Bridging Disciplinary Boundaries (January 11 - 14, 2007)

Purpose: The purpose of this project was to determine if direct assessment methods provide useful data to assess student learning outcomes. Does a field evaluation instrument adequately assess clinical social work practice skill performance in the final year MSW internship? Does a scoring rubric for assessing case assessment and intervention presentations adequately assess communication and clinical skills? Does a scoring rubric for assessing the student research projects adequately assess student ability to write a research proposal and evaluate social work practice?

Methods: To address the first research question multiple student learning outcomes related to mastering clinical social work practice were assessed using a field evaluation instrument. The field evaluation instrument measured student learning outcomes related to six clinical practice competency areas using a 6 point scale measuring. The baseline for the first semester performance is to demonstrate all advanced skills at level 4 (occasional). To address the second research question a rubric was used by both teachers and students to measure student learning outcomes during a case assessment and intervention presentation. The rubric used a three point scale. 100% of the students will partially demonstrate each skill, achieving a 2 rating and 75% of the students will reach adequate demonstration of each skill, achieving a rating of 3. To address the third research question an assessment rubric was used to measure student learning outcomes related to understanding research and using research to evaluate clinical social work practice. Twenty-three second year social work students were evaluated on the appropriateness of their practice research proposals. Each student proposal was reviewed by the student's primary seminar instructor (first reader) and a second reader.

Results: Students did not meet the baseline of demonstrating all advanced sills at level 4 (occasional) on the field evaluation instrument. All students exceeded the baseline expectations of a rating of 3 at 75% for all learning objectives related to assessment and intervention clinical and communication skills; however, the baseline of 100% at a rating of 2 was not met in all areas. Only 60% of the students obtained an acceptable rating of 3 on all variables in the research proposal rubric.

Implications: The results of the project have broad implications for masters level field practicum's and research projects. Field evaluation instruments should specifically target student learning experiences and field supervisors should be trained on the meaning of items in the rating form. To improve communication skills more class time should be devoted on how to organize materials, how to present ideas clearly and in an orderly fashion. To improve clinical skills clinical content should be integrated across practice courses in the areas of assessment of ego strengths; incorporation of clients' hopes, dreams and values; and identification of specific clinical techniques to be used. To improve research projects, rubrics can help identify content that needs improvement. Producing well written literature reviews is a skill lacking in some MSW students.