field instructors average ratings were at the “exceptional” level for each of the items showing that students were meeting the expectations for Objective 1 for the Concentration year and ratings had improved since the first foundation year. All individual items showed higher ratings from the field instructors in comparison with the student ratings. Practice Skill items 1, 6, and 12 were significantly higher. Only Practice Skill item 3 shows a significant

moderate correlation of .621. The field instructor average evaluation ratings were significantly higher than the evaluations of the MSW students but they showed a moderate positive correlation of .640 (p=.000). There is a relationship between the evaluations of the students and the field instructors. The Evaluation of the MSW Program Objectives During the student’s enrollment in the MSW program, the objectives of the MSW programs are evaluated via observations from MSW student, faculty and field instruction points of view using the MSW student self-efficacy analysis, the MSW grades, and the field education analysis. Later, a temporal perspective will be gained as it is planned to evaluate the MSW objectives in the post graduation and alumni surveys that are still being constructed. It is surmised that multiple viewpoints across time will provide a better assessment of the outcome of the MSW program objectives than will a single measure given at a single point in time. For the Self-Study the analysis of the MSW program objectives will be confined to the three current evaluations. The MSW student self-efficacy analysis instrument and the field education analysis instrument are parallel forms that allow individual item matching to compare student verses field instructor comparisons. Grades provide a measure of faculty perceptions of students achievement in individual courses related to MSW program objectives. These three sources of information speak directly to the issues of the MSW program objectives. Basic questions that this analysis answers are: Are students doing well in their courses? Can students perform as MSW advanced practitioners within the context of a supervised field education practicum? Do students believe they are the able to function as advanced social work practitioners? Answering these questions provides evidence regarding the outcomes of the MSW program Objectives.

Thus the MSW objectives are evaluated via three independent methods

1. Evaluation of MSW objectives as specified within the curriculum - as assessed by faculty in the form of student grades

2. Evaluation of MSW objectives as defined by student performance in the Field Practicum as assessed by the Field Instructor

3. Evaluation of MSW objectives as assessed by student self-evaluation The MSW student self-efficacy analysis instrument and the field education analysis instrument are parallel forms using a 1-10 Likert rating scale (higher ratings equal higher performance). The instruments answer two questions: Do MSW students believe they are meeting the Objectives of the MSW Program? and do field instruction faculty observe behaviors that indicate that students are meeting the objectives of the MSW program. The same items are presented for evaluation to students and to field education faculty with two different item sets for the foundation and concentration years of the MSW program. Each have multiple items that measure individual student performance in meeting the MSW program objectives. For the sake of clarity each questionnaire is divided into two parts. One covers “Practice Knowledge and Skills” and the other covers “Professional Behavior and Skills”. Thus, MSW program objective may have Practice and/or Professional components. Readers are referred to the questionnaire materials in the appendix. Below is a listing of MSW objectives with analysis of the outcomes regarding the three measurements. Please note that Field Education Practicum grades are excluded from the courses associated with the various objectives as they are considered a global assessment rather than being specific to a single objective.

Objective 1 Prepare advanced social work practitioners who have the knowledge, skills and values to intervene with individuals, families, groups, organizations and communities. and who are committed to maintaining their professional growth through lifelong learning and continuing education. Field Instructor Assessment and MSW Student Self-Evaluation This objective is measured by 11 foundation year evaluation items and 8 concentration year evaluation items. These are Foundation Year Practice Knowledge and Skills items 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, and 16; Foundation Year Professional Behavior and Skills items 4 and 5; and Advance Year Practice Knowledge and Skills items 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 11, 12, and 14. Each item is rated on a Likert scale of 1 to 10 with higher ratings indicating higher performance (see appendix for detailed tables of these items). Average scores were produced across all items for each year for the student and field instructor evaluations. A table showing the averages for these items for the MSW Students Self- Efficacy Evaluation and the Field Instructor Evaluation with comparison statistics is given below. .



1.....2 = Performance is generally unacceptable. 3.....4 = Student has beginning understanding of the skill, but as yet performance is fairly uneven.

5.....6 = Performance meets basic expectations, and continuing improvement is demonstrated. 7.....8 = Performance is generally beyond basic expectations with few gaps.

9....10 = Performance is exceptional and the skill is an integrated part of the student's practice.

Field Instructor Student Item

Number Item Mean Standard

Deviation Mean Standard Deviation

Difference*= p<.05


PRAC 1

Demonstration of the acceptance and use of basic social work values, ethics

and principles. 7.50 1.6147 9.21 .58606 -1.71*

PRAC 2


PRAC 4

Effectiveness in providing services to individuals and families. 8.03 1.2022 8.50 .99034 -0.47

PRAC 5

Effectiveness in providing services to groups. 7.88 1.9084 7.98 1.48648 -0.10

PRAC 6


PRAC 7


PRAC 8


PRAC 13


PRAC 16


8.20 1.4368 9.32 .84521 -1.12*

Professional Skills and Behavior PROF 4 Relationship with co-workers. 8.53 1.2315 9.30 .81168 -0.77 PROF 5 Professional responsibility. 8.17 1.5999 8.91 1.03809 -0.74

All foundation individual items showed lower ratings from the Field Instructors in comparison with the student ratings. Practice Skill items 1, 2, and 16 were significantly lower. Only Professional Skill item 5 shows a significant correlation of .686 between the field instructors’ ratings and those of the MSW students. Five items were rated less than 8 by the Field Instructors and one for the MSW students. These were in the areas of values and ethics, service to groups, assessments, and social work roles. Of interest is the lower rating for Practice item 5 from both students and field instructors. Although the item is not significantly correlated the fact that both groups rated this toward the bottom of the list may indicate that the meaning of this may need further exploration. Perhaps students lack confidence or there may be misunderstanding as to the curriculum meaning and the behavioral definitions of the term “groupwork.”




Field Instructor

N=18-28 Student Final

N=31-33

Item Number





PRAC 2


PRAC 3


PRAC 6


PRAC 8


PRAC 11



PRAC 14


Professional Skills and Behavior

For the concentration year analysis shows that on the whole students’ and field instructors average ratings were at the “exceptional” level for each of the items showing that students were meeting the expectations for Objective 1 for the Concentration year and ratings had improved since the first foundation year. All individual items showed higher ratings from the field instructors in comparison with the student ratings. Practice Skill items 1, 6, and 12 were significantly higher. Only Practice Skill item 3 shows a significant moderate correlation of .621. The field instructor average evaluation ratings were significantly higher than the evaluations of the MSW students but they showed a moderate positive correlation of .640 (p=.000). There is a relationship between the evaluations of the students and the field instructors.

Average Rating on Objective 1 Selected Items

Analysis n

MSW Students Self- Efficacy

Evaluation

Field Instructor Evaluation

Paired T-Test

Significance Correlation Correlation

Significance

Foundation Year Items 11 8.87 8.02 .073 .278 .407

Concentration Year Items 26 8.77 9.08 0.014 .640 .000

The table above is aggregated analysis of the individual items comprising the Evaluation for Foundation and Concentration year field instructor assessments and MSW student self evaluation for MSW Objective 1. On the whole students’ and field instructors ratings were “beyond basic expectation” for each of the items showing that students were meeting the expectations for Objective 1 for the foundation year. On the whole for the foundation and the concentration year MSW students and field faculty essentially have similar outlooks on performance for this objective. In the evaluation of Objective 1 at the conclusion of the concentration year all items were rated higher than 8 with most being higher than 9. This indicates that the program made significant progress in meeting the objective in the concentration year of the program. Grades Grades are an important part of assessing student performance. They represent the faculty’s assessment of student’s effort and success in meeting course learning objectives and in concert with other courses in meeting the objectives of the MSW program. Below is a listing of courses (with descriptive statistics) that are deemed associated with MSW program Objective 1.

Objective 1 - Associated Courses and Grades Assigned Course

Number Course Title Number

studentsMinimum

Grade Assigned

Maximum Grade

Assigned

Average Grade

Assigned

Standard Deviation

SW321 Gen SWRK Theory & Practice I 47 2.00 4.00 3.5404 .58409 SW322 Gen SWRK Theory & Practice II 45 2.00 4.00 3.4467 .50659 SW323 Gen SWRK Theory & Practice III 42 3.00 4.00 3.7429 .32169 SW324 Models/Methods/Theories SWRK Practice 42 2.70 4.00 3.7357 .40774 SW335 Foundations of SWRK Practice 17 4.00 4.00 4.0000 .00000 SW341 Advanced Practice in Mental Hlth Settings 16 2.70 4.00 3.6938 .52595 SW342 Advanced Practice in Fam/Child/Youth Serv 20 3.00 4.00 3.8350 .29961 SW343 Assessment of Individuals & Families 35 2.70 4.00 3.8629 .32001

Objective 1 Average for the 2003 Graduates 36 2.90 4.00 3.7875 .28475 Grades in the courses are quite good with averages well into the B+ (3.7875) range for most courses. The grades show that foundation year courses average lower than concentration year courses. This pattern is

similar to the change observed in field instructor ratings for objective 1. Students improve from the foundation year to the concentration year. This matches with the ratings given by field instructors who showed a similar pattern. Of interest is the lower grades in SWRK 322 Gen SWRK Theory & Practice II that is an introduction to group and family work. This is congruent with lower rating for providing services to groups as evaluated by the students and the field instructors. Field Instructor Evaluation, Students Self-Evaluations and Grades Compared In the concentration year, correlations between the three evaluation tools for Objective 1 are interesting. A moderate correlation of .625 (p=.001) exists between the student evaluation and the Field Instructor objective 1 evaluation items. Student grades do not correlate with either of the other two measures. This would indicate that the students’ evaluation of themselves and the evaluations of the field instructors are related to each other while courses grades are not associated with either. This is of interest as it would appear that doing well (or poorly) in the classroom is not related to students’ performance in the field or to students’ perceptions related to Objective 1. A puzzling finding that will need more thought and exploration by the faculty. With these three observation sets, it would appear that the MSW program is performing well in achieving Objective 1.

Objective 2 Prepare advanced social work practitioners who have the knowledge, understanding and respect for people from diverse backgrounds and who can provide culturally competent social work practice at multiple system levels, and promote culturally sensitive services for diverse client systems. Field Instructor Assessment and MSW Student Self-Evaluation This objective is measured by 8 foundation year evaluation items and 4 concentration year evaluation items. These are Foundation Year Practice Knowledge and Skills items 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 12; Foundation Year Professional Behavior and Skills item 5; and Advance Year Practice Knowledge and Skills items 1, 6, 8, and 14. Each item is rated on a Likert scale of 1 to 10 with higher ratings indicating higher performance (see appendix for detailed tables of these items). Average scores were produced across all items for each year for the student and field instructor evaluations. A table showing the averages for these items for the MSW Students Self- Efficacy Evaluation and the Field Instructor Evaluation with comparison statistics is given below.




Field Instructor Student

Item Number


Deviation Difference*= p<.05


PRAC 1


7.50 1.6147 9.21 .58606 -1.71*

PRAC 2


PRAC 6


PRAC 7


PRAC 9

Interviewing skills, including the ability to recognize and interpret the meaning of nonverbal communication.

7.43 1.6155 8.50 1.06518 -1.07

PRAC 10

Ability to develop and sustain positive working relationships. 8.60 1.1370 9.15 .89673 -0.55

PRAC 12

Effectiveness in providing services at the community level. 7.89 1.6662 8.12 1.87781 -0.23

Professional Skills and Behavior PROF 5 Professional responsibility. 8.17 1.5999 8.91 1.03809 -0.74

All individual items showed lower ratings from the Field Instructors in comparison with the student ratings. Practice Skill items 1 and 2 were significantly lower. Only Professional Skill item 5 shows a significant correlation of .686.

Six of the 8 items were rated less than 8 by the Field Instructors. These were in the areas of values and ethics, service at the community level, assessments, social work roles, and interviewing skills. Of interest is the difference in perception of the students and the field instructors. The students see themselves as performing at a higher level than the field instructors do.




Field Instructor Student Final

Item Number





PRAC 6


PRAC 8


PRAC 14



For the concentration year, analysis shows that on the whole students’ and field instructors average ratings were at the “exceptional” level for each of the items showing that students were meeting the expectations for Objective 2 for the Concentration year and ratings had improved since the first foundation year. All individual items showed higher ratings from the field instructors in comparison with the student ratings. Practice Skill items 1 and 6 were significantly higher. In the evaluation of Objective 2 at the conclusion of the concentration year all items were rated higher than 8 with most being higher than 9. This indicates that the program made significant progress in meeting objective in the concentration year of the program. All individual items showed higher ratings from the Field Instructors in comparison with the student ratings. Practice Skill items 1 and 6 were significantly higher. As before the field instructor average evaluation ratings were significantly higher than the evaluations of the MSW students but they showed a moderate positive correlation of .597 (p=.001). There is a relationship between the evaluations of the students and the field instructors.

Average Rating on Objective 2 Selected Items Analysis

n

MSW Students Self- Efficacy

Evaluation


Paired T-Test

SignificanceCorrelation Correlation

Significance


Concentration Year Items 26 8.79 9.09 .015 .597 .001

The table above is aggregated analysis of the individual items comprising the Evaluation for Foundation and Concentration year field instructor assessments and MSW student self evaluation for MSW Objective 2. On the whole students’ and field instructors ratings were “beyond basic expectation” for each of the items showing that students were meeting the expectations for Objective 2 for the foundation year. In the evaluation of Objective 2 at the conclusion of the concentration year all items were rated higher than 8 with most being higher than 9. This indicates that the program made significant progress in meeting the objective in the concentration year of the program. Grades Grades are an important part of assessing student performance. They represent the faculty’s assessment of student’s effort and success in meeting course learning objectives and in concert with other courses in meeting the objectives of the MSW program. Below is a listing of courses (with descriptive statistics) that are deemed associated with MSW program Objective 2.



studentsMinimum

Grade Assigned

Maximum Grade

Assigned

Average Grade

Assigned

Standard Deviation

SW301 Human Behavior & Social Environment 46 2.70 4.00 3.6870 .42563 SW302 SWRK Practice in Multicultural Context 42 3.00 4.00 3.8810 .23709 SW315 Social Welfare Policy & Services 46 2.00 4.00 3.6130 .51795 SW321 Gen SWRK Theory & Practice I 47 2.00 4.00 3.5404 .58409 SW322 Gen SWRK Theory & Practice II 45 2.00 4.00 3.4467 .50659 SW323 Gen SWRK Theory & Practice III 42 3.00 4.00 3.7429 .32169 SW335 Foundations of SWRK Practice 17 4.00 4.00 4.0000 .00000

Objective 2 Average for the 2003 Graduates 36 3.00 4.00 3.8231 .25268 Grades in the courses are quite good with averages well into the B+ (3.8231) range for most courses. The grades show that foundation year courses average lower than concentration year courses. This pattern is similar to the change observed in field instructor ratings for Objective 1. Students improve from the foundation year to the concentration year. This matches with the ratings given by field instructors who showed a similar pattern. Of interest is the lower grades in SWRK 322 Gen SWRK Theory & Practice II that is an introduction to group and family work. This is congruent with lower rating for providing services to groups as evaluated by the students and the field instructors. Field Instructor Evaluation, Students Self-Evaluations and Grades Compared In the concentration year, correlations between the three evaluation tools for Objective 2 are interesting. A weak correlation of .556 (p=.004) exists between the student evaluation and the Field Instructor Objective 2 evaluation items. Again student grades do not correlate with either of the other two measures. This would indicate that the students’ evaluation of themselves and the evaluations of the field instructors are related to each other while courses grades are not associated with either. This is of interest as it would appear that doing well (or poorly) in the classroom is not related to students’ performance in the field or to students’ perceptions related to Objective 2. A puzzling finding that will need more thought and exploration by the faculty. With these three observation sets, it would appear that the MSW program is performing well in achieving Objective 2.

Objective 3 Prepare advanced social work practitioners who can identify vulnerable populations and those factors that place them at risk, and implement strategies at multiple system levels that work to promote social and economic justice through alleviation of discrimination, oppression, and economic deprivation. Field Instructor Assessment and MSW Student Self-Evaluation This objective is measured by 7 foundation year evaluation items and 4 concentration year evaluation items. These are Foundation Year Practice Knowledge and Skills items 1, 2, 3, 11, 13, and 14; Foundation Year Professional Behavior and Skills item 5; and Advance Year Practice Knowledge and Skills items 7, 10, 15 and Concentration year Professional Behavior and Skills item 4. Each item is rated on a Likert scale of 1 to 10 with higher ratings indicating higher performance (see appendix for detailed tables of these items). Average scores were produced across all items for each year for the student and field instructor evaluations. A table showing the averages for these items for the MSW Students Self- Efficacy Evaluation and the Field Instructor Evaluation with comparison statistics is given below.





Item Number




PRAC 1


7.50 1.6147 9.21 .58606 -1.71*

PRAC 2


PRAC 3

Awareness of socio-political and economic issues affecting the poor.. 7.80 1.5789 8.69 1.04833 -0.89

PRAC 11 Understands how policy affects practice. 7.68 1.7932 8.28 1.15470 -0.60

PRAC 13


PRAC 14

Potential to be a change agent in the agency and community. 8.43 1.4500 8.43 .93751 0.00

Professional Skills and Behavior PROF

5 Professional responsibility. 8.17 1.5999 8.91 1.03809 -0.74

On the whole students’ and field instructors ratings were “beyond basic expectation” for each of the items showing that students were meeting the expectations for Objective 3 for the foundation year. All individual items showed lower ratings from the Field Instructors in comparison with the student ratings except for Practice Item 14 which was averaged even at 8.43 for both evaluations. However, this does not indicate agreement between the two groups as the two evaluations showed no significant correlation on this item. Practice Skill items 1 and 2 were significantly lower.

For the foundation year, four of the 7 items were rated less than 8 by the Field Instructors. These were in the areas of values and ethics, awareness of socio-political issues affecting the poor, and how policy affects practice. Of interest is the difference in perception of the students and the field instructors. The students see themselves as performing at a very higher level than the field instructors do.





Item Number




7 Capacity to promote social and economic justice and ability to move from case to cause advocacy. 8.93 1.269 8.394 1.1302 .5800*

PRAC 10

Analyze impact of agency policy on at-risk populations. 8.95 .985 8.591 1.1419 .3846

PRAC 15

Ability to be a change agent in the agency and community. 9.17 .883 8.750 1.1709 .5625*


4 Assertiveness. 9.17 1.065 8.788 1.3638 .3600

For the concentration year, analysis shows that on the whole students’ and field instructors’ average ratings were at the “exceptional” level for each of the items showing that students were meeting the expectations for Objective 3 for the Concentration year and ratings had improved since the first foundation year.. On the whole students’ and field instructors’ average ratings were at the “exceptional” level for each of the items showing that students were meeting the expectations for Objective 3 for the Concentration year and ratings had improved since the first foundation year. All individual items showed higher ratings from the Field Instructors in comparison with the student ratings. Practice Skill items 7 and 15 were significantly higher. As before The field instructor average evaluation ratings were significantly higher than the evaluations of the MSW students but they showed a moderate positive correlation of .566 (p=.003). There is a relationship between the evaluations of the students and the field instructors.


n MSW Students Self- Efficacy Evaluation


Paired T-Test


Significance



The table above is aggregated analysis of the individual items comprising the Evaluation for Foundation and Concentration year field instructor assessments and MSW student self evaluation for MSW Objective 3. In the evaluation of Objective 3 at the conclusion of the concentration year all items were rated higher than 8 with half being higher than 9, this indicates that the program made significant progress in meeting the objective in the concentration year of the program. Grades Grades are an important part of assessing student performance. They represent the faculty’s assessment of student’s effort and success in meeting course learning objectives and in concert with other courses in meeting the objectives of the MSW program. Below is a listing of courses (with descriptive statistics) that are deemed associated with MSW program Objective 3.



studentsMinimum

Grade Assigned

Maximum Grade

Assigned

Average Grade

Assigned

Standard Deviation

SW301 Human Behavior & Social Environment 46 2.70 4.00 3.6870 .42563 SW302 SWRK Practice in Multicultural Context 42 3.00 4.00 3.8810 .23709 SW315 Social Welfare Policy & Services 46 2.00 4.00 3.6130 .51795 SW324 Models/Methods/Theories SWRK Practice 42 2.70 4.00 3.7357 .40774 SW344 Human Behavior/Social Environ II 35 3.00 4.00 3.6686 .34194 SW354 Social Policy in Mental Health Serv 16 2.00 4.00 3.5063 .65977 SW355 Soc Policy Family/Child/Youth Service 19 3.30 4.00 3.8316 .23346

Objective 3 Average for the 2003 Graduates 36 2.65 4.00 3.6692 .32620 Grades in the courses are quite good with averages well into the B+ (3.6692) range for most courses. The grades show that foundation year courses average about the same as concentration year courses. Students do not show improvement from the foundation year to the concentration year. This may reflect the difficulty students have grasping the socio-political issues that affect their clients. Field Instructor Evaluation, Students Self-Evaluations and Grades Compared In the concentration year, correlations between the three evaluation tools for Objective 3 are interesting. A weak correlation of .558 (p=.005) exists between the student evaluation and the Field Instructor Objective 3 evaluation items. Again student grades do not correlate with either of the other two measures. This would indicate that the students’ evaluation of themselves and the evaluations of the field instructors are related to each other while courses grades are not associated with either. This is of interest as it would appear that doing well (or poorly) in the classroom is not related to students’ performance in the field or to students’ perceptions related to Objective 3. A puzzling finding that will need more thought and exploration by the faculty. With these three observation sets, it would appear that the MSW program is performing well in achieving Objective 3.

Objective 4 Prepare advanced social work practitioners who are knowledgeable about selected theories of all systems levels, and apply those theories specifically relevant for practice at multiple system levels. Field Instructor Assessment and MSW Student Self-Evaluation This objective is measured by 5 foundation year evaluation items and 8 concentration year evaluation items. These are Foundation Year Practice Knowledge and Skills items 4, 5, 6, 12, and 17; and Advance Year Practice Knowledge and Skills items 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 11, 12, and 14. Each item is rated on a Likert scale of 1 to 10 with higher ratings indicating higher performance (see appendix for detailed tables of these items). Average scores were produced across all items for each year for the student and field instructor evaluations. A table showing the averages for these items for the MSW Students Self- Efficacy Evaluation and the Field Instructor Evaluation with comparison statistics is given below.





Item Number




4 Effectiveness in providing services to individuals and families. 8.03 1.2022 8.50 .99034 -0.47

PRAC 5 Effectiveness in providing services to groups. 7.88 1.9084 7.98 1.48648 -0.10

PRAC 6


PRAC 12


PRAC 17

Applies research findings to practice and, under supervision, evaluates practice interventions.

7.39 2.0120 8.06 .86402 -0.67

Professional Skills and Behavior For the foundation year, all individual items showed lower ratings from the Field Instructors in comparison with the student ratings. As before the in the concentration year the field instructor average evaluation ratings were significantly higher than the evaluations of the MSW students. Four of the 5 items were rated less than 8 by the Field Instructors. These were in the areas of services to groups, assessment, services at the community level, and applying research findings. Of interest is the difference in perception of the students and the field instructors. The students see themselves as performing at a very higher level than the field instructors do except in services to group in which both groups rate less than 8.





Item Number





PRAC 2


PRAC 3


PRAC 4

Utilization and development of community resources and collaborations. 9.06 1.129 8.818 .9505 .2400

PRAC 6

Application of the ecological perspective in making assessments and plans for intervention. 9.00 1.028 8.797 .8694 .3125

PRAC 8


PRAC 11



PRAC 14


Professional Skills and Behavior For the concentration year, analysis shows that on the whole the individual items comprising the Evaluation for Field Instructors and Concentration Year MSW Student Self Evaluation for MSW Objective 4, students’ and field instructors’ average ratings were at the “exceptional” level for each of the items showing that students were meeting the expectations for Objective 4 for the Concentration year and ratings had improved since the first foundation year. All individual items showed higher ratings from the Field Instructors in comparison with the student ratings. Practice Skill items 1 and 12 were significantly higher. This is interesting as services to groups shows higher ratings from the foundation year, but the field instructors rated the students higher than the students do themselves. The field instructor average evaluation ratings were significantly higher than the evaluations of the MSW students but they showed a moderate positive correlation of .640 (p=.000). There is a relationship between the evaluations of the students and the field instructors.




Paired T-Test


Significance



The table above is aggregated analysis of the individual items comprising the Evaluation for Foundation and Concentration year field instructor assessments and MSW student self evaluation for MSW Objective 4. On the whole students’ and field instructors ratings were “beyond basic expectation” for each of the items showing that students were meeting the expectations for Objective 4 for the foundation year. In the evaluation of Objective 4 at the conclusion of the concentration year all items were rated higher than 8 with half being higher than 9. This indicates that the program made significant progress in meeting the objective in the concentration year of the program. Grades Grades are an important part of assessing student performance. They represent the faculty’s assessment of student’s effort and success in meeting course learning objectives and in concert with other courses in meeting the objectives of the MSW program. Below is a listing of courses (with descriptive statistics) that are deemed associated with MSW program Objective 4.



studentsMinimum

Grade Assigned

Maximum Grade

Assigned

Average Grade

Assigned

Standard Deviation

SW301 Human Behavior & Social Environment 46 2.70 4.00 3.6870 .42563 SW321 Gen SWRK Theory & Practice I 47 2.00 4.00 3.5404 .58409 SW322 Gen SWRK Theory & Practice II 45 2.00 4.00 3.4467 .50659 SW323 Gen SWRK Theory & Practice III 42 3.00 4.00 3.7429 .32169 SW324 Models/Methods/Theories SWRK Practice 42 2.70 4.00 3.7357 .40774 SW341 Advanced Practice in Mental Hlth Settings 16 2.70 4.00 3.6938 .52595 SW342 Advanced Practice in Fam/Child/Youth Serv 20 3.00 4.00 3.8350 .29961 SW354 Social Policy in Mental Health Serv 16 2.00 4.00 3.5063 .65977 SW355 Soc Policy Family/Child/Youth Service 19 3.30 4.00 3.8316 .23346

Objective 4 Average for the 2003 Graduates 36 2.35 4.00 3.6990 .35950 Grades in the courses are quite good with averages well into the B+ (3.6990) range for most courses. The grades show that foundation year courses average about the same as concentration year courses. Students do not show improvement from the foundation year to the concentration year. This may reflect the difficulty students have grasping the socio-political issues that affect their clients. Field Instructor Evaluation, Students Self-Evaluations and Grades Compared In the concentration year, correlations between the three evaluation tools for Objective 4 are interesting. A moderate correlation of .625 (p=.001) exists between the student evaluation and the Field Instructor Objective 4 evaluation items. Again student grades do not correlate with either of the other two measures. This would indicate that the students’ evaluation of themselves and the evaluations of the field instructors are related to each other while courses grades are not associated with either. This is of interest as it would appear that doing well (or poorly) in the classroom is not related to students’ performance in the field or to students’ perceptions related to Objective 4. A puzzling finding that will need more thought and exploration by the faculty. With these three observation sets, it would appear that the MSW program is performing well in achieving Objective 4.

Objective 5 Educate advanced social work practitioners who are knowledgeable about and can analyze social policies and services relevant to practice, and provide leadership in policy practice to influence, formulate and advocate for policies consistent with social work values. Field Instructor Assessment and MSW Student Self-Evaluation This objective is measured by 5 foundation year evaluation items and 5 concentration year evaluation items. These are Foundation Year Practice Knowledge and Skills items 1, 3, 11, and 14; Foundation Year Professional Behavior and Skills item 3; and Advance Year Practice Knowledge and Skills items 2, 7, 9, 10, and 17. Each item is rated on a Likert scale of 1 to 10 with higher ratings indicating higher performance (see appendix for detailed tables of these items). Average scores were produced across all items for each year for the student and field instructor evaluations. A table showing the averages for these items for the MSW Students Self- Efficacy Evaluation and the Field Instructor Evaluation with comparison statistics is given below.





Item Number




PRAC 1


7.50 1.6147 9.21 .58606 -1.71*

PRAC 3

Awareness of socio-political and economic issues affecting the poor.. 7.80 1.5789 8.69 1.04833 -0.89


PRAC 14



3 Assertiveness 8.30 1.1619 8.24 1.71178 0.06

For the foundation year, all individual items showed lower ratings from the Field Instructors in comparison with the student ratings, except Practice Item 14 were ratings on potential to be a change agent in the agency and community was evenly averaged at 8.43. Practice item 1 showed significantly lower ratings. Three of the 5 items were rated less than 8 by the Field Instructors. These were in the areas of values and ethics, awareness of socio-political issues affecting the poor, and how policy affects practice. Of interest is the difference in perception of the students and the field instructors. The students see themselves as performing at a very higher level than the field instructors do.





Item Number




2 Understanding and application of social work roles related to the concentration. 9.18 .852 8.758 .8850 .3462

PRAC 7

Capacity to promote social and economic justice and ability to move from case to cause advocacy. 8.93 1.269 8.394 1.1302 .5800*

PRAC 9 Integration of policy and practice. 8.91 .963 8.152 1.2592 .6538*

PRAC 10

Analyze impact of agency policy on at-risk populations. 8.95 .985 8.591 1.1419 .3846

PRAC 17

Develop intervention plans based on the results of evaluation and/or research which improves practice effectiveness.

8.84 .943 8.109 1.3121 .8542*

Professional Skills and Behavior For the concentration year, analysis shows that on the whole the individual items comprising the Evaluation for Field Instructors and Concentration Year MSW Student Self Evaluation for MSW Objective 5 average ratings were at the “exceptional” level for each of the items showing that students were meeting the expectations for Objective 5 for the Concentration year and ratings had improved since the first foundation year. All individual items showed higher ratings from the Field Instructors in comparison with the student ratings. Practice Skill items 7, 9 and 17 were significantly higher. The field instructor average evaluation ratings were significantly higher than the evaluations of the MSW students but they showed a weak positive correlation of .515 (p=.007). There is a relationship between the evaluations of the students and the field instructors.




Paired T-Test


Significance



The table above is aggregated analysis of the individual items comprising the Evaluation for Foundation and Concentration year field instructor assessments and MSW student self evaluation for MSW Objective 5. On the whole students’ and field instructors ratings were “beyond basic expectation” for each of the items showing that students were meeting the expectations for Objective 5 for the foundation year.

In the evaluation of Objective 5 at the conclusion of the concentration year all items were rated higher than 8 with half being higher than 9. This indicates that the program made significant progress in meeting the objective in the concentration year of the program. Grades Grades are an important part of assessing student performance. They represent the faculty’s assessment of student’s effort and success in meeting course learning objectives and in concert with other courses in meeting the objectives of the MSW program. Below is a listing of courses (with descriptive statistics) that are deemed associated with MSW program Objective 5.



studentsMinimum

Grade Assigned

Maximum Grade

Assigned

Average Grade

Assigned

Standard Deviation

SW315 Social Welfare Policy & Services 46 2.00 4.00 3.6130 .51795 SW354 Social Policy in Mental Health Serv 16 2.00 4.00 3.5063 .65977 SW355 Soc Policy Family/Child/Youth Service 19 3.30 4.00 3.8316 .23346

Objective 5 Average for the 2003 Graduates 36 2.00 4.00 3.6194 .46388 Grades in the courses are quite good with averages well into the B+ (3.6194) range for most courses. The grades show that foundation year courses average about the same as concentration year courses. Students do not show improvement from the foundation year to the concentration year. This may reflect the difficulty students have grasping the socio-political issues that affect their clients. Field Instructor Evaluation, Students Self-Evaluations and Grades Compared In the concentration year, correlations between the three evaluation tools for Objective 5 are interesting. A weak correlation of ..489 (p=.013) exists between the student evaluation and the Field Instructor Objective 5 evaluation items. Again student grades do not correlate with either of the other two measures. This would indicate that the students’ evaluation of themselves and the evaluations of the field instructors are related to each other while courses grades are not associated with either. This is of interest as it would appear that doing well (or poorly) in the classroom is not related to students’ performance in the field or to students’ perceptions related to Objective 5. A puzzling finding that will need more thought and exploration by the faculty. With these three observation sets, it would appear that the MSW program is performing well in achieving Objective 5.

Objective 6 Provide knowledge to graduates that enable them to provide advanced practice with multiple systems at the advanced level in the fields of mental health, and families, youth and children. Field Instructor Assessment and MSW Student Self-Evaluation This objective is measured by 12 foundation year evaluation items and 7 concentration year evaluation items. These are Foundation Year Practice Knowledge and Skills items 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, and 16; Foundation Year Professional Behavior and Skills item 3 and 5; and Advance Year Practice Knowledge and Skills items 1, 2, 3, 6, 11, 12, and 14. Each item is rated on a Likert scale of 1 to 10 with higher ratings indicating higher performance (see appendix for detailed tables of these items). Average scores were produced across all items for each year for the student and field instructor evaluations. A table showing the averages for these items for the MSW Students Self- Efficacy Evaluation and the Field Instructor Evaluation with comparison statistics is given below.





Item Number




PRAC 1


7.50 1.6147 9.21 .58606 -1.71*

PRAC 6


PRAC 7


PRAC 8


PRAC 9


7.43 1.6155 8.50 1.06518 -1.07

PRAC 10


PRAC 12


PRAC 14


PRAC 15

Makes appropriate and consistent use of supervision. 8.00 1.5236 9.02 .87135 -1.02

PRAC 16


8.20 1.4368 9.32 .84521 -1.12*

Professional Skills and Behavior PROF 3 Assertiveness 8.30 1.1619 8.24 1.71178 0.06 PROF 5 Professional responsibility. 8.17 1.5999 8.91 1.03809 -0.74

For the foundation year, all individual items showed lower ratings from the Field Instructors in comparison with the student ratings. Practice item 1 and 16 were significantly lower. Five of the 12 items were rated less than 8 by the Field Instructors. These were in the areas of values and ethics, assessment, social work roles, interviewing skills, and service at the community level. Again, of interest is the difference in perception of the students and the field instructors. The students see themselves as performing at a very higher level than the field instructors do.





Item Number





PRAC 2


PRAC 3


PRAC 6


PRAC 11



PRAC 14


Professional Skills and Behavior For the concentration year, analysis shows that on the whole the individual items comprising the Evaluation for Field Instructors and Concentration Year MSW Student Self Evaluation for MSW Objective 6, average ratings were at the “exceptional” level for each of the items showing that students were meeting the expectations for Objective 6 for the Concentration year and ratings had improved since the first foundation year. All individual items showed higher ratings from the Field Instructors in comparison with the student ratings. Practice Skill items 1, 6 and 12 were significantly higher. The field instructor average evaluation ratings were significantly higher than the evaluations of the MSW students but they showed a moderate positive correlation of .616 (p=.001). There is a relationship between the evaluations of the students and the field instructors.




Paired T-Test


Significance

Foundation Year Items 11 8.71 8.04 .141 ..228 .501


The table above is aggregated analysis of the individual items comprising the Evaluation for Foundation and Concentration year field instructor assessments and MSW student self evaluation for MSW Objective 6. On the whole students’ and field instructors ratings were “beyond basic expectation” for each of the items showing that students were meeting the expectations for Objective 6 for the foundation year. In the evaluation of Objective 6 at the conclusion of the concentration year all items were rated higher than 8 with most being higher than 9. This indicates that the program made significant progress in meeting the objective in the concentration year of the program. Grades Grades are an important part of assessing student performance. They represent the faculty’s assessment of student’s effort and success in meeting course learning objectives and in concert with other courses in meeting the objectives of the MSW program. Below is a listing of courses (with descriptive statistics) that are deemed associated with MSW program Objective 6.



studentsMinimum

Grade Assigned

Maximum Grade

Assigned

Average Grade

Assigned

Standard Deviation

SW341 Advanced Practice in Mental Hlth Settings 16 2.70 4.00 3.6938 .52595 SW342 Advanced Practice in Fam/Child/Youth Serv 20 3.00 4.00 3.8350 .29961 SW343 Assessment of Individuals & Families 35 2.70 4.00 3.8629 .32001 SW354 Social Policy in Mental Health Serv 16 2.00 4.00 3.5063 .65977 SW355 Soc Policy Family/Child/Youth Service 19 3.30 4.00 3.8316 .23346

Objective 6 Average for the 2003 Graduates 35 2.57 4.00 3.7705 .35954 Grades in the courses are quite good with averages well into the B+ (3.7705) range for most courses. The grades show that foundation year courses average about the same as concentration year courses. Students do not show improvement from the foundation year to the concentration year. This may reflect the difficulty students have grasping the socio-political issues that affect their clients. Field Instructor Evaluation, Students Self-Evaluations and Grades Compared In the concentration year, correlations between the three evaluation tools for Objective 6 are interesting. A moderate correlation of .602 (p=.012) exists between the student evaluation and the Field Instructor Objective 6 evaluation items. Again student grades do not correlate with either of the other two measures. This would indicate that the students’ evaluation of themselves and the evaluations of the field instructors are related to each other while courses grades are not associated with either. This is of interest as it would appear that doing well (or poorly) in the classroom is not related to students’ performance in the field or to students’ perceptions related to Objective 6. A puzzling finding that will need more thought and exploration by the faculty. With these three observation sets, it would appear that the MSW program is performing well in achieving Objective 6.

Objective 7 Prepare graduates who will engage in quantitative and qualitative research for effective practice and program evaluation to improve ones own practice, as well as services and policies. Field Instructor Assessment and MSW Student Self-Evaluation This objective is measured by 2 foundation year evaluation items and 2 concentration year evaluation items. These are Foundation Year Practice Knowledge and Skills items 14 and 17; and Advance Year Practice Knowledge and Skills items 15 and 17. Each item is rated on a Likert scale of 1 to 10 with higher ratings indicating higher performance (see appendix for detailed tables of these items). Average scores were produced across all items for each year for the student and field instructor evaluations. A table showing the averages for these items for the MSW Students Self- Efficacy Evaluation and the Field Instructor Evaluation with comparison statistics is given below.





Item Number




14 Potential to be a change agent in the agency and community. 8.43 1.4500 8.43 .93751 0.00

PRAC 17

Applies research findings to practice and, under supervision, evaluates practice interventions.

7.39 2.0120 8.06 .86402 -0.67


Practice Item 7 averaged a lower rating for the field instructor evaluations compared with the MSW student evaluations. However, the difference was not significant. Practice Item 14 ratings on potential to be a change agent in the agency and community was evenly averaged at 8.43. One of the 2 items were rated less than 8 by the Field Instructors. This was in the area of applying research. Of interest is the Lack of much difference in perception of the students and the field instructors. The students see themselves as performing at about the same level as the field instructors do. This is different than other rating where student ratings averaged higher then the field instructors.





Item Number




15 Ability to be a change agent in the agency and community. 9.17 .883 8.750 1.1709 .5625*

PRAC 17

Develop intervention plans based on the results of evaluation and/or research which improves practice effectiveness.

8.84 .943 8.109 1.3121 .8542*

Professional Skills and Behavior For the concentration year, analysis shows that on the whole the individual items comprising the Evaluation for Field Instructors and Concentration Year MSW Student Self Evaluation for MSW Objective 7, average ratings were at the “exceptional” level for each of the items showing that students were meeting the expectations for Objective 7 for the Concentration year and ratings had improved since the first foundation year. Both items showed higher ratings from the Field Instructors in comparison with the student ratings. The differences were significantly higher. The field instructor average evaluation ratings were significantly higher than the evaluations of the MSW students but they showed a very weak positive correlation of .452 (p=.023). There is a loose relationship between the evaluations of the students and the field instructors for this objective.




Paired T-Test


Significance



The table above is aggregated analysis of the individual items comprising the Evaluation for Foundation and Concentration year field instructor assessments and MSW student self evaluation for MSW Objective 7. On the whole students’ and field instructors ratings were “beyond basic expectation” for each of the items showing that students were meeting the expectations for Objective 7 for the foundation year. In the evaluation of Objective 7 at the conclusion of the concentration year all items were rated higher than 8 with most being higher than 9. This indicates that the program made significant progress in meeting objective in the concentration year of the program.

Grades Grades are an important part of assessing student performance. They represent the faculty’s assessment of student’s effort and success in meeting course learning objectives and in concert with other courses in meeting the objectives of the MSW program. Below is a listing of courses (with descriptive statistics) that are deemed associated with MSW program Objective 7.



studentsMinimum

Grade Assigned

Maximum Grade

Assigned

Average Grade

Assigned

Standard Deviation

SW317 Research Methods-Knowledge & Practice 42 1.70 4.00 3.2048 .77615 SW352 Supervision, Program Dev, and Admin 35 3.00 4.00 3.8743 .25245 SW353 Research: Program & Practice Eva 33 2.70 4.00 3.5909 .39557

Objective 7 Average for the 2003 Graduates 36 3.00 4.00 3.6894 .31171 Grades in the courses are quite good with averages well into the B+ (3.6894) range for most courses. The grades show that foundation year courses average about the same as concentration year courses. Students do not show improvement from the foundation year to the concentration year. This may reflect the difficulty students have grasping the socio-political issues that affect their clients. Field Instructor Evaluation, Students Self-Evaluations and Grades Compared In the concentration year, correlations between the three evaluation tools for Objective 7 are interesting. A very weak correlation of .461 (p=.012) exists between the student evaluation and the Field Instructor Objective 7 evaluation items. Again student grades do not correlate with either of the other two measures. This would indicate that the students’ evaluation of themselves and the evaluations of the field instructors are loosely related to each other while courses grades are not associated with either. This is of interest as it would appear that doing well (or poorly) in the classroom is not related to students’ performance in the field or to students’ perceptions related to Objective 7. A puzzling finding that will need more thought and exploration by the faculty. With these three observation sets, it would appear that the MSW program is performing well in achieving Objective 7.

Objective 8 Prepare advanced social workers who will provide leadership for and act as catalysts in promoting collaborative endeavors in social service agencies in the community. Field Instructor Assessment and MSW Student Self-Evaluation This objective is measured by 5 foundation year evaluation items and 15 concentration year evaluation items. These are Foundation Year Practice Knowledge and Skills items 9 and 15; Foundation Year Professional Behavior and Skills item 1, 2, and 6; and Advance Year Practice Knowledge and Skills items 2, 4, 5, 13, 15, and 16; and Concentration year Professional Behavior and Skills items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Each item is rated on a Likert scale of 1 to 10 with higher ratings indicating higher performance (see appendix for detailed tables of these items). Average scores were produced across all items for each year for the student and field instructor evaluations. A table showing the averages for these items for the MSW Students Self- Efficacy Evaluation and the Field Instructor Evaluation with comparison statistics is given below.





Item Number


Deviation Difference *= p<.05


PRAC 9


7.43 1.6155 8.50 1.06518 -1.07

PRAC 15

Makes appropriate and consistent use of supervision. 8.00 1.5236 9.02 .87135 -1.02


1 Use of computers and other electronic technology. 7.96 1.8653 8.52 1.23632 -0.56

PROF 2

Written communication skills, including the ability to record with clarity and promptness. 7.90 1.6058 8.65 1.09908 -0.75

PROF 6

Effectiveness in planning and organizing work responsibilities. 7.77 1.4500 8.77 1.07917 -1.00*

All individual items showed lower ratings from the Field Instructors in comparison with the student ratings. Professional skill area item 6 regarding planning and organizing work was significantly lower. Four of the 5 items were rated less than 8 by the Field Instructors. These were in the practice and in the professional skills areas of area of interviewing, use of supervision, use of technology, written communication, and planning work. Of interest is the difference in perception of the students and the field instructors. The students see themselves as performing at a higher level as the field instructors do.

MSW 2003 Cohort – Field Practicum Evaluation

MSW Objective 8 - Concentration Year, Final Semester, Spring 2003

Item By Item Analysis Of Field Practicum Field Instructor Evaluation Of Student Ability1.....2 = Performance is generally unacceptable. 3.....4 = Student has beginning understanding of the skill, but as yet performance is fairly uneven. 5.....6 = Performance meets basic expectations, and continuing improvement is demonstrated. 7.....8 = Performance is generally beyond basic expectations with few gaps. 9....10 = Performance is exceptional and the skill is an integrated part of the student's practice.


Item Number




PRAC 1

Ability to assess and develop plans with consumers from various cultural and ethnic backgrounds

9.02 .826 8.470 1.2682 .6400*

PRAC 2


PRAC 3

Development and implementation of service plans for individuals and families.

8.95 .946 8.703 .9989 .2800

PRAC 4


PRAC 5

Development of professional self-awareness, including the need for continued professional growth

9.63 .674 9.136 .8594 .5400*

PRAC 6

Application of the ecological perspective in making assessments and plans for intervention.

9.00 1.028 8.797 .8694 .3125

PRAC 7

Capacity to promote social and economic justice and ability to move from case to cause advocacy.

8.93 1.269 8.394 1.1302 .5800*

PRAC 8

Demonstration of the acceptance and use of basic social work values, ethics, and principles.

9.44 .934 9.364 .7631 .0800

PRAC 9 Integration of policy and practice. 8.91 .963 8.152 1.2592 .6538*

Professional Skills and Behavior For the concentration year, analysis shows that, on the whole, the individual items comprising the Evaluation for Field Instructors and Concentration Year MSW Student Self Evaluation for MSW Objective 8 average ratings were at the “exceptional” level for each of the items showing that students were meeting the expectations for Objective 8 for the Concentration year and ratings had improved since the first foundation year. All individual items showed higher ratings from the Field Instructors in comparison with the student ratings. Practice Skill items 1, 5, 6, 7, and 9 were significantly higher. In contrast to the other objectives, the field instructor average evaluation ratings were not significantly higher than the evaluations of the MSW students but they showed a moderate positive correlation of .645 (p=.000). There is a relationship between the evaluations of the students and the field instructors. It would appear that this objective has the most agreement by field instructors and students of all the objectives.




Paired T-Test


Significance



The table above is aggregated analysis of the individual items comprising the Evaluation for Foundation and Concentration year field instructor assessments and MSW student self evaluation for MSW Objective 8. On the whole students’ and field instructors ratings were “beyond basic expectation” for each of the items showing that students were meeting the expectations for Objective 8 for the foundation year. Grades Grades are an important part of assessing student performance. They represent the faculty’s assessment of student’s effort and success in meeting course learning objectives and in concert with other courses in meeting the objectives of the MSW program. Below is a listing of courses (with descriptive statistics) that are deemed associated with MSW program Objective 8.



studentsMinimum

Grade Assigned

Maximum Grade

Assigned

Average Grade

Assigned

Standard Deviation

SW322 Gen SWRK Theory & Practice II 45 2.00 4.00 3.4467 .50659 SW323 Gen SWRK Theory & Practice III 42 3.00 4.00 3.7429 .32169 SW344 Human Behavior/Social Environ II 35 3.00 4.00 3.6686 .34194 SW352 Supervision, Program Dev, and Admin 35 3.00 4.00 3.8743 .25245 SW353 Research: Program & Practice Eva 33 2.70 4.00 3.5909 .39557 SW354 Social Policy in Mental Health Serv 16 2.00 4.00 3.5063 .65977 SW355 Soc Policy Family/Child/Youth Service 19 3.30 4.00 3.8316 .23346

Objective 8Average for the 2003 Graduates 36 2.77 4.00 3.6891 .28069 Grades in the courses are quite good with averages well into the B+ (3.6891) range for most courses. The grades show that foundation year courses average about the same as concentration year courses. Students do not show improvement from the foundation year to the concentration year. This may reflect the difficulty students have grasping the socio-political issues that affect their clients. Field Instructor Evaluation, Students Self-Evaluations and Grades Compared In the concentration year, correlations between the three evaluation tools for Objective 8 are interesting. A moderate correlation of .632 (p=.001) exists between the student evaluation and the Field Instructor Objective 8 evaluation items. Surprisingly, grades are very weakly correlated with both evaluation [field instructors assessment - .401 (p=.042) and Students evaluation - .460 (p=.009).] This would indicate that the students’ evaluation of themselves and the evaluations of the field instructors are moderately related to each other while courses grades are barely associated with each. This is of interest as it would appear that doing well (or poorly) in the classroom is not related to students’ performance in the field or to students’ perceptions related to Objective 8. But why is this objective the only one where grades show a relationship even though it is a very weak one.? A puzzling finding that will need more thought and exploration by the faculty. With these three observation sets, it would appear that the MSW program is performing well in achieving Objective 8.

Objective 9 Prepare advanced social work practitioners who can work effectively in a broad range of social services and functions in rural and urban environments. Field Instructor Assessment and MSW Student Self-Evaluation This objective is measured by 11 foundation year evaluation items and 6 concentration year evaluation items. These are Foundation Year Practice Knowledge and Skills items 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14; Foundation Year Professional Behavior and Skills items 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7; and Advance Year Practice Knowledge and Skills items 2, 4, 6, 13, and 14; and Concentration year Professional Behavior and Skills item 4. Each item is rated on a Likert scale of 1 to 10 with higher ratings indicating higher performance (see appendix for detailed tables of these items). Average scores were produced across all items for each year for the student and field instructor evaluations. A table showing the averages for these items for the MSW Students Self- Efficacy Evaluation and the Field Instructor Evaluation with comparison statistics is given below.





Item Number




8 Ability to understand and apply a strength’s perspective. 8.70 1.0987 9.19 .84521 -0.49

PRAC 10



PRAC 12


PRAC 13


PRAC 14



3 Assertiveness 8.30 1.1619 8.24 1.71178 0.06

PROF 4 Relationship with co-workers. 8.53 1.2315 9.30 .81168 -0.77

PROF 5 Professional responsibility. 8.17 1.5999 8.91 1.03809 -0.74

PROF 6

Effectiveness in planning and organizing work responsibilities. 7.77 1.4500 8.77 1.07917 -1.00*

PROF 7

Ability to assume responsibility for own learning. 8.47 1.0933 8.96 .98962 -0.56

All individual items showed lower ratings from the Field Instructors in comparison with the student ratings. Professional skill area item 6 regarding planning and organizing work was significantly lower. Three of the 11 items were rated less than 8 by the Field Instructors. These were in the practice and in the professional skills areas of area of policy –practice linkage, service ate the community level, planning and organizing work. Of interest is the difference in perception of the students and the field instructors. The students consistently see themselves as performing at a higher level as the field instructors do.





Item Number




2 Understanding and application of social work roles related to the concentration. 9.18 .852 8.758 .8850 .3462

PRAC 4


PRAC 6

Application of the ecological perspective in making assessments and plans for intervention.

9.00 1.028 8.797 .8694 .3125*

PRAC 13

Ability to develop and sustain positive working relationships. 9.62 .777 9.258 .8303 .3077

PRAC 14



4 Assertiveness. 9.17 1.065 8.788 1.3638 .3600

For the concentration year, analysis shows that on the whole the individual items comprising the Evaluation for Field Instructors and Concentration Year MSW Student Self Evaluation for MSW Objective 9, average ratings were at the “exceptional” level for each of the items showing that students were meeting the expectations for Objective 9 for the Concentration year and ratings had improved since the first foundation year. All individual items showed higher ratings from the Field Instructors in comparison with the student ratings. The field instructor average evaluation ratings were significantly higher than the evaluations of the MSW students but they showed a very weak positive correlation of .613 (p=.001). There is a loose relationship between the evaluations of the students and the field instructors for this objective.

Average Rating on Objective 9 Selected Items

Analysis n

MSW Students Self- Efficacy Evaluation


Paired T-Test


Significance



The table above is aggregated analysis of the individual items comprising the Evaluation for Foundation and Concentration year field instructor assessments and MSW student self evaluation for MSW Objective 9. On the whole students’ and field instructors ratings were “beyond basic expectation” for each of the items showing that students were meeting the expectations for Objective 9 for the foundation year. In the evaluation of Objective 9 at the conclusion of the concentration year all items were rated higher than 8 with most being higher than 9. This indicates that the program made significant progress in meeting objective in the concentration year of the program. Grades Grades are an important part of assessing student performance. They represent the faculty’s assessment of student’s effort and success in meeting course learning objectives and in concert with other courses in meeting the objectives of the MSW program. Below is a listing of courses (with descriptive statistics) that are deemed associated with MSW program Objective 9.



studentsMinimum

Grade Assigned

Maximum Grade

Assigned

Average Grade

Assigned

Standard Deviation

SW302 SWRK Practice in Multicultural Context 42 3.00 4.00 3.8810 .23709 SW321 Gen SWRK Theory & Practice I 47 2.00 4.00 3.5404 .58409 SW322 Gen SWRK Theory & Practice II 45 2.00 4.00 3.4467 .50659 SW323 Gen SWRK Theory & Practice III 42 3.00 4.00 3.7429 .32169 SW324 Models/Methods/Theories SWRK Practice 42 2.70 4.00 3.7357 .40774 SW335 Foundations of SWRK Practice 17 4.00 4.00 4.0000 .00000 SW341 Advanced Practice in Mental Hlth Settings 16 2.70 4.00 3.6938 .52595 SW342 Advanced Practice in Fam/Child/Youth Serv 20 3.00 4.00 3.8350 .29961 SW354 Social Policy in Mental Health Serv 16 2.00 4.00 3.5063 .65977 SW355 Soc Policy Family/Child/Youth Service 19 3.30 4.00 3.8316 .23346

Objective 9Average for the 2003 Graduates 36 2.77 4.00 3.7496 .29199 Grades in the courses are quite good with averages well into the B+ (3.7496) range for most courses. The grades show that foundation year courses average about the same as concentration year courses. Students do not show improvement from the foundation year to the concentration year. This may reflect the difficulty students have grasping the socio-political issues that affect their clients. Field Instructor Evaluation, Students Self-Evaluations and Grades Compared In the concentration year, correlations between the three evaluation tools for Objective 9 are interesting. A weak correlation of .596 (p=.002) exists between the student evaluation and the Field Instructor Objective 9 evaluation items. Again student grades do not correlate with either of the other two measures. This would indicate that the students’ evaluation of themselves and the evaluations of the field instructors are loosely related to each other while courses grades are not associated with either. This is of interest as

it would appear that doing well (or poorly) in the classroom is not related to students’ performance in the field or to students’ perceptions related to Objective 9. A puzzling finding that will need more thought and exploration by the faculty. With these three observation sets, it would appear that the MSW program is performing well in achieving Objective 9.

Grade Performance in the Field Education Practicum Grades Across all of the field education courses, as a whole, the MSW students have performed very well. Average grades in the courses are above 3.7 at the B+ to A range. This is an indication that, on the whole, the students are meeting the learning and performance requirements of the field education program. Field Courses

Grades Assigned by MSW Course Course


studentsMinimum

Grade Assigned

Maximum Grade

Assigned

Average Grade

Assigned

Standard Deviation

SW329 Foundation Field Education (Block) 18 3.00 4.00 3.8889 .28261 SW331 Foundation Practicum - Fall 27 3.00 4.00 3.7667 .33627 SW332 Foundation Practicum - Spring 24 2.00 4.00 3.8083 .47996 SW348 Advanced Practicum in MH Settings I 4 4.00 4.00 4.0000 .00000 SW349 Advanced Practicum in FCY I 3 4.00 4.00 4.0000 .00000 SW358 Advanced Practicum & Sem in MH Settings

II 14 4.00 4.00 4.0000 .00000

SW359 Advanced Practicum /Sem in FCY Settings II

17 3.70 4.00 3.9647 .09963

This is evidence that, on the whole, the MSW students are meeting the learning and performance requirements of the field education program. This is a clear sign that the MSW students can perform as advanced level social workers. It also supports that the MSW program objectives are producing MSW advanced level social workers, an overall indication that the program is meeting its objectives. Summary – Evaluation of the MSW Program Objectives From the data analysis presented above, it is apparent that the California State University, Chico School of Social Work MSW Program is meeting its nine stated objectives. The data analysis indicates that MSW Program faculty, field instructors and the students themselves all believe that the students are meeting and even exceeding the objectives.

Documents

Social Work Evaluations from Internship and Practicum ...€¦ · Social Work Evaluations from Internship and Practicum Supervisors Objective 1 Prepare advanced social work practitioners