Unit: Social Work
Program: Social Work (BSW)
Degree: Bachelor's
Date: Mon Nov 16, 2015 - 12:42:50 pm

1) Institutional Learning Objectives (ILOs) and Program Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs)

1. Identify as a professional social worker and conduct oneself accordingly.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 3a. Continuous learning and personal growth)

2. Apply social work ethical principles to guide professional practice.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 3a. Continuous learning and personal growth)

3. Apply critical thinking to inform and communicate professional judgments.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively)

4. Engage diversity and difference in practice.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture)

5. Advance human rights and social and economic justice.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture)

6. Engage in research-informed practice and practice-informed research.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2b. Conduct research)

7. Apply knowledge of human behavior and the social environment.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field)

8. Engage in policy practice to advance social and economic well-being and to deliver effective social work services.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field)

9. Respond to contexts that shape practice.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field)

10. Engage, assess, intervene, and evaluate with individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2c. Communicate and report)

2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.

Department Website URL: http://www.hawaii.edu/sswork/bsw-assessment.html
Student Handbook. URL, if available online: http://www.hawaii.edu/sswork/forms/bsw/BSW_Student_Handbook.pdf
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online: http://www.hawaii.edu/sswork/bulletin.html
UHM Catalog. Page Number:
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online:
Other: New Student Orientation Materials
Other:

3) Please review, add, replace, or delete the existing curriculum map.

Curriculum Map File(s) from 2015:

4) For your program, the percentage of courses that have course SLOs explicitly stated on the syllabus, a website, or other publicly available document is as follows. Please update as needed.

0%
1-50%
51-80%
81-99%
100%

5) Did your program engage in any program learning assessment activities between June 1, 2014 and September 30, 2015?

Yes
No (skip to question 16)

6) What best describes the program-level learning assessment activities that took place for the period June 1, 2014 to September 30, 2015? (Check all that apply.)

Create/modify/discuss program learning assessment procedures (e.g., SLOs, curriculum map, mechanism to collect student work, rubric, survey)
Collect/evaluate student work/performance to determine SLO achievement
Collect/analyze student self-reports of SLO achievement via surveys, interviews, or focus groups
Use assessment results to make programmatic decisions (e.g., change course content or pedagogy, design new course, hiring)
Investigate curriculum coherence. This includes investigating how well courses address the SLOs, course sequencing and adequacy, the effect of pre-requisites on learning achievement.
Investigate other pressing issue related to student learning achievement for the program (explain in question 7)
Other:

7) Briefly explain the assessment activities that took place in the last 18 months.

Our assessment goal continues to be to measure the degree to which our ten Program Learning Outcomes have been met throughout the curriculum over the course of the academic year.  We use both direct evidence (instructor evaluation of student products such as reports, presentations, and classroom activities as measured through the use of the Instructor Evaluation Sheet (IES)) and indirect evidence (student self report as measured through the use of the Student Self Assessment Survey Instrument (SSASI)).  The Ten Program SLOs are:

1. Identify as professional social workers and conduct themselves accordingly.

2. Apply social work ethical principles to guide professional practice.

3. Apply critical thinking to inform and communicate professional judgments.

4. Engage diversity and difference in practice.

5. Advance human rights and social and economic justice.

6. Engage in research-informed practice and practice-informed research.

7. Apply knowledge of human behavior and the social environment.

8. Engage in policy practice to advance social and economic well-being and to deliver effective social work services.

9. Respond to contexts that shape practice.

10. Engage, assess, intervene, and evaluate with individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities

We have a standing Assessment Committee - made up of program chairs, the directors of both student services and distance education as well as the assessment chair - that collects, analyzes and evaluates SLO data through the IES and SSASI, presents results for program decision-making and pedagogical/course content change.  Our assessment results have directly impacted program implementation and performance.  This past year the BSW Program Committee explored the SLOs and their implementation in the field component of the curriculum.  

For the last two years the BSW and MSW Programs have held “teachering” sessions to address curriculum questions and common classroom issues.  Topics have included curriculum rollout, vertical and horizontal sequencing, assignment design and implementation as well as classroom management.  Also covered are SLOs, Student Learning Objectives (SLObs) and course assignment alignment.  It is critical the both instructors and adjunct faculty recognize the need to connect assignments to stated outcomes and objects to measure competence.  Because of this, the “teachering” sessions serve as both training site and site for program culture development that is competency based.

In the spring of 2015 the BSW, MSW and Assessment chairs v participated in the University of Hawaii at Mānoa Assessment Office Assessment for Curricular Improvement Poster Presentation.  Our poster: (un)Common Core Competencies outlined our current efforts at program assessment and offered the BSW and MSW Programs the opportunity to share our instruments (SSASI, IES, SW CAI2) with other schools, programs and departments.

The BSW Program assessment efforts are not limited to SLOs and SLObs.  We also assess key program functions including student services and the field experience.  Results from student services assessment revealed a want on the part of our students for professional advising (in addition to academic advising already being received).  The field assessment process is changing as a result of our current efforts.  In the spring of 2015 the assessment committee met with field office faculty and together created a 360o assessment tool through which the student assesses both the field instructor/site and field office; the field office assesses both the student and the field instructor/site; and the field instructor in turn assesses the student and the field office.  This will allow the program to make critical programmatic and pedagogical changes.

The School Indigenous Affairs Committee created an additional SLO/Core Competency with four associated practice behaviors two years ago and in the summer of 2015, the program chairs of both the BSW and MSW programs added the SLO/core competency to the curriculum.  This came on the heels of a much larger program initiative, the transition to the 2015 Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (EPAS).

This past summer the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) released the 2015 EPAS.  Because the school will go through reaffirmation in 2018, we thought it best to transition immediately so that we can collect and present performance data for our process.  The new SLOs/SW competencies will be outlined and findings reported in our 2016 Assessment report.

8) What types of evidence did the program use as part of the assessment activities checked in question 6? (Check all that apply.)

Direct evidence of student learning (student work products)


Artistic exhibition/performance
Assignment/exam/paper completed as part of regular coursework and used for program-level assessment
Capstone work product (e.g., written project or non-thesis paper)
Exam created by an external organization (e.g., professional association for licensure)
Exit exam created by the program
IRB approval of research
Oral performance (oral defense, oral presentation, conference presentation)
Portfolio of student work
Publication or grant proposal
Qualifying exam or comprehensive exam for program-level assessment in addition to individual student evaluation (graduate level only)
Supervisor or employer evaluation of student performance outside the classroom (internship, clinical, practicum)
Thesis or dissertation used for program-level assessment in addition to individual student evaluation
Other 1:
Other 2:

Indirect evidence of student learning


Alumni survey that contains self-reports of SLO achievement
Employer meetings/discussions/survey/interview of student SLO achievement
Interviews or focus groups that contain self-reports of SLO achievement
Student reflective writing assignment (essay, journal entry, self-assessment) on their SLO achievement.
Student surveys that contain self-reports of SLO achievement
Other 1:
Other 2:

Program evidence related to learning and assessment
(more applicable when the program focused on the use of results or assessment procedure/tools in this reporting period instead of data collection)


Assessment-related such as assessment plan, SLOs, curriculum map, etc.
Program or course materials (syllabi, assignments, requirements, etc.)
Other 1:
Other 2:

9) State the number of students (or persons) who submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.

The Entire BSW Program was evaluated.

Indirect Evidence: Student Self Assessment Survey Instrument (SSASI) - 100% of students were asked to respond to survey: 76 out of 90 students replied. 

Direct Evidence: Instructor Evaluation - All BSW Faculty were asked to report on all students enrolled in targeted courses for the academic year: nine instructors, who taught nine courses, evaluated 90 students.

10) Who interpreted or analyzed the evidence that was collected? (Check all that apply.)

Course instructor(s)
Faculty committee
Ad hoc faculty group
Department chairperson
Persons or organization outside the university
Faculty advisor
Advisors (in student support services)
Students (graduate or undergraduate)
Dean/Director
Other: Assessment Committee Chair and Committee Members

11) How did they evaluate, analyze, or interpret the evidence? (Check all that apply.)

Used a rubric or scoring guide
Scored exams/tests/quizzes
Used professional judgment (no rubric or scoring guide used)
Compiled survey results
Used qualitative methods on interview, focus group, open-ended response data
External organization/person analyzed data (e.g., external organization administered and scored the nursing licensing exam)
Other:

12) Summarize the results of the assessment activities checked in question 6. For example, report the percent of students who achieved each SLO.

The BSW Program set a goal of having ≥ 75% of our student body achieve competence in each of the 10 SLOs.  Results from indirect evidence (the Student Self Assessment Survey Instrument (SSASI)) are as follows:

1. Identify as a professional Social Worker: 100%

2. Apply ethical principles: 100%

3. Apply critical thinking: 100%

4. Engage diversity in practice: 100%

5. Advance human rights social and economic justice: 100%

6. Engage research informed practice and practice informed research: 97.8%

7. Apply human behavior knowledge: 100%

8. Engage policy practice to advance well-being and deliver services: 97.8%

9. Respond to practice contexts: 97.8%

10a. Practice engagement: 97.8%

10b. Practice assessment: 100%

10c. Practice intervention: 100%

10d. Practice evaluation: 95.7%

 

We are currently in the process of calculating the results of our direct evidence (Instructor Evaluation Sheets IES)).  We are also evaluating qualitative results from the SSASI as well as our other assessment efforts in student services and the Field Experience.

13) What best describes how the program used the results? (Check all that apply.)

Assessment procedure changes (SLOs, curriculum map, rubrics, evidence collected, sampling, communications with faculty, etc.)
Course changes (course content, pedagogy, courses offered, new course, pre-requisites, requirements)
Personnel or resource allocation changes
Program policy changes (e.g., admissions requirements, student probation policies, common course evaluation form)
Students' out-of-course experience changes (advising, co-curricular experiences, program website, program handbook, brown-bag lunches, workshops)
Celebration of student success!
Results indicated no action needed because students met expectations
Use is pending (typical reasons: insufficient number of students in population, evidence not evaluated or interpreted yet, faculty discussions continue)
Other:

14) Please briefly describe how the program used the results.

Please see response to question seven which outlined both our activities as well as the use of our assessment results.

15) Beyond the results, were there additional conclusions or discoveries? This can include insights about assessment procedures, teaching and learning, and great achievements regarding program assessment in this reporting period.

Perhaps most critical to our assessment process is the setting of standards for our rubric and determining the nature of the scale we utilize.  At this point it seems that our faculty are working from two philosophical positions when it comes to students performance assessment.  Some treat the scales as fixed while others treat them as fluid.  For those who see the scales as fixed, a first year student can only rarely score well on a particular SLO because he or she does not yet have the requisite knowledge to perform well.  Thus on a scale from 1-5, most first year students will likely be scored in the 2-3 range.  For other faculty, the scale is fluid, so a student is not measured against an overall standard but rather where they should be as a first year student.  This faculty will often ask; “how is this student performing relative to a particular SLO considering he/she is at the beginning phase of the degree program?”  This of course leads to radically different scores.  The program is currently in the process of standardizing the rubric for ease of use and consistency in scoring.

16) If the program did not engage in assessment activities, please explain.

Not applicable