A process evaluation of online and face-to-face options in a U.S.-based MSW program: examining differences in student perspectives and needs

The nonprofit Council on Social Work Education (CSWE), founded in 1952 and located in Alexandria, Virginia, is recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation as the sole accrediting agency for social work education in the United States. CSWE seeks to foster the high quality of social work education through preparation of competent professionals in social work, national leadership, and a forum for collective action. It sets and maintains policy and program standards, accredits bachelor’s and master’s degree programs in social work, promotes research and faculty development, and advocates for social work education. CSWE represents more than 3,000 individual members, as well as graduate and undergraduate programs of professional social work education. CSWE has hosted the Annual Program Meeting (APM) for social work educators, practitioners, and students since 1954. APM offers a venue for continuing education, presentation of research, networking, and discussion of current issues for social workers and allied disciplines. CSWE also sponsors CSWE Press, a niche publisher concerned with the philosophy, theory, and practice of teaching; the process and evaluation of learning; and the organization and structure of social work education.

The Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) Gero-Ed Center and Hartford Partnership Program in Aging Education (HPPAE) emphasize five competency areas specific to social work practice with older adult clientele (i.e., gero social work), namely knowledge and skills applicable to (a) values, ethics and theories; (b) assessment; (c) intervention; (d) aging programs, services and policies; and (e) leadership in aging environments. Accordingly, CSWE/HPPAE created a standardized measure – Geriatric Social Work Competency Scale II with Life-long Leadership Skills (GSWCS II) – to assess empirically these practice competencies among social work students and gero social work practitioners. A scant amount of literature exists that reports properties of this measure. Consequently, the purpose of this study was to conduct a psychometric examination of the GSWCS II, namely its factor structure and reliability among the competency areas. The sample consisted of three, advanced year MSW cohorts (N=170) from a state flagship university in the southern United States. Almost one-third of the sample were enrolled in a gerontology specialization during their advanced year. The typical participant was a 27-year-old female enrolled full time, completing the 60-credit hour MSW program. Principal axis factor results indicated unidimensionality, using the traditional 1.0 eigenvalue threshold, for each competency scale. All items loaded moderately-to-strongly on their respective competency scales; loadings ranged from 0.569 to 0.906. Regarding internal consistency for each of the competency scales, Cronbach’s alphas ranged from 0.932 to 0.959; Guttman split-half coefficients (lambda-4) ranged from 0.896 to .941. Implications for gero practice competency assessment are discussed.

The tumultuous social and political changes that occurred in the 1960s have had an impact on social work education that has lasted into the 1990s. The resolution also required that Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) board of directors appoint a task force to develop a curriculum on lesbian and gay issues related to social work and to develop guidelines that would assure the rights of both homosexual faculty and students. The primary objectives of the CSWE task force were to continue to develop and examine social work curricula on lesbian/gay issues, to inquire about discrimination issues of lesbian/gay social work faculty and students, and to create CSWE accreditation standards that reflected lesbian/gay issues and needs. To guarantee the continuing coming-out process for CSWE as well as the social work profession, all who care about oppression must advocate for the inclusion of appropriate language in the newly developing curriculum policy statement.

With the increase of hazards in the natural environment, social work organizations—Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) and National Association of Social Workers (NASW)—have urged the profession to protect those most vulnerable to hazards by addressing environmental justice issues. Social work students and practitioners have provided perspectives on environmental issues; however, the existing literature knows little about the perspectives of social work faculty on environmental justice. Surveying 477 full-time faculty from CSWE-accredited Master of Social Work programs in the United States, this study explored (1) the proportion of social work faculty that integrate environmental justice contents in their teaching and (2) factors associated with the integration of environmental justice in social work education. Findings reveal that the majority of social work faculty (58.7%) did not infuse environmental justice in their teaching. Moreover, multivariate logistic regression findings indicate that (a) training received in environmental justice (OR = 1.89, p = .005), (b) relevance of environmental justice to social work education (OR = 3.28, p < .001), and (c) feeling of preparedness to teach environmental justice (OR = 1.95, p = .004) predicted integration of environment justice in social work education. Implications of these findings for social work education are discussed.

Stoesz and Karger contend that the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) has promulgated accreditation mechanisms and processes that have failed to assure sufficient quality in social work education. Although certain of their conclusions are subject to challenge, their central propositions are credible and warrant serious consideration on the part of social work educators. Many of the systemic problems associated with CSWE accreditation also appear to characterize other organizations that are committed to social work education such as the National Association of Deans and Directors of Social Work Schools and the St. Louis Group for Excellence in Social Work Research and Education. Consonant with the urgings of Stoesz and Karger, it appears timely for social work educators to explore accreditation mechanisms and venues other than those provided by CSWE.

Many of the criticisms of Stoesz and Karger contained within their article titled “Reinventing Social Work Education” and focused against the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) are misdirected. The CSWE accreditation mandate does not extend to the publishing records (or lack thereof) of social work faculty or deans, to the GRE scores of social work students, nor to the citation patterns of social work journals in general. There certainly are some problems with the current CSWE accreditation process and policies, and several concrete suggestions are given to incrementally strengthen social work education.

ABSTRACTThe Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) issued new requirements for social work educational programs in 2015, identifying a new set of competencies for students to be effective social work professionals. Social work programs are expected to measure students’ competencies to demonstrate the effectiveness of their education. However, few measurement tools that focus on these revised competencies have been published in the social work literature, and consequently, social work educators lack sufficient tools to accurately measure students’ performances. This article reports on the development and validation of the Field Evaluation Instrument (FEI), a tool designed to assess the 2015 social work competencies of social work students in the generalist practice context. It documents the development of the FEI, which was informed by the existing literature, and the CSWE’s Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards, as well as item development and survey design procedures. The resulting 69-item, 9-scale FEI demonstrated excellent factorial validity, strong internal consistency, and robust external validity as evidenced by the positive correlations with students’ grade point average in the social work major. The FEI fills an important gap in social work education by contributing a valid tool to assess the CSWE competencies. Further implications for social work education are discussed.

One of my favorite things about the field of social work has been its strong interconnections with other fields of study, including a full range of social and behavioral sciences. Social work formally utilizes a generalist approach, thus workers are trained to be able to respond effectively to a variety of client needs and potential problems. In doing so, ethical practice is emphasized, and social workers are admonished to challenge injustice, promote client self-determination, embrace human diversity, and practice with cultural competence (National Association of Social Workers, 2008). Since 2008, the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE), which accredits all social work education programs in the United States, has required that social work students demonstrate mastery of specific competencies, referred to as Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (EPAS). These competencies include a focus on ethical behavior (competency 1), embracing diversity and difference (competency 2), social injustice and human rights (competency 3), and the interconnectedness of research and practice (competency 4) (CSWE, 2015). EPAS competencies are designed to apply across social work education and practice. In this paper, I will summarize scholarship on consensual bondage and discipline – dominance and submission – sadomasochism (BDSM) and briefly explain why this topic is relevant to social work practice. I will then discuss my frustrations in attempting to publish work on this topic within the field of social work. Apart from a notable exception in the journal Canadian Social Work (Williams, 2013), the topic of BDSM is absent from the social work literature. However, what is particularly surprising and disturbing to me, based on personal experience, has been the refusal of journal editors and reviewers to accept an accumulating empirical research literature on BDSM, which then results in manuscript rejection. I will discuss my experiences of manuscript rejection and editor/reviewer biases concerning BDSM shortly. Contemporary social work, after all, is predicated on EPAS core competencies, including those mentioned above, and also emphasizes evidence-based practice (CSWE, 2008, 2015; Rubin & Babbie, 2014). While I have occasionally encountered difficulty in getting specific manuscripts published, including on the topic of BDSM, it is only in the field of social work that I have faced consistent rejection.

This article presents a discussion of the concept of emotional intelligence and provides a rationale with reference to the relevant literature on the concept and significance of emotional intelligence in social work education. In this piece I argue that emotions can influence moral decision making in social work and may act as moral markers and motivators for social work practitioners and students. It offers my viewpoint on emotional intelligence based on my practice experience as a registered social worker, a social work educator and a learner completing a PhD in social work. Finally, I explicate some suggestions to further include emotional intelligence in the social workers’ ongoing professional development and social work students’ education.

In preparation for a career in social work, students take part in a field practicum, an opportunity to engage in experiential learning, which is considered a signature pedagogy by the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE). With the emergence of sport social work as an area of social work practice, there is a need for sport-specific field practicums to prepare students for a career as a social worker in sport. Thus, the purpose of this study was to explore the state of sport-specific field practicums in the United States. A survey was completed by 119 social work faculty and staff at CSWE-accredited institutions. Findings support the fact that social work practice in sport is growing, but there remain barriers to establishing effective and sustainable practicum placements in sport organizations. Considering these barriers, specific implications for social work staff, faculty, and students are discussed in order to support the continued growth of sport-related social work practicum opportunities.

This article reviews the 15 years of research development efforts of the Institute for the Advancement of Social Work Research (IASWR); delineates IASWR's roles in relation to the social work practice, education, and research communities; presents the transdisciplinary and transorganizational partnerships in which IASWR engages to influence national-level policy; identifies markers that demonstrate increased capacity; and, finally, points toward opportunities for the profession to carry gains to the next level. Specifically discussed are IASWR's role in partnerships and coalitions to influence federal policy and research resource development and IASWR's leadership work in promoting evidence-based practices in social work. KEY WORDS: collaboration; evidence-based practice; infrastructure; policy development; resource development; social work research ********** The Institute for the Advancement of Social Work Research (IASWR) was created in 1993 to be an infrastructure through which the profession's research capacity and knowledge development could be both strengthened and demonstrated (Zlotnik, Biegel, & Solt, 2001; Zlotnik & Solt, 2006). IASWR HISTORY Despite the dual traditions of social work research and social work practice, there have been few organized and sustained national efforts focused on developing social work researchers or building social work research resources. In 1988, National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Director Lewis Judd funded the creation of the Task Force on Social Work Research (Task Force), recognizing that whereas 70% of mental health services are provided by social workers, fewer than one-half of 1% of NASW members identified their primary professional activity as research (Task Force, 1991). The Task Force met for three years and gathered input from a broad range of social workers and other stakeholders to assess the current state of social work research. The culminating report, Building Social Work Knowledge for Effective Services and Policies: A Plan for Research Development (Task Force, 1991) stated the following: There is a crisis in the current development of research resources in social work.... This has serious consequences for individuals using social work services, for professional practitioners, for the credibility of the profession, and for the American society. Billions of dollars are being spent for services to deal with critical social problems, including services provided by social workers. Extremely little is being spent on research to improve the effectiveness of such services. (p. viii) This report laid the groundwork for IASWR's creation. IASWR's founding organizations, NASW; the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE); the Association of Baccalaureate Social Work Program Directors (BPD); the National Association of Deans and Directors of Schools of Social Work (NADD); the Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education (GADE); and, in 2000, the Society for Social Work and Research (SSWR) made a long-term commitment to the importance of social work research for the profession and for their organizations and constituents. IASWR's mission is to advance the profession's knowledge base by building research capacity; by increasing support and opportunities for research; by promoting linkages among social work practice, research, and education communities; and by representing the profession within the national scientific community. IASWR's work follows two parallel paths: one focuses on building research capacity and research practice connections within social work, and the other focuses on advocacy and increased social work research visibility with federal agencies, with legislators, and with sister scientific societies. SUPPORTING RESEARCH AND BUILDING RESEARCH CAPACITY Building capacity within schools of social work required development of expertise in writing and reviewing federal research grants. …

Working at the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) for 5 years (1995 to 2000) and having sat in the CSWE conference room before that, I frequently saw the picture of Ron Federico that was prominently displayed. As I worked on initatives to promote professional social work practice in public human service agencies, building partnerships between social work education programs and communitybased agencies was essential. It was also necessary to articulate the competencies BSW graduates should have to practice in child welfare agencies. Thus, through my work, Ron Federico became more than a picture on the wall— he became a major force as I increasingly became knowledgeable about the essential contributions that he made to social work education. Thus, I was extremely honored to be selected to present the 2014 Ron Federico Lecture. This lecture is grounded in the work that I have done, much in collaboration with many others, and the things I have learned over the past several decades. Since 1987 I have journeyed from the National Association of Social Workers (NASW), to CSWE, and then to the Institute for the Advancement of Social Work Research (IASWR), and then back to NASW in 2009 to direct its nascent Social Work Policy Institute. What I attempt to provide here is a somewhat historical view, because it helps to know where we have been to help us in moving forward. This retrospective provides a policy view of where our assumptions that social work degrees are not only relevant, but also perhaps essential for good child welfare practice have been grounded. It also suggests that we are not yet able to make an irrefutable assertion that a social work degree is the only path to excellence in child welfare practice, improved child and family outcomes, and improved staff retention. This paper also looks at strategies we might use to ensure that the social work profession, including the expertise and education of both BSW and MSW graduates, continues to be relevant for today’s and tomorrow’s child welfare service delivery. It should be acknowledged that I first came to NASW on a parttime, temporary basis, to work on fulfilling the recommendations that had been developed as part of then NASW President Dorothy V. Harris’s Presidential

Social Work Teaching Partnerships were developed in 2015 by the Department for Education in England to foster stronger links between social work employers and educators to improve the quality of social work graduates leaving universities. The initiative resulted in practising social workers entering universities in greater numbers to teach social work students. This paper focuses on how two practicing social workers – Elizabeth and Alex - were affected by teaching social work students in a university setting. The paper presents the practitioners’ reflections of teaching and its effects through short vignettes before examining these reflections by drawing on critical social theories. Social work teaching partnerships which encourage practitioners to spend time as social work teachers in the University classroom can produce unanticipated, positive effects for these practitioners. If the university classroom is seen as a “field” (Bourdieu, 1988), it can facilitate social workers to become objects of knowledge for social work students andto themselves. Interacting with students created opportunities for Elizabeth and Alex to reflect on their social work values, knowledge base, role, and practice. By asking unexpected questions in the classroom, students problematize (Foucault, 1984) what it means to be and to practice as a social worker. Consequently, classroom interactions with social work students can lead practitioners to think about how they would like to work. Elizabeth’s and Alex’s reflections of their classroom experiences may also help to inform and strengthen workforce retention policies in social work, as their self-efficacy increased and new possibilities for social work practice emerged.

The Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) provides leadership in social work education through faculty development, research, and accreditation of baccalaureate and master's social work programs. As of February 2012, 689 social work programs were accredited by CSWE. These programs represent an estimated 7,500 faculty members and 82,000 students at the baccalaureate and master's levels. CSWE promotes continued educational innovation and relevancy through setting accreditation standards, which are regularly revised by volunteer representatives from the social work education and practice community and approved by the CSWE Board of Directors.

Social workers advance human rights and social and economic justice through their practice and policy work. The Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) mandates that social work students develop knowledge, values, and skills in this area, as one of the core competencies of their professional training. This qualitative study analyzed learning contracts of four cohorts of BSW seniors (n = 114) to identify the stated activities for advancing human rights and social and economic justice through field education. Fifteen of these students also provided their understanding of the connection between their activities and this core competency. The findings revealed the types of activities that social work students engage in to develop and demonstrate readiness for practice. More than other core competencies, some students struggled to identify specific activities related to their practice setting, client population, or social work role. Implications for social work education and the implementation of CSWE’s 2015 Education Policy and Accreditation Standards are discussed.