Comparison of Outcomes between an Online MSW

Program and a Traditional MSW Program

Kate M. Chaffin, LAPSWSherry M. Cummings, PhD

Director Nashville and Online MSW ProgramAssistant Professor of Practice

2015 DE Conference

• Currently 20 (2013) 35 2015 designated accredited DE programs• 9 are all online • 11 are hybrid using online, interactive TV, and satellite campuses

• Online education can be defined as instruction and content which are delivered primarily over the internet (Watson & Kalmon, 2005). The term does not include printed-based correspondence education, broadcast television or radio, videocassettes, and stand-alone educational software programs that do not have a significant Internet-based instructional component (U.S. Department of Education Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development Policy and Program Studies Service, 2010).

• Other terms used interchangeably with online are: Cyber-learning, e-learning, web-based and virtual learning.

Literature Review

• Research surrounding course work comparing F2F/online:• HBSE (Woehle and Quinn, 2009; Ligon, Markward, & Yegidis, 1999)

• Research (Faul, Frey, & Barber, 2004; Banks and Faul, 2007)

• Diversity (Hylton, 2006)

• Human Service Administration (York, 2008)

• These studies have indicated no significant difference between the online and face-to-face groups

Social Work and Online Trends

• Studies also indicate no significant difference between face-to-face and online classes in teaching clinical skills online.

(Siebert, Siebert, and Spaulding-Givens, 2006; Siebert and Spaulding-Givens, 2006; and Cummings, Foels, and Chaffin, in press)

Social Work and Online Trends Con’d

• Little research has been conducted comparing entire MSW traditional programs with online MSW programs• Anderson and Fiedemann (2010) Certificate

Program• Bettmann, Thompson, and Berzoff (2009)

Social Work PhD program seminar• Wilke and Vinton (2006) Entire online

advanced standing program

Comparing Programs

• Knowledge Gained

• Skills obtained

• Student satisfaction• Ease of use of technology• Students ability to interact with instructor • Flexibility of classes• Faculty engagement

Aspects of Successful Online Programming

• 2008

• Synchronous and Asynchronous

• Online program identical to F2F program

• FT, PT, AS programs

• Faculty teach in both F2F and online classes

Dimensions of Online at UTKCSW

• Online program is composed of: Associate Dean, Director, Field Coordinator and a staff person

• Clinical (EBIP) and Macro (MLCP)

• Blackboard and Blackboard Collaborate

• Tools for effective teaching include: discussion boards, wikis, blogs, video role-plays, VideoAnt, YouTube, Xtranormal

Dimensions of Online at UTKCSW –con’d

Methodology

Quasi-experimental research design

Comparison of learning outcomesKnowledgeSkillsSatisfaction

Students (n=345) graduated in May 2011 and 2012 Traditional (face-to-face) = 255 (73.9%) Online = 90 (26.1%)

Measures

• Demographics - age, race, gender, program and concentration

• Comprehensive Exam scores• 10 essay questions - 2008 EPAS core

competencies

• 1-5 likert rating - how well demonstrated competencies and advanced practice knowledge and skills

• Students graduating in May 2011 and 2012 - n=334

• Chronbach’s α= .91

• Overall GPA - measure of overall academic performance• All students graduating in May 2011-2012 -

n=309

• Self-Efficacy Scale - pre and post test scores• Students’ confidence in ability to perform core

skills related to practice• 41 items (1-11 likert rating) -based on 2008 EPAS• Students admitted in fall 2010 and graduated

May 2012 - n = 89)• Chronbach’s α= .91

Measures

• Field Competencies • 8 advanced field competencies linked to

foundation core and advanced program competencies

• Assessment, intervention, policy, leadership, ethics, evaluation, advocacy, professional development

• End of semester evaluations by field instructors

• Students completing field in May 2011 and 2012 - n= 267

• 5 point likert ratings; Chronbach’s α= .93

Measures

• Exit Surveys - students’ ratings of program effectiveness, foundation and concentration courses, and faculty• Faculty - accessibility and helpfulness

• Major professor - accessibility and advising

• “Overall, to what degree do you feel that this program provided you with the skills and knowledge needed to begin work as a masters prepared social worker?”

• Students graduating in May 2012 - N=148

Measures

FindingsVariable All Students F2F Students Online Students

  M (SD) or % M (SD) or % M (SD) or %

Instruct Method   73.9% 26.1%

Age 29.5 (8.8) 29.1 (9.1) 30.1 (8.0)

Gender (Female) 86.4 84.3 92.2

Race (Caucasian) 74.8 74.5 75.6

Program      

Full-Time 43.2 48.6 32.7

Adv Standing 32.1 22.4 29.1

Ext Study 11.6 29.0 38.2

Concentration-EBIP 82.6 82.7 82.2

• Comp Exam Scores - ns for any of the 10 individual items or overall score• Overall range - 15.00-50.00, M=35.1 (5.6)

• GPA • F2F - GPA=3.7; Online- GPA=3.6* • GPA by method and program

F2F OnlineFT 3.76 (.20) 3.70 (.26)ESP 3.66 (.24) 3.69 (.21)AS 3.81 (.15) 3.65 (.20)*

Findings

• Self-Efficacy - Repeated Measures ANOVA•Main Effect of time - significant• Pre-test - M=33.9 (4.0)• Post-test - M=37.6 (2.8); F(1, 86) = 18.8, p

= .001 • Time * Instructional Method - ns• F(1, 86) =.10, p > .05 • Similar gain in Self-Efficacy for Traditional and

Online students

Findings

Field Competency All Students F2F Students Online Students

  M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)

Assessment 4.3 (.76) 4.2 (.77) 4.5 (.70)**

Intervention 4.1 (.80) 4.1 (.76) 4.3 (.81)*

Policy 4.0 (.80) 3.9 (.80) 4.1 (.78)*

Leadership 4.2 (.80) 4.1 (.80) 4.4 (.77)**

Ethics 4.1 (.77) 4.3 (.77) 4.5 (.72)

Evaluation 4.1 (.83) 4.0 (.82) 4.3 (.81)**

Advocacy 4.2 (.80) 4.1 (.79) 4.4. (.78) *

Prof Development 4.3 (.76) 4.3 (.76) 4.4 (.75)

Findings

Overall Field Competency Ratings - By Method & Program

  F2F Online

All Students 32.9 (5.1) 34.8 (5.1)

Full-time 32.7 (5.0) 34.6 (6.0)

Advanced Standing 33.7 (5.0) 34.1 (5.3)

Extended Study 32.1 (5.8) 36.2 (4.0)**

Findings

Student Exit Survey Ratings by Instructional Method

  M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)

Faculty Access 3.6 (1.0) 3.5 (1.0) 3.9 (1.0)**

Faculty Support 3.8 (1.0) 3.7 (1.1) 4.1 (.94)*

Maj Prof Access 3.1 (1.5) 2.9 (1.5) 3.6 (1.3)**

Maj Prof Advising 3.0 (1.5) 2.6 (1.5) 3.5 (1.4)***

Preparedness 3.8 (.95) 3.5 (.95) 4.3 (.76)**

Findings

• Paucity of comparison outcomes studies for online programs• Discipline specific studies needed

• Current study - online students performed as well as F2F• Exception GPA - further investigation is needed

• Current study - satisfaction higher for online students• Related to online program staff; students’ desire for

access to MSW program; other?

Discussion

• Further research - not only “what” by “why”• Include additional demographic data to compare f2f

and online students - employment, hours worked, years of experience, etc.

• Qualitative data to flesh out quantitative

• Conduct more research surrounding best practices in online education

• Evaluation of methods of delivery especially in regards to clinical classes since the majority of students in MSW programs are clinical tracks

Discussion

• Anderson, K.H. & Friedmann, M.L. (2010). Strategies to teach family assessment and intervention through an online international curriculum. Journal of Family Nursing, 16, 213-233.

• Banks, A., & Faul, A. (2007). Reduction of face-to-face contact hours in Foundation Research courses: Impact on student’s knowledge gained and course satisfaction. Social Work Education, 26 (8), 780-793.

• Bettmann, J., Thompson, K., Padykula, N., & Berzoff, J. (2009). Innovations in doctoral education: Distance education methodology applied. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 29 (3),

291-312.

• Cummings, S., Foels, L., and Chaffin, K. (in press). Comparative analysis of distance education and classroom- based formats for a clinical social work practice course. Journal of Social Work Education.

• Faul, A., Frey, A., & Barber, R. (2004). The effects of web-assisted instruction in a social work research methods course. Social Work Education, 23 (1), 105-188.

• Hylton, M. (2006). Online versus classroom-based instruction: A comparative study of learning outcomes in a diversity course. The Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work, 11 (2),

102-114.

References

• Ligon, J., Marward, M., & Yegidis, B. (1999). Comparing student evaluations of distance learning and standard classroom courses in graduate Social Work education. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 19 (1), 21-29.

• Maidment, J. (2005). Teaching Social Work Online: Dilemmas and Debates. Social Work Education, 24 (2), 185-195.

• Siebert, D.C., and Spaulding-Givens (2006). Teaching clinical social work skills online: A case example. Social Work Education, 25 (1), 78-91.

• Siebert D.C., Siebert, C.F., & Spaulding-Givens, J. (2006). Teaching clinical social work skills primarily online. Journal of Social Work Education, 42, 325-336.

• U.S. Department of Education Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development Policy and Program Studies Service (2010). Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies. Washington, DC. Retrieved on November 7, 2012 from: http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf

References

• Watson, J. F., & Kalmon, S. (2005). Keeping pace with K–12 online learning: A review of state-levelpolicy and practice. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates. Retrieved on November 7, 2012 from

http://www.learningpt.org/pdfs/tech/Keeping_Pace2.pdf

• Wilke, D., and Vinton, L. (2006). Evaluation of the first-web based advanced standing MSW program. Journal of Social Work Education, 42 (3), 607-620.

• Woehle, R., and Quinn, A. (2009). An experiment comparing HBSE Graduate Social Work Classes: Face-to-Face and at a distance. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 29 (4), 418-430.

References