Unit: Social Work
Program: Social Work (BSW)
Degree: Bachelor's
Date: Mon Aug 13, 2018 - 12:41:03 pm

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

1. Demonstrate ethical and professional behavior.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 2c. Communicate and report, 3a. Continuous learning and personal growth, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture, 3c. Stewardship of the natural environment)

2. Engage diversity and difference in practice.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 2b. Conduct research, 2c. Communicate and report, 3a. Continuous learning and personal growth, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture, 3c. Stewardship of the natural environment, 3d. Civic participation)

3. Advance human rights and social, economic, and environmental justice.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 2c. Communicate and report, 3a. Continuous learning and personal growth, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture, 3c. Stewardship of the natural environment, 3d. Civic participation)

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

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 2b. Conduct research, 3a. Continuous learning and personal growth, 3d. Civic participation)

5. Engage in policy practice.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 3a. Continuous learning and personal growth, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture, 3d. Civic participation)

6. Engage with individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 2c. Communicate and report, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture)

7. Assess individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 2c. Communicate and report, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture)

8. Intervene with individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 2c. Communicate and report, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture)

9. Evaluate practice with individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 2b. Conduct research, 2c. Communicate and report, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture)

10. Engage, honor, and respect indigenous culture towards decolonized professional practice.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 1c. Understand Hawaiian culture and history, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 2c. Communicate and report, 3a. Continuous learning and personal growth, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture, 3c. Stewardship of the natural environment, 3d. Civic participation)

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

Department Website URL: http://www.hawaii.edu/sswork/bsw.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 2018:

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) Does the program have learning achievement results for its program SLOs? (Example of achievement results: "80% of students met expectations on SLO 1.")(check one):

No
Yes, on some(1-50%) of the program SLOs
Yes, on most(51-99%) of the program SLOs
Yes, on all(100%) of the program SLOs

6) Did your program engage in any program learning assessment activities between June 1, 2015 and October 31, 2018?

Yes
No (skip to question 17)

7) What best describes the program-level learning assessment activities that took place for the period June 1, 2015 to October 31, 2018? (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)
No (skip to question 17)
Investigate other pressing issue related to student learning achievement for the program (explain in question 7)
Other:

8) Briefly explain the assessment activities that took place.

Our assessment goal continues to be to measure the degree to which our ten Program Learning Outcomes (competencies) 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, classroom activities, and skill demonstration as measured through the use of the Instructor Evaluation Sheet (IES) and the Field Supervisory Evaluation form (FSE)) 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.      Demonstrate ethical and professional behavior.

2.      Engage diversity and difference in practice.

3.      Advance human rights and social, economic, and environmental justice.

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

5.      Engage in policy practice.

6.      Engage with individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities.

7.      Assess individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities

8.      Intervene with individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities.

9.      Evaluate practice with individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities.

10.    Engage, honor, and respect indigenous culture towards decolonized professional practice

We have a standing Assessment Committee - made up of program chairs, the directors of both student services and distance education as well as the Department Chair who functions as Assessment Committee Chair - that collects, analyzes and evaluates SLO data through the IES, FSE, and SSASI, presents results for program decision-making and pedagogical/course content change.  Our assessment results have directly impacted program implementation and performance.  

For the last several 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 and course assignment alignment.  It is critical the both instructors and adjunct faculty recognize the need to connect assignments to stated objectives 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 2017 the department produced a video on assessing student competency and effective competency measurement that is shown as part of the biannual faculty orientation.  The aim of the video is to: 1) clarify the IES as an assessment tool, 2) decouple competency assessment from grading, and 3) address some of the common pitfalls in the assessment process.  We have found over the years that faculty will sometimes assess students against the understandable yet unrealistic standard of the seasoned social worker.  Against such a standard, it is nearly impossible for a student to be anything but substandard.  Instead, we want faculty to assess social work competencies based on where the student is at in the academic and professional development.  The question is not “How does this student stack up against a real or imagined seasoned social worker?” but rather, “How is this student performing relative to their position as a junior (or senior) level student?”  This distinction is critical and the single biggest pitfall we face each semester. 

In addition to assessing competency development, the program also assesses 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 improved 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 several 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).

In the Summer of 2018, the BSW Program at the Myron B. Thompson School of Social Work was notified by the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) Commission on Accreditation (COA) that it was reaccredited for the maximum allowable eight (8) years without condition or contingency.    

 

9) What types of evidence did the program use as part of the assessment activities checked in question 7? (Check all that apply.)

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

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

Students are assessed for skill acquisition in both the classroom and field (2 points) as explained elsewhere in this assessment report.  Additonally, we assess across at least two of four dimensions including knowledge, values, cognitive/affective processes and skills.  For our accreditation, skill assessment is mandatory and must be assessed in practice (field) with real clients and not be simulated or evalauated by proxy.  100% of the 85 students in the program were assessed in the classroom and the field.  

85/85 students assessed

11) 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:

12) 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:

13) Summarize the results of the assessment activities checked in question 7. For example, report the percentage of students who achieved each SLO.

Assessment Goals and Social Work Competencies

Our assessment goal continues to measure the degree to which our ten Program Learning Outcomes (competencies) 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, classroom activities, and skill demonstration as measured through the use of the Instructor Evaluation Sheet (IES) and the Field Supervisory Evaluation form (FSE)) 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.      Demonstrate ethical and professional behavior.

2.      Engage diversity and difference in practice.

3.      Advance human rights and social, economic, and environmental justice.

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

5.      Engage in policy practice.

6.      Engage with individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities.

7.      Assess individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities

8.      Intervene with individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities.

9.      Evaluate practice with individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities.

10.    Engage, honor, and respect indigenous culture towards decolonized professional practice

Benchmark and Rationale

The BSW Program, working with the Department Assessment Committee, established both a 5-point Likert scale as well as an acquisition benchmark for all social work competencies.  Taken in aggregate, the expectation is that 80% of all students surveyed in the BSW Program will score a 4 or higher on a 5-point Likert scale.  A score of 4 on our 5-point Likert scale represents near consistency of competency demonstration.  The BSW Program recognizes that students have varying skills upon entry to the Program and throughout their tenure, and will continue to learn and grow long after their formal educational experience is complete.  The near consistent demonstration of social work competencies is critical if our graduates hope to be legitimate helpers in the community. 

CSWE identifies several dimensions critical to each competency, they are Knowledge, Values, Skills, and Cognitive & Affective Processes.  The BSW program determined that the Skill dimension would be measured on the Field Supervisory Evaluation (FSE), while one of the other remaining dimensions would be measured on the Instructor Evaluation Sheet (IES) as determined by the BSW Faculty

Two Measures for each Competency

The attainment of SW competencies through specific dimensions as outlined by CSWE is assessed using the following two measures:

  • Field Supervisory Evaluation (FSE).  The FSE measures the acquisition of each of the nine social work competencies outlined by CSWE as well as the tenth competency designed by the DSW and implemented by the BSW Program through the Skill dimension. Full details of the implementation process are detailed below.
  • Instructor Evaluation Sheets (IES): the IES measures the acquisition of each of the nine social work competencies outlined by CSWE as well as the tenth competency designed by the DSW and implemented by the BSW Program through one of the remaining three dimensions (Knowledge, Values, Cognitive and Affective Processes).  

Rating Scale

Using the IES or FSE form, classroom and field instructors rate students on their level of proficiency for each SW competency through specific and particular dimensions that are measured in their courses using 5-point scale developed and approved by the Assessment Committee:

  1. Not Yet Emerging (This dimension of the competency has not yet emerged in the student’s repertoire.)
  2. Emerging (This dimension of the competency is beginning to emerge in the student’s repertoire.)
  3. Developing (The student is developing this dimension of the competency.)
  4. Approaching Consistency (The student is approaching consistent demonstration of/engagement in this dimension of the competency; consistency is anticipated in the near future.)
  5. Consistently Demonstrates (The student consistently demonstrates/engages in this dimension of the competency.)

Results

As stated earlier, the program set a benchmark of 80% of all students scoring 4 or higher on the 5-point scale for each of the 10 competencies.  This benchmark was met in all but once instance, Social Work Competency 2: Advance Human Rights and Social, Economic, and Environmental Justice (78%).  It appears, that this was likely the result of mis-scoring.  It should be noted that the Department has developed a video explaining the assessment scoring which is shown each semester at the faculty orientation. 

Additionally, Social Work Competencies 6, 7, 8, and 9 (direct practice competencies for engagement, assessment, implementation, and evalaution respectively) we subdivided the assessment tool to evaluate competency acqusition for each of the five populations commonly served by the social work profession: Individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities.  Our results showed lower scores for "engaging with organizations and engaging with communities".  As a result, greater emphasis will be given and class time dedicated to orgnizations and communities in the SW 303 course.  

For full results please see: file:///C:/Users/BSW001/Downloads/AS%204B%20Form%20BSW%202017-2018%20Assessment%20Summary.pdf

14) 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:

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

Results

As stated earlier, the program set a benchmark of 80% of all students scoring 4 or higher on the 5-point scale for each of the 10 competencies.  This benchmark was met in all but once instance, Social Work Competency 2: Advance Human Rights and Social, Economic, and Environmental Justice (78%).  It appears, that this was likely the result of mis-scoring.  It should be noted that the Department has developed a video explaining the assessment scoring which is shown each semester at the faculty orientation. 

Additionally, Social Work Competencies 6, 7, 8, and 9 (direct practice competencies for engagement, assessment, implementation, and evalaution respectively) we subdivided the assessment tool to evaluate competency acqusition for each of the five populations commonly served by the social work profession: Individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities.  Our results showed lower scores for "engaging with organizations and engaging with communities".  As a result, greater emphasis will be given and class time dedicated to orgnizations and communities in the SW 303 course.  

For full results please see: file:///C:/Users/BSW001/Downloads/AS%204B%20Form%20BSW%202017-2018%20Assessment%20Summary.pdf

The BSW and MSW Programs also created a video to help course instructors use the IES and appropriately ascore student performance.  It can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCNhGtJ1quQ&feature=youtu.be

16) 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.

Please see #15

17) If the program did not engage in assessment activities, please justify.

N/A