240P
Pedagogical Training in Social Work Doctoral Programs: An Analysis of Curricula and Syllabi
Tensions in social work doctoral education have existed around the extent to which doctoral programs should prepare their students as research scientists, educators, or advanced practitioners. As the context of social work practice and higher education has been changing, and findings that most doctoral students are interested in teaching but feel inadequately prepared to teach and most faculty spend most of their time teaching, there have been calls to better prepare doctoral students to teach. Social work programs have been criticized in the past for failing to adequately prepare graduates for teaching; however, it has been a number of years since a review of doctoral curriculum has been conducted. The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which social work Ph.D. programs are training their students to teach.
Methods:
Content analysis of social work doctoral program curricula and course syllabi was conducted in two stages. First, websites and handbooks of the 72 Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education were examined for program goals and curriculum content on teaching. Second, 24 syllabi from required courses on teaching located on websites or provided by directors were examined for course objectives, content, and teaching and assessment methods. Two independent reviewers extracted data using a semi-structured coding instrument. Interrater agreement was 87%. All discrepancies were resolved through discussion and consensus. Descriptive statistics on the frequencies of coded items found in syllabi were conducted using SPSS.
Results:
Of the 72 Ph.D. programs examined, 90% included a program goal related to preparing their students for teaching and 51% required a course on teaching. Of the 24 syllabi obtained from programs, the majority included course content related to teaching skills (91%), student assessment (91%) and course design (83%). Few syllabi included content on technology (52%), ethics (43%), online learning (35%), active learning (35%), evidence informed teaching (22%), scholarship on teaching and learning (9%), problem-based learning (13%) or team-based learning (4%). Teaching and assessment methods varied widely across courses, with readings (100%) and discussion (100%) being the most frequently employed teaching methods and papers (100%) being the most common assessment method.
Conclusions:
Findings suggest that social work doctoral programs acknowledge one of their roles to be that of preparing doctoral students for teaching and faculty positions; however only about half required doctoral students to take a course on teaching. Moreover, most syllabi did not include content on curriculum design, classroom management, technology, use of evidence on teaching and learning or evaluating one’s teaching and few specifically referenced teaching or assessment methods that have some empirical support. This is concerning, particularly considering that for the past decade social work faculty have been espousing the use of and teaching evidence-based practice to social work students, yet faculty do not seem to be using evidence to inform their teaching. The lack of evidence of teaching and learning in doctoral courses on teaching is a shortcoming of doctoral programs in preparing future faculty. Implications for doctoral education in social work and study limitations will be discussed.