| Program Objective |
Assessment Measure |
Outcome |
Analysis & Recommendation |
| Apply critical thinking skills to generalist social work practice. |
1. Academic performance in Practice I, II, & III
|
1. Combined average score in the practice sequence, 2003-2004 show 52% of students in A range, 42% in the B range, and 5.2 in C range. |
The overall average to above average scores produced in assessing this objective indicate the program's efficacy in assisting students to apply critical thinking to generalist practice. The program will maintain its current focus on helping students utilize critical thinking in their preparation for generalist practice. |
| 2. Field Placement Evaluation of Students for spring and fall of 2003 in practical skills, also involving critical thinking. |
2. Combined averages of students' scores in practical skills were 3.9 or average on a 5-point scale. |
| 3. BEAP Exit Survey Cumulative for 2000-2004. |
3. Cumulative BEAP Exit survey yields a mean rating of 8.44 or very good for generalist interventions that would require students to engage in critical thinking. |
| 4. BEAP Alumni Survey Cumulative for 2000-2004 |
4. Alumni report a mean rating of 7.81 related to their ability to implement generalist interventions requiring critical thinking. |
| 5. BEAP Employer Survey Cumulative for 2002-2003 (spring 2004 not available at time of writing). |
5. Employer provided a mean rating of 8.14 or very good related to alumni's skill in applying generalist practice. |
| Professional standards, values, and ethics. |
1. SOWK 172 grade and volunteer evaluation. |
1. All admitted SOWK students earned a satisfactory volunteer experience evaluation in SOWK 172. |
This is definitely an area of strength for the program with scores in the very good to superb range. The Program has worked diligently on integrating ethics from the point of students' entry to exit from the program. The program will maintain its current focus on the integration of social work values and ethics into the curriculum. The program's emphasis on ethics in its gate-keeping practices and policies aids the program in achieving this objective. For example, students must earn the grade of a "C" or better in SOWK 172 and a positive evaluation in their 50 hours volunteer experience as an admission condition into the program. This enhances the quality of students entering the program and assures the likelihood of adherence to professional standards of suitability for the profession. |
| 2. Field Placement Eval. of Students for spring and fall of 2003. |
2. Students scored an average of 4.50 in Confidentiality, 4.42 in non-judgmentalism, 4.3 in awareness of ethical standards, and 4.25 in ability to distinguish between professional and personal values. All ratings are above average on a 5-point scale. |
| 3. BEAP SWVI entrance and Exit Surveys for Fall 2002-Spring 2004. |
3. Combined scores on the SWVI at entrance and exit for show that UNK SOWK students score within the national mean scores in areas of confidentiality, self-determination, and social justice. |
| 4. BEAP Exit Survey Cumulative for 2000-2004, evaluation of ethics gained in BSW program. |
4. Exit survey shows mean scores of 9.27 for client respect, 9.51 confidentiality, 9.32 self-determination, 9.25 non-judgmentalism, & 9.07 for respect for cultural diversity. The 10 point scale shows students scores in the very good to superb range. |
| 5.BEAP Employer Survey Cumulative for 2002-2003 (spring 2004 not available at time of writing). |
5. Employer show a mean score of 8.36 or very good on a 10 point scale for practice with SOWK values and ethics. |
| Generalist practice sensitive to diverse populations. |
1. Field Placement Evaluation of Students for spring and fall 2003. |
1. Field Placement Evaluation in area of practice with diverse population shows an average rating of 4.42 or above average on a 5-point scale. |
The outcome shows students' confidence in serving diverse populations is good, especially when considering the limited diversity within the regional and in social service practice settings. Field Supervisors and employers rate the students and alumni higher than students rate themselves in relations to generalist practice with diverse clients. The Program works creatively to find ways that would integrate direct interaction with diverse populations into the curriculum. We will continue to brainstorm ways and avenues to promote this and to increase students confidence in their ability when serving diverse populations. This can be done through course assignment, volunteer opportunities, and field education where students learn through direct interaction and contact. |
| 2. BEAP Exit Survey Cumulative for 2000-2004. |
2. BEAP Exit Survey evaluation of culturally competent skills gained show a mean rating of 7.63, good to very good on a 10-point scale. |
| 3. BEAP Alumni Survey Cumulative for 2000-2004. |
3. Alumni cumulative survey yields a mean rating of 6.81, or good on a 10-point scale. |
| 4. BEAP Employer Cumulative Survey for 2002-2004. |
4. Employer Survey shows a rating of 8.17 on a 10-point scale for understanding and respecting diversity in practice. |
| Professional use of self. |
1.Field Placement Evaluation of Students' professional performance for spring and fall 2003. |
1. Field Supervisors yielded a mean rating of 4.07, or above average on a 5-point scale. |
Students, alumni, and employers show ratings mostly in very good to superb range, demonstrating the program's effectiveness in this area. The program will continue current efforts at preparing students for professional practice. |
| 2.BEAP Exit Survey Cumulative for 2000-2004. |
2. BEAP Exit survey shows a rating of 8.54 on a 10-point scale in the professional use of self, this is very good to superb. |
| 3.BEAP Alumni Survey Cumulative for 2000-2004. |
3. BEAP Alumni survey shows a rating of 8.17 (very good) on a 10-point scale. |
| 4.BEAP Employer Survey Cumulative for 2002-2004. |
4. BEAP Employer survey show a rating of 8.17 on a 10-point scale in professional use of self (good-very good). |
| Understanding forms & mechanisms of oppression & change strategies |
1.Grades in Social Policy and HBSE II courses. |
1. Social Work students are required to complete the policy and HBSE II courses with the grade of "C" or better. Majority rank in the average to above average range. |
Assessment outcome for this objective is in the good range, demonstrating that students feel good about their understanding of the forms of oppression and the strategies to promote change. The program will continue its emphasis in this area and hopes to see higher scores as the students who have taken HBSE II course get ready to graduate. HBSE II has only been taught in the last two years. The program believes HBSE II will re-enforce curricular coverage in this area and yield higher assessment ratings in the future. |
| 2.BEAP Exit Survey Cumulative for 2000-2004. |
2. BEAP Exit survey rates knowledge gained in the program in this category with a mean score of 7.39 related to oppression and 7.47 for social & econ. justice. Both are on a 10 point scale and in the range of good. |
| 3.BEAP Alumni Survey Cumulative for 2000-2004 |
3. The BEAP Cumulative Alumni Survey shows a rating of 7.36 related to oppression, & 7.22 related to soc. & econ. justice. Both ratings are in good range. The promotion of social and economic justice received a rating of 8.03 or very good. |
| History, structures, & issues of the social work profession |
1.Grades in the Introduction to Social Welfare and Social Policy courses. |
1. Students are required to earn a "B" or better in Intro. to Soc. Welfare and at least a "C" or better in policies course where this content is covered. Majority rank in the average to above average range. |
Overall assessment ratings for this objective are in the good to very good range range. The program is performing good in this area, but will continue to find ways to enhance preparation. This can be accomplished by infusing more policy content into curriculum areas beyond the Social Welfare Policy and services course and the Practice III course. As noted earlier in this self-study, the program has discussed creating another policy course, however the ability to fulfill this vision depends on the availability of an additional faculty position. This is something that the program will continue to seek. |
| 2.BEAP Exit Survey Cumulative for 2000-2004. |
2. BEAP Cumulative Exit survey shows a mean score of 7.83 in students' understanding of profession's history and 8.36 related to structure and issues. Both scores are in the good and very good range. |
| 3.BEAP Alumni Survey Cumulative for 2000-2004 |
3. BEAP Cumulative Alumni survey shows that students rate coverage & understanding of SOWK history at 7.50 or good, and 7.61 or good for understanding structures & issues. |
| 4.BEAP Employer Survey Cumulative for 2002-2004 |
4. Employers in BEAP provide a mean rating of 8.06 or very good related to alumni understanding of social work issues. |
| Utilizing strengths perspective for interventions |
1. Field Placement Evaluation in spring and fall 2003 of Students' practical skills. |
1. Field Placement evaluation of students shows a mean rating of 3.90 or average on a 5-point scale in this area. |
Assessment outcomes of this objective yield mean scores in the good to very good range. The program is doing well in this area and will continue its current practices to support the students' professional development in this area. |
| 2. BEAP Exit Survey Cumulative for 2000-2004. |
2. BEAP Cumulative Exit survey shows a rating of 8.44 or very good related to skills for generalist interventions, which would address this objective. |
| 3. BEAP Alumni Survey Cumulative for 2000-2004 |
3. The alumni rate program's in preparing them for generalist interventions that would address this objectives as 7.81 on a 10 point scale or good (closer to very good). |
| 4. BEAP Employer Survey Cumulative for 2002-2004 |
4. The employers rate the alumni performance in this area as 8.11 or very good. |
| Assist and empower clients in problem solving |
1.Field Placement Evaluation in spring and fall of 2003 of Students' practical skills. |
1. Field Placement evaluation of students shows a mean rating of 4.09 or above average on a 5-point scale in this area (1.1). |
The program is performing in the good to very good range and will continue its current practices to support students' professional development in this area. |
| 2. BEAP Exit Survey Cumulative for 2000-2004. |
2. BEAP Cumulative Exit survey shows a rating of 8.44 or very good related to skills for generalist interventions, which would address this objective. |
| 3. BEAP Alumni Survey Cumulative for 2000-2004 |
3. The alumni rate the program's efficacy in preparing them for generalist interventions that would address this objectives as 7.81 on a 10 point scale or good-very good. |
| 4.BEAP Employer Survey Cumulative for 2002-2004 |
4. The employers rate the alumni performance in this area as 8.11 or very good. |
| Apply Knowledge of bio-psycho-social variables. |
1.Students' performance in the HBSE I class. |
1. Students performance in HBSE I demonstrates their understanding of this area. As with other SOWK course, they must earn a "C" or better to pass class. Most score in average-above average range. |
The program shows mean scores in the good to very good range in achieving this objective and will continue its current efforts at preparing students for professional practice where they would effectively apply this objective. It is hoped that the HBSE II course will provide additional curriculum content in this area. The program looks forward to analyzing its impact within a year, as students who took the course get ready to graduate. |
| 2.BEAP Exit Survey Cumulative for 2000-2004. |
2. Students exiting the program rate their knowledge in this area as 8.27 and their application ability or performance as 8.02, both in the range of very good on the 10- point scale. |
| 3.BEAP Alumni Survey Cumulative for 2000-2004 |
3. Alumni rate their knowledge in this area as 8.03 or very good and their ability to apply the bio-psycho-social concepts as 7.56 or good. |
| 4.BEAP Employer Survey Cumulative for 2002-2004 |
4. In an area related to this objective (use of theory to understand individual development) employers yielded a mean score of 7.39, and 7. 59 related to ability to analyze impact of social policies on individuals, families, and groups. Both ratings are in the good range on a 10-point scale. |
| Identify & assess interactions of people & social environment |
1.Students' performance in the HBSE I class. |
1. Students performance in HBSE I demonstrates their understanding of this area. As with other SOWK course, they must earn a "C" or better to pass class. Most score in average-above average range. |
Assessment outcome shows scores in the good to very good range demonstrating the program's efficacy in achieving this objective. Current efforts will continue in this area. |
| 2.Field Placement Evaluation of students in spring and fall 2003 on 1.8 item related to client functioning and issues. |
2. Field Placement evaluation related to this objective (1.8) show a 4.18 or above average score on a 5-point scale. |
| 3.BEAP Exit Survey Cumulative for 2000-2004. |
3. BEAP Exit survey shows that students rate the theoretical knowledge they gained in this area with a mean rating of 8.27 or very good, whereas their ability to assess interaction between systems at 7.88 or good, both on a 10-point scale. |
| 4.BEAP Alumni Survey Cumulative for 2000-2004 |
4. Alumni Surveyed generated a mean rating of 8.03 or very good for knowledge they gained about bio-psycho-social, and 7.19 or good for knowledge about assessing interaction between systems. They rated their skill level related to this objective with a mean rating of 7.54 or good. All ratings are on a 10-point scale. |
| Analyze impact of social policies on client systems, workers, and agencies. |
1.Performance in Social Welfare Policies and HBSE II courses. |
1. Performance in Social Policy and HBSE II courses demonstrate students understanding of this area. As with other SOWK course, they must earn a "C" or better to pass class. Most score in average-above average range. |
Assessment outcome show mean scores in the good range and the program will continue its current efforts to enhance this content. Again the offering of a second policy course is definitely a plan the program wishes to pursue as faculty resources deem it possible. |
| 2.BEAP Exit Survey Cumulative for 2000-2004. |
2. BEAP Cumulative Exit survey demonstrated a mean rating of 7.95 or good (closer to very good) related to their ability to analyze the impact of social policies on people and 7.66 or good related to their ability to analyze influence of organizational policies. |
| 3.BEAP Alumni Survey Cumulative for 2000-2004 |
3. Alumni rated their ability to analyze the impact of social policies as 7.28 and organizational policies as 6.97, both in the good range on a 10-point scale. |
| 4.BEAP Employer Survey Cumulative for 2002-2004 |
4. Employers surveyed provide a mean ratings related to alumni's ability to analyze the impact of policies on various systems; 7.59 or good for individual systems, 7.24 for organizations and communities, and 7.88 for ability to advocate for agency policy changes. These rating are in the range of good on a 10- point scale. |
| Evaluation of planned change efforts |
1.Performance in practice sequence, SOWK 371, 372, & 373. |
1. Performance in the practice sequence is one way the program evaluates students' ability to evaluate planned change. The final grade in each course represents the measurement outcome. Students score range from average to above average range, with more scoring above average in the B & A range. |
Assessment outcome shows the program's performance in this area in the good range. Students are able to evaluate the outcome of their own practice and planned change efforts. The program will continue to build upon this foundation through course assignments in practice classes and field education. |
| 2.Field Placement Evaluation of students for spring and fall 2003 in items 1.1 & 1.6 related to client functioning and issues. |
2. Field Placement evaluation of students item 1.1 provides a mean rating of 4.09 related to students ability to assess, intervene, plan, and terminate client interventions, while item 1.6 relating to ability to determine intervention termination time (which involve evaluation) is 4.0 on a 5-point scale. |
| 3.BEAP Exit Survey Cumulative for 2000-2004. |
3. Exit survey shows a mean rating of 8.03 on a 10-point scale or very good related to the ability of exiting students to evaluate their own practice. |
| 4.BEAP Alumni Survey Cumulative for 2000-2004 |
4. Alumni provided a mean rating of 7.50 on a 10-point scale, or good related to their ability to evaluate their own practice. |
| 5.BEAP Employer Survey Cumulative for 2002-2004 |
5. Employers rate alumni's ability to evaluate the effectiveness of their own practice interventions as good or 7.33 on a 10-point scale. |
| Evaluation of research studies and & application of findings |
1.Students' performance in SOWK 330, Fundamentals of Research in Social Welfare class. |
1. Students enrolled in SOWK 330 must earn a "C" grade or better to progress to graduate. This is one way to ensure basic understanding of this objective. |
Assessment outcome show that social work students are generally good at evaluating research findings and applying them to practice. In spring 2004 the program began to teach its own research class. The program is working hard to motivate students to engage in research and gain increased confidence with their knowledge and skill in this area. The program will not know the impact of teaching its own research course for another semester or two. Plan is to continue |
| 2.BEAP Exit Survey Cumulative for 2000-2004. |
2. BEAP Exit survey show a mean rating of 6.97 or good in students' ability to evaluate research studies, and a rating of 7.05 or good in their ability to apply research finding to practice. Both ratings are on a 10-point scale. |
| 3.BEAP Alumni Survey Cumulative for 2000-2004 |
3. Alumni yielded a mean rating of 6.86 or good in their ability to evaluate research studies, and a mean rating of 6.72 in their ability to apply research findings to practice. Both ratings are in good range on a 10-point scale. |
| 4.BEAP Employer Survey Cumulative for 2002-2004. |
4. Employers yield a mean rating of 6.94 range on a 10-point scale or good related to the ability of alumni to apply research findings to practice. |
| Differential use of communication skills with clients |
1.Field Placement Evaluation of students' communication skills for spring and fall 2003. |
1. Field placement evaluation outcome related to students communicate skills (items 2.0-2.6) shows a mean rating of 4.2 or above average on a 5-point scale. |
Assessment scores for this objective are mostly in the very good range demonstrating that this is an area of strength for the program. The program will maintain its current strategies to addressing this objective. |
| 2.BEAP Exit Survey Cumulative for 2000-2004. |
2. BEAP exit survey yields a mean rating of 8.07 on a 10-point scale or very good related to students ability to communicate based on diversity. |
| 3.BEAP Alumni Survey Cumulative for 2000-2004 |
3. Alumni provided a mean rating of 7.56 range on a 10-point scale or good related to their ability to communicate differentially with variety of clients. |
| 4.BEAP Employer Survey Cumulative for 2002-2004 |
4. Employers provided a mean rating of 8.44 on a 10-point scale or very good related to alumni's ability to use communication skills differentially with different clients. |
| Under supervision, functions within agency structure and service delivery, & seek necessary change. |
1.Field Placement Evaluation in spring and fall 2003 of students' use of supervision (items 3.0-3.7) and agency knowledge (items 5.0-5.4). |
1. Field Supervisors rated interns with mean score of 3.8 or average. Students' ability to function within agency as 4.21 or above average. Both on a 5-point scale. |
Assessment outcome of this objective yields mean ratings in the good to very good range. The program will maintain current efforts and continue to find ways to enhance curriculum coverage in this area. |
| 2.BEAP Exit Survey Cumulative for 2000-2004. |
2. BEAP cumulative survey shows that students rated their ability to utilize supervision at 8.03, ability to function within organizational structures and policies as 7.96, and their ability to seek organizational change at 7.53. All ratings range from good to very good on a 10- point scale. |
| 3.BEAP Alumni Survey Cumulative for 2000-2004. |
3. Alumni rated their ability to use supervision as 7.47, ability to work within organization structure and policies as 7.61, and ability to seek organizational change as 7.19. All ratings are in the range of good on the 10-point scale. |
| 4.BEAP Employer Survey Cumulative for 2002-2004. |
4. Employers rated alumni's ability to use supervision as 8.17, ability to work within organization structure and policies as 8.67, and ability to advocate for organizational change as 7.88. All ratings are in the range of good - very good on the 10-point scale. |
| Linking people with resources, and assist in the development of resources, services, and opportunities. |
1.Field Placement Evaluation in spring & fall 2003, item 5.2 & 5.3. |
1. Field Supervisors evaluating interns provided a mean rating of 4.2 or above average for students' ability to understand the relevance of agencies to needs of clients, and 4.25 or above average for their ability to refer clients to community resources. |
Assessment outcome of this objective show mean scores in the range of good to very good. The program will maintain current efforts and continue to find creative ways to enhance the content as well |
| 2.BEAP Exit Survey Cumulative for 2000-2004 can be used to address this objective under questions related to ensuring responsibility to clients and seeking organizational change. This objective can also be considered part of generalist practice skills. |
2. BEAP exit survey shows a mean rating of 9.12 for ensuring responsibility to clients, 7.53 for seeking organizational change, and 8.44 for ability to apply generalist interventions. |
| 3.BEAP Alumni Survey Cumulative for 2000-2004. |
3. Alumni survey shows a mean rating of 8.44 for ensuring responsibility to clients, 7.19 for seeking organizational change, and 7.81for ability to apply generalist interventions. Both in the range of good-very good on a 10-point scale. |
| 4.BEAP Employer Survey Cumulative for 2002-2004. The application of generalist practice skills and ability to advocate for changes applies here. |
4. Employers rated alumni's application of generalist skills as 8.11 & their advocacy for change as 7.81. Both ratings are good-very good on a 10-point scale. |