Program: Social Work (MSW)
Degree: Master's
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2010 - 12:49:53 pm
1) Below are the program student learning outcomes submitted last year. Please add/delete/modify as needed.
MSW Program Objectives
The MSW Program objectives specify the abilities students master in order to be prepared for effective professional social work practice.
1. Values and Ethics
At the completion of classroom and field education, MSW students will be able to:
Understand, articulate, and integrate the principles, values, and ethics of the social work profession into their practice.
Upon completion of the foundation curriculum students will be able to:
■ Identify and discuss the core values, ethical principles, and ethical standards of the social work profession as codified in the NASW Code of Ethics
■ Practice in a manner consistent with the mission of social work and its core values
■ Determine when an ethical issue is present and identify the key values and principles involved.
Upon completion of the advanced curriculum, students will be able to:
■ Understand legal regulations and standards related to social work in Hawai‘i and their application in professional
practice
■ Employ ethical problem-solving in their social work practice
■ Analyze ethical dilemmas and develop, implement, and assess an action plan in line with their analysis.
2. Professional Use of Self
At the completion of classroom and field education, MSW students will be able to:
Demonstrate achievement of professional use of self in practice.
Upon completion of the foundation curriculum students will be able to:
■ Distinguish professional and personal roles, with awareness of the need to elevate service to others above self interest
■ Use self purposefully and with awareness of own personal strengths and limitations in carrying out professional
roles
■ Demonstrate flexibility in assuming various social work roles and coping with change, and is able to utilize
supervision effectively.
Upon completion of the advanced curriculum students will be able to:
■ Understand their own personal values and biases and show understanding of and be able to describe how these
impact work with clients
■ Participate in and assume responsibility for ongoing development of professional knowledge and skills
■ Identify and modify personal and professional barriers to effective practice and use self effectively in practice
in an area of concentration.
3. Critical Thinking
At the completion of classroom and field education, MSW students will be able to:
Apply critical thinking skills in professional contexts.
Upon completion of the foundation curriculum students will be able to:
■ Understand the differences between verifiable facts and value claims, and the need to weigh knowledge claims
against the evidence for them
■ Critically examine arguments and evidence and show openness in the evaluation of their own practice
■ Utilize research to inform and evaluate their practice.
Upon completion of the advanced curriculum students will be able to:
■ Examine evidence, synthesize disparate information, see patterns, determine relevance of evidence, develop and
defend a theoretically based, empirically grounded rationale in analyzing a problem and developing a strategy
■ Modify their practice as a result of weighing feedback from supervisor, clients, instructors, self, and other data
■ Use research as a basis for practice, accurately interpret evidence, evaluate and select among alternative
approaches, and determine and increase the extent to which clients benefit from their practice.
4. Applying Theory to Practice
At the completion of classroom and field education, MSW students will be able to:
Analyze and apply knowledge to assessment and intervention in social work practice of biopsychosocial variables and theoretical frameworks that explain individual and social systems development.
Upon completion of the foundation curriculum students will be able to:
■ Understand and apply at multiple system levels a broad range of knowledge
regarding individual and social development and behavior
■ Display a community-based, generalist perspective on practice
■ Apply theory-grounded assessment tools and interventions appropriate
to practice with individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities.
Upon completion of the advanced curriculum students will be able to:
■ Synthesize and apply a broad range of theory and knowledge with respect to assessment and intervention in an
area of concentration
■ Engage in learning activities and apply new theory and knowledge relevant to their area of concentration
■ Select and apply theory-grounded assessment tools and practices appropriate to their area of concentration.
5. Advocacy
At the completion of classroom and field education, MSW students will be able to:
Advocate effectively for social and economic justice.
Upon completion of the foundation curriculum students will be able to:
■ Integrate knowledge of the mission, history, and philosophy of social work and social welfare
■ Use their knowledge and skills to improve the lives of communities and the individuals in them
■ Analyze the impact of social policies on client systems, workers, and agencies.
Upon completion of the advanced curriculum students will be able to:
■ Understand and critically analyze specific social welfare policies and programs pertinent to their area of
concentration
■ Engage in social change in the quest for social and economic justice
■ Demonstrate skills for influencing change through advocacy, empowerment, and other strategies.
6. Diversity
At the completion of classroom and field education, MSW students will be able to:
Achieve competency in working with diverse populations.
Upon completion of the foundation curriculum students will be able to:
■ Demonstrate personal and professional awareness of their own cultural values and biases and how these impact
their abilities to work with others
■ Demonstrate skills for ongoing knowledge development of diversity with a focus on Native Hawaiians, other Pacific Islanders, Asian Americans and other oppressed groups and diverse populations
■ Develop skills in engaging persons from diverse cultures and groups.
Upon completion of the advanced curriculum students will be able to:
■ Understand and analyze the forms and mechanisms of discrimination and oppression, and the strategies
and skills that advance social and economic justice for all populations at risk, with special attention to Native
Hawaiians, other Pacific Islanders, and Asians
■ Actively evaluate and improve their own ability in valuing diversity and challenging oppression
■ Demonstrate competency in the areas of diversity relevant to their concentration.
7. Communication
At the completion of classroom and field education, MSW students will be able to:
Demonstrate the oral, written, and attending skills that will enable them to communicate effectively and appropriately in relation to their setting and audience.
At the foundation level, students will be able to:
■ Demonstrate knowledge of the basic requirements of record keeping in social work; and use information
technologies appropriate to communicating effectively with clients and colleagues
■ Demonstrate that they are able to relate to clients in a non-judgmental manner
■ Demonstrate skill in interviewing and in communicating with different audiences orally and in writing in their
academic and field work.
At the advanced level, students will be able to:
■ Understand the specific forms of written and oral communication relevant to their area of concentration
■ Communicate appropriately and respectfully with different groups and client systems
■ Demonstrate a professional level of oral and written communication skills in the context of a specialized area of practice, including the ability to vary the use of those skills with different client populations, colleagues, and members of the community.
2) As of last year, your program's SLOs were published as follows. Please update as needed.
Department Website URL: http://www.hawaii.edu/sswork/ Student Handbook. URL, if available online: NA Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online: NA
UHM Catalog. Page Number: Course Syllabi. URL, if available online: NA Other: Other: 3) Below is the link to your program's curriculum map (if submitted in 2009). If it has changed or if we do not have your program's curriculum map, please upload it as a PDF.
4) The percentage of courses in 2009 that had course SLOs explicitly stated on the syllabus, a website, or other publicly available document is indicated below. Please update as needed.
0% 1-50% 51-80% 81-99%
100%5) State the assessment question(s) and/or goals of the assessment activity. Include the SLOs that were targeted, if applicable.
The MSW program’s assessment efforts are under the purview of the Assessment Committee of the School of Social Work. The committee officially consists of program and sequence chairs, the Dean or designee, and the Director of Research, whose staff provides data entry and other support, but is open to any faculty or staff member. The committee meets on a monthly basis during the school year. Their main charge is to design, re-evaluate, and update comprehensive evaluation and assessment plans for the BSW, MSW, and Ph.D. programs. In addition, the committee keeps up to date on accreditation standards at the School and University level, to make sure they are being met. They oversee the confidential collection, data entry, and analysis of information. Finally, they report to stakeholders, including the faculty and staff, the Dean, the University system, practicum instructors, internal and external School committees, and others.
Assessment for the MSW program is divided into different areas that reflect the variety of ways in which the program is configured and delivered. These are the: 1) regular, campus-based MSW program; 2) Advanced Standing (AS) MSW program; and 3) MSW Distance Education (DE) option for neighbor island residents in Hawaii. The MSW program goals and objectives are the same for the regular campus-based program, the Advanced Standing program, and the Distance Education option. What varies is length of program and method of delivery. There are some differences in data collection methods; e.g., the Distance Education option includes surveys and questions about delivery modalities.
In addition, in accordance with the School of Social Work’s exploration of the indigenization of its curriculum, data have been collected from students, practicum instructors, and other stakeholders. These data include feedback from our summer 2007 conference on indigenous voices in social work, practicum instructors, and graduating students.
All assessment reports are shared with faculty and staff in multiple venues, including special meetings and retreats. The reports are scheduled to be updated twice a year at the end of the fall and spring semesters and are available to all faculty and staff at all times through the use of a shared online resource. These reports are utilized by the MSW curriculum committee, as well as program, concentration, and sequence committees.
The current MSW assessment plans include direct and indirect measures from a variety of data sources, including instructors, current and past students, practicum instructors, employers, and members of the community. Most information is collected each semester or on an annual basis. Some of the data come from outside agents, such as the University of Hawaii at Mānoa Distance Learning Committee.
Work on the assessment plans is continuous. The committee is discussing ways to add more direct measures of program goals and objectives, taking into account resources available. They seek to find methods for increasing response rates from all data sources and to make up-to-date data available to faculty at all times. As we transition to the 2008 EPAS and continue our exploration of indigenization, the committee plans to focus on translating goals and objectives into measurable competencies that are developed by the faculty.
6) State the type(s) of evidence gathered.
Means on national social work survey of knowledge, skills, and values
Concentration Advisory Committees
Employer Surveys
Final cumulative GPAs for graduating students
Scores and grades from Foundation and Concentration level practicum learning agreements
Alumni Surveys
Course and Faculty Evaluations
Outreach College Instructor and Course Evaluations
Exit Surveys for graduating students
ASIST evaluations
Distance Learning Student Survey
7) Who interpreted or analyzed the evidence that was collected?
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: 8) How did they evaluate, analyze, or interpret the evidence?
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: 9) State how many persons submitted evidence that was evaluated.
If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.
Means on national social work survey of knowledge, skills, and values - approximately 93%
Concentration Advisory Committees - all committee members provided feedback
Employer Surveys - 5%
Final cumulative GPAs for graduating students - 100%
Scores and grades from Foundation and Concentration level practicum learning agreements - 95%
Alumni Surveys - 20%
Course and Faculty Evaluations - required for all courses. Response rates for individual courses range from 70-95%
Outreach College Instructor and Course Evaluations - unk
Exit Surveys for graduating students - 46% response rate (N=22)
ASIST evaluations - 97%
Distance Learning Student Survey - unk
10) Summarize the actual results.
Data on Program Objectives
1. Values and ethics. Based on feedback from a variety of data sources, MSW students
are performing well in terms of meeting benchmarks about Values and Ethics. There was only one item that was identified in exit surveys of graduating campus-based regular program and advanced standing students that warrants attention. “Identify and discuss core values and ethical principles and standards in the NASW Code of Ethics” was rated as below 4.00 on a 5.00 scale for more than two years by both groups. Note that employers did not recognize this as a problem, nor did practicum instructors, or any other constituents.
2. Professional use of self. Similar to values and ethics, professional use of self for the
most part met the established benchmarks. In fact, employers rated graduates highly on participating in and assuming responsibility for ongoing development of professional skills and knowledge. Practicum instructors found interns to be very good at using self effectively in practice in an area of concentration and on demonstrating the ability to systematically evaluation one’s own practice skills in a specialized area. Exiting campus-based regular students, however, rated several items below benchmarks. These items were “Demonstrate flexibility in assuming various social work roles,” “Demonstrate flexibility in coping with change,” and “Use supervision effectively.”
3. Critical thinking. Interpreting the results for critical thinking is a challenge. On the one
hand, practicum instructors rated advanced standing students highly in terms of demonstrating critical thinking skills and demonstrating independence and initiative in using supervision and consultation. On the other hand, practicum instructors, employers, and graduating advanced standing and campus-based regular program students rated many aspects of critical thinking at a low level. Employers rated graduates at a low level in terms of using research as a basis for practice and on developing a theoretically-based empirically grounded rationale for analyzing a problem and developing a strategy. Graduating advanced standing and campus-based regular program students rated these critical thinking items as being below the benchmarks: “Understand the differences between verifiable facts and value claims,” “Critically examine arguments and evidence,” “Show openness in the evaluation of your own practice,” and “Utilize research to inform and evaluate practice.”
In several cases in practicum, levels on items about critical thinking in the fall were below acceptable but were above the benchmarks in the spring semester. This was true for both foundation and concentration curricula. While ratings for the fall semesters fell below the benchmarks, the concern is not great since students were able to demonstrate skills above the minimum levels in the spring semesters.
Further complicating the matter is that practicum instructors too often marked some items as being not applicable. Sometimes nearly 47% marked applying relevant research to practice as not applicable. It is not possible to determine if students are meeting the benchmarks in practicum when certain items are being covered.
4. Applying theory to practice. There were mixed results with regard to applying theory
to practice. Practicum instructors found that advanced standing interns performed well in terms of selecting and applying appropriate theory-based assessment tools and practices and on demonstrating competency in diversity relevant to the concentration. They rated campus-based regular students highly in terms of applying basic skills in person-in-environment and the strengths perspective. Employers found that graduates needed more work in the area of applying new theories and knowledge to practice and in applying theory grounded interventions. According to campus-based regular program and advanced standing students, these three items fell below the benchmarks: “Understand and apply at multiple system levels a broad range of knowledge regarding individual and social development and behavior,” “Display a community-based approach to generalist practice,” and “Apply theory-grounded assessment tools and interventions appropriate to practice with individuals, families, groups, organization, and communities.”
This program objective, like the last, had high amounts of items marked “not applicable” or were missing from the practicum evaluations. As a result, it is difficult to determine if students are meeting the benchmarks. This is particularly true with respect to working with families, groups, organizations, and communities. For example, in fall 2008, nearly 24% of data were missing on all items in the practicum evaluations.
5. Advocacy. It appears that for the most part students are meeting the advocacy
benchmarks. There is, however, one area that needs monitoring and may need attention. On the item “Demonstrates knowledge of organizational administration and program operation,” in 2007 there were many practicum instructors who marked this item as not applicable.” During fall 2008 there is too much missing data from practicum evaluations to make a determination. These were the case for both campus-based regular program students and advanced standing students in practicum. Both groups of students gave low ratings to this item on exit surveys: “Integrate knowledge of the mission, history, and philosophy of social work and social welfare.” In addition, campus-based regular program students rated “Use knowledge and skills to improve the lives of communities and the individuals within them” as below the benchmarks.
6. Diversity. Nearly all constituents felt students met the benchmarks set for the program
objective of diversity. Only exiting campus-based regular program students rated one item as below the benchmark. The item is “Develop skills in engaging persons from diverse cultures and groups.”
7. Communication. Practicum instructors consistently give high marks to advanced
standing and campus-based regular program MSW students in terms of their ability to establish professional relationships with colleagues, staff, clients, and community. The only concerns with regard to communication come from graduating students. Both advanced standing and campus-based regular program students found these items as not meeting the benchmarks: “Demonstrate knowledge of the basic requirements of record keeping in social work,” “Use information technologies appropriately and effectively with clients and colleagues,” “Demonstrate interviewing and communication skills with different audiences orally and in writing in field work,” and “Demonstrate interviewing and communication skills with different audiences orally and in writing in academic work.”
Global Assessments of Program Objectives
FCAI. The Myron B. Thompson School of Social Work utilizes several global assessments of program objectives. These include the BEAP FCAI, final cumulative GPAs of graduating students, and MSW foundation and concentration practicum grades. Data from all 3 measures finds that MSW students met established benchmarks during the years since our last reaccreditation. Exiting MSW students had means on the FCAI that were not statistically significantly different than nationally. Entering MSW students had means that were statistically significantly lower (p=.015) than mean scores for entering students nationally. To better allow us to determine if we are meeting stated program objectives, we have requested that in the future FCAI scores be broken down by objective, rather than just providing a global mean.
Final cumulative GPAs. Each course contains objectives that are based on the Seven Abilities. Successful completion of these courses suggests students are achieving these goals. The average final cumulative GPA of graduating advanced standing students was 3.83 (on a 4.00 scale). There was no statistically significant different in final cumulative GPAs if the advanced standing student received their BSW degree from the University of Hawai>i at Mānoa or if they received their BSW degree elsewhere. The average final cumulative GPA of campus-based regular program students was 3.79 on a 4.00 scale. These findings also suggest that gatekeeping and remedial plans, when necessary, are appropriately admitting and weeding out students.
Practicum grades. Nearly all of practicum students received a grade of B or better in the fall and spring semesters. There were more A (A+, A, A-) grades in the spring than in the fall, which also suggests that students progressed over time in terms of meeting program objectives. One-hundred percent of advanced standing students met the benchmark in terms of practicum grades in both the fall and spring semesters. For campus-based regular program students, 97% met benchmarks in the fall semesters and 98% met benchmarks in the spring semesters.
Other Measures
Distance Learning Student Surveys. The University of Hawai>i at Mānoa’s Distance Learning Committee distributes a separate survey to all students who take distance learning classes. The questions, which are mostly closed-ended, ask about demographics but focus on the logistics of delivery and quality. The results, based on two semesters (spring and summer 2008), 2 classes, and 16 students, mirror those from the Outreach College instructor and course evaluations. Students liked DE classes, liked their instructors, would take distance learning classes again and would recommend them to others, but there were some technological issues. IT personnel are aware of these technological difficulties and are working to remedy them.
ASIST quantitative data. ASIST, formerly known as BRIDGE, is a pre-advanced standing mini-course that is meant to prepare students for their concentration year and practicum experience. It consists of a 6-week seminar and practicum hours. Quantitative and qualitative questions about the ASIST component of the advanced standing curriculum were included in course evaluations and exit surveys. The exit surveys included closed- and open-ended questions about the logistics of the ASIST program that asked both about the seminar and the practicum experience itself. While the various instructors of the seminar were rated highly, quantitative and qualitative data suggested concerns about how well ASIST prepared students for their concentration year. There were concerns about redundancy with BSW programs. There were also ratings below the benchmark on how well prepared students felt to work in the field after participating in ASIST. The practicum experience was viewed as being useful. There were mixed reviews on the seminar portion. However, these results are based on low response rates.
ASIST qualitative data. The majority of advanced standing respondents noted a beneficial experience in their BRIDGE/ASIST practicum. With regard to the seminar, several mentioned the usefulness of the various cultural aspects that were taught and liked the instructors. In addition, the opportunity to network with other advanced standing students and form friendships was seen as valuable, with the suggestion that there should be more emphasis on this aspect of the class. Some found the seminar to be helpful, but many felt it was redundant and repetitious. There was also a sense that ASIST did not prepare students for the concentration year or advanced work. There was some lack of clarity as to the purpose of ASIST. It should be noted these results were based on low return rates each year; however, the same comments and ratings appear each year.
11) How did your program use the results? --or-- Explain planned use of results.
Please be specific.
Data suggest that the MSW program is doing well in many areas in meeting its program goals and objectives. Based on results from various data sources, the MSW program – whatever the delivery modality – is doing well in meeting the Seven Abilities. Each course contains goals and objectives that are based on the Seven Abilities. Successful completion of these courses suggests students are achieving these goals. Student GPAs at graduation average 3.80, which is between an A- and A grade. In addition to meeting goals, this also suggests that gate keeping and remedial plans, if necessary, are appropriately admitting and weeding out students.
Values and ethics. As noted in the summary of results section, the only area for concern has to do with identifying and discussing core values and ethical principles and standards in the NASW Code of Ethics. Exiting advanced standing and campus-based regular program students marked this as an issue for several years. However, no other data sources singled this out as a problem. This suggests that perhaps students are referring to class content. Syllabi have been reviewed by sequence committees and this item clearly needs to paid additional attention to see where and how it is being taught.
Professional use of self. Employers and practicum instructors rated highly graduates and practicum students in some areas of professional use of self. However, campus-based regular students did not. This again points to possible issues in classes and requires an additional review of syllabi. Benefit may be also obtained from speaking with current and/or graduating students.
Critical thinking. There were several aspects of critical thinking that did not meet benchmarks as suggested by feedback from employers, practicum instructors, and exiting students. Syllabi for the required research courses have been reviewed, and a revamping of the sequence has been suggested. Meetings are scheduled to begin in the fall to determine how the research sequence may be changed to meet the needs of constituents. In response to an increased interest in research, formalized syllabi have been developed for optional research courses, such as if students wish to conduct their own research projects or work on an existing research project.
These data have been shared with Practicum Office personnel. As noted in the summary of results section, too many practicum instructors are marking items related to research as being not applicable. This needs to be brought to the attention of the practicum instructors, along with helping them understand why this is important and working with them to determine how research content can be incorporated into practicum.
Applying theory to practice. Additional data are needed in order to sort out what is happening in terms of applying theory to practice. The results have been mixed to this point, with different aspects highlighted by feedback from different respondents. For example, focus groups with current and/or graduating students particularly about this program objective would likely yield useful results. At an upcoming meeting he Assessment Committee will discuss the possibility of focus groups.
As noted previously, Practicum Office personnel and the MSW Curriculum Committee have already been alerted to the fact that there are a large percentage of practicum instructors who are not providing real or other opportunities for their interns to work with families, groups, organizations, or communities. In response, in the past few years, efforts have been made to increase the number of macro level placements. However, not all agencies and organizations serve families, groups, organizations or communities. The program objective recognizes this and is written so that a student may actually be doing work with these groups or is at least learning in theory how she or he might practice at these levels of intervention. A next step could be to develop meso and macro level exercises that are presented to practicum instructors at their annual meeting. These exercises could be used with students in practicum.
Advocacy. In 2004, an advanced policy class was added to assist with increasing and strengthening content on advocacy. For the most part, we appear to be meeting the benchmarks for advocacy. Some items that were brought to our attention by practicum instructors and graduating students will need to be monitored by the Assessment Committee and MSW Curriculum Committee. If trends continue in these areas, additional action will need to be taken.
Diversity. Although it appears for the most part that the benchmarks are being met, the Assessment Committee and faculty will need to keep and eye on scores for “Develop skills in engaging persons from diverse cultures and groups.” Only exiting campus-based regular students rated this aspect below the benchmark. To this point, no other groups expressed concerns about it. However, if it reappears in the student data or appears for the first time in information from other stakeholders, it will require attention.
Communication. While practicum instructors give high ratings to students in terms of establishing professional relationships, advanced standing and campus-based regular program students find several items related to communication to be below standards. This again suggests that perhaps there is an issue in the courses themselves. While all syllabi have already been reviewed once, it is likely they need an additional review specific to this program objective to determine where and how communication is being taught in the MSW program.
ASIST. Since its inception in 2004, the ASIST program (formerly BRIDGE) for advanced standing students has gone through a variety of changes based on data collected. The length of each class session was changed from 2 to 3 hours. Less time is being spent in the seminar, and more time at the practicum site. In 2007, the curriculum in the seminars was altered to be less of a review and more of an introduction to new topics. The change resulted in considerably more positive feedback from students in terms of how well prepared they felt for working in the field. Students especially liked learning about Hawaiian history and culture. Role playing was seen as a valuable tool. They also rated their practicum experience as being more useful than in the previous three years. However, there were still concerns about how well the ASIST program prepared them for the concentration curriculum.
As a result, more changes planned for the 2009 version of ASIST. We have worked to clarify what is the purpose of the program and how it needs to be altered to be more useful. Data from upcoming exit surveys for 2009 graduates will be scrutinized to determine if the changes already enacted are having an impact.
Distance Education option. As noted in the MSW assessment plan and procedures table, the first cohort of Distance Education students does not graduate until 2010. (The last distance education class before this graduated in 2005.) Therefore, we do not have as much feedback on current students or from them as for MSW students in the campus-based regular or Advanced Standing versions. However, they are subject to the same assessment and evaluation procedures as all other MSW students. In addition, the School of Social Work and the University of Hawai>i at Mānoa try to determine the impact of and problems associated with the technology (if any). The information we have so far suggests that Distance Education students are pleased with their instructors and courses.
Future Directions
Overall, the results of data collection affirm that the MSW Program is meeting its established objectives. There are some caveats that must be considered when interpreting these data. Some measures yielded low response rates. These include employer surveys and exit surveys of graduating students. During one semester, there was nearly 24% of missing data on practicum evaluations. Assessment Committee members have already begun to discuss ways in which response rates can be increased. However, even with small sample sizes on exit surveys, the fact is that the same results appear year after year. In addition, these results are triangulated by data collected from other sources, such as employers and practicum instructors. Patterns appeared across results from different data sources. Detailed below are the program objectives that require attention and what has or is being done to address the issues.
As the School of Social Work looks to the future, it continues its exploration of indigenization. To date, efforts in this direction include offering an elective class in Ho>oponopono to graduate students. Faculty members have presented on indigenization of the curriculum at a national social work and an international social work conference. Indigenizing the curriculum will help to ensure that students have a solid grounding necessary to practice in order to meet the program objective of Diversity. Data have been collected on the topic from exiting students, practicum instructors, advisory committees, and conference attendees. It is clear from the feedback that constituents overwhelmingly feel the school is moving in the right direction. This information has also been useful in helping us understand that there seem to be nearly as many definitions of indigenization as there are individuals; therefore, it is critical that the School has a clear definition that is shared with all stakeholders. (A basic definition has been approved by the faculty.)
Responses also suggested that some people believed that indigenization is exclusive (i.e., meaning Native Hawaiians only). The School’s conception is inclusive, and refers to all who reside in the state of Hawai>i and the Pacific Rim. Students felt that content on indigenous ways of knowing and doing were met in the curriculum with varying degrees of success. They all agreed it was important. All of this is being kept in mind as we examine our curriculum in light of the data collected so far and as we determine how we will move forward.