Social work education in China has undergone rapid development. However, the competen-

cies of the students are less clear. In this study, we evaluated the competencies of graduate social

work students in China and examined factors that impacted the competencies based on learning

theory. Findings indicated that the Chinese students rated significantly lower on all core competen-

cies than their counterparts in the United States. Knowledge and skills learned in class, field place-

ment, and social context all have effects on competencies. Among them, how students think about

individual development and the social work profession has the most significant effects on the com-

petencies. These findings carry implications for social work education in the Chinese context. Rap-

id development of social work education in China requires the measurement and evaluation of stu-

dents’ core competencies.

Keywords: competency, social work, education, China, graduate student

Research Report #21 March 2015

Competencies of Graduate Social Work Students in China

Yuqi Wang, Rutgers University

Yu Guo, Renmin University of China

Katie Findley, Rutgers University

Shuang Lu, Rutgers University

Chien-Chung Huang, Rutgers University

1

Introduction Political, economic, and social

change has led to rapid expansion of

the social service sector in China and

social work education program devel-

opment is burgeoning (Li, Han, &

Huang, 2012; Guo, Lu, Wang, &

Huang, 2014). In 2013, about 300 social

work programs existed in China, while

the number was virtually zero in early

1990s (Yan, Gao, & Lam, 2013; Xinhua

Net, 2013). Despite the growth of this

educational sector in China, research

indicates that appropriate infrastruc-

ture may be lacking, as the need for an

improved standardized curriculum for

graduate students exists (Li, Han, &

Huang, 2012). Literature indicates that

the lack of a practical curriculum is

impacting the ability of students to

engage in meaningful and professional

social work practice (Huang, Fu, &

Wong, 2014; Wang & Huang, 2013;

Yan, Gao, & Lam, 2013;). Although

Western curriculum has been used as a

model for the Chinese graduate social

work curriculum (Guo, Lu, Wang, &

Huang, 2014; Li et al., 2012), little is

known about the use of standardized

curriculum for social work education

in China as it relates to practice

knowledge. The purpose of this paper

is to examine the level and factors of

competency-based education among

graduate social work students in Chi-

na. Findings from this paper should

shed light on the extent of competency

of current social work students in Chi-

na and provide implications for the

development of social work education

in a country that faces rapid growth of

social work professionals.

A History of Social Work Edu-

cation in China Social work education in China

has undergone a great deal of change

since its inception the 1920’s (Li et al.,

2012;Sha et al, 2012; Xia & Guo, 2002).

The development of social work edu-

cation could be divided into four phas-

es in China: adoption (1920-1948), sus-

pension (1949-1978), reconstruction

(1979-1998), and institutionalization

(1999-current) (Zhang, 2011; Li et al.,

2012). Similar to Western develop-

ment, social work in China originated

with charitable works in the early

twentieth century (Fang, 2013; Xia &

Guo, 2002). The social needs of the

Chinese people spurred the creation of

the profession, as educators and com-

munity leaders aimed to develop solu-

tions to address social problems. The

adoption of social work brought the

opening of schools of social work in

rural areas and social workers played a

role in supporting World War II vic-

tims and family members. Social work

education and training at the time pre-

pared students for practice through

theory and method courses, as well as

research. By the mid-twentieth centu-

ry, there were an estimated 10 univer-

sities with social work programs

(Zhang, 2011), and approximately 20

social work-related programs (Yan &

Tsang, 2005), which prepared students

to work in community agencies and

schools (Zhang, 2011).

A shift in government leadership

in 1949 altered the trajectory of social

work education in China. Described as

the suspension phase, social work

evolved with the changing times and

governmental priorities. The profes-

sion changed considerably in 1952 as

higher education underwent a trans-

formation. At this time, social work

was deemed pseudo-science and the

need for social services was not well

understood by the government (Fang,

2013; Zhang, 2011). Branded as unnec-

essary, social work education was re-

moved from universities and colleges

in China for nearly 30 years (Fang,

2013; Yuen-Tsang & Wang, 2002).

However, researchers note that during

this phase in social work history, insti-

tutions dedicated to helping individu-

als did remain despite the dismantling

of the social work education system

(Zhang, 2011).

Thirty years later, following the

introduction of new governmental pol-

icies in China, the Ministry of Civil

Affairs assumed the position of over-

seeing social work and social work

educational programs were re-

introduced in China (Zhang, 2011).

The Open Door Policy in 1978 repre-

sented a paradigm shift in China from

a planned economy to a more flexible

and free economy (Li et al., 2012). The

needs of the at-risk populations, as

well as the needs that remained in the

aftermath of a natural disaster, were

driving forces in the reinvigoration of

social work in China (Li et al., 2012).

The lack of social worker training in

theoretical knowledge and methods,

particularly in specialized training,

was a consequence of the social work

education hiatus (Fang, 2013). As a

result, in the late twentieth century, the

government aimed to rebuild and re-

store civil affairs education.

With the start of the 21st century,

the Central Committee of the Chinese

Communist Party and the State Coun-

cil were in favor of social workers solv-

ing social issues in an effort to create

what the government deemed a har-

monious society. This led to rapid de-

velopment of China’s social work edu-

cation programs (An & Chapman,

2014; Li et al., 2012; Zhang, 2011).Social

work students are trained to focus on

important social issues, such as: pov-

erty, unemployment, income disparity,

the aging population, massive laborer

migration, homelessness, and adoles-

cent crime (Fang, 2013; Wong, Li, &

Song, 2007). By August 2013, China

has 266 baccalaureate social work pro-

grams, 60 specialized social work pro-

grams offered by vocational colleges,

and 61 master’s social work programs

(Xinhua Net, 2013). The emergence of

schools of social work is attributed to a

different and new environment in Chi-

na. The training of faculty and stu-

dents, the energy and purpose of the

2

national association, the creation of

schools of social work, and the devel-

opment of curriculum are the structur-

al features of the current institutional

phase (Zhang, 2011).

Social Work Curriculum in

China The China Association for Social

Work Education (CASWE) is a profes-

sional organization that supports the

development of social work in China.

Created in 1994 under the Ministry of

Civil Affairs, and restructured in 2001

as a social organization, the CASWE

contributes to social work “academic

exchanges, theoretical research, profes-

sional training, international coopera-

tion, and advisory services” in China

(Fang, 2013; CASWE, 2013). As a non-

profit organization, the goal of

CASWE is to promote and develop the

profession of social work through edu-

cation. In 2004, CASWE provided

guidelines to all degree awarding so-

cial work programs in China and es-

tablished ten foundation courses in an

effort to create a standardized curricu-

lum. The foundations courses, both

social work and sociology courses, in-

clude specifically: introduction to so-

cial work theory, casework, group

work, community work, social admin-

istration, social policy, and introduc-

tion to social security (Xiong & Wang,

2007).

Even though the social work edu-

cation in China is expanding and be-

coming more professionalized and

systemized, it faces many challenges

(Fang, 2013; Liu, Sun, & Anderson,

2013). Some issues occur in the current

curriculum and there is a need to im-

prove the curriculum to prepare Mas-

ter’s social work students for practice.

Following the restructuring of social

work education in China, educators

were concerned with the lack of expe-

rience in curriculum planning. Curric-

ulum design has been described as a

source of tension in the late twentieth

century, as educators debated the ap-

propriateness of adopting a strictly

Western model (Yuen-Tsang & Wang,

2002). The debate regarding the bal-

ance between standardization of cur-

riculum and development according to

context is ongoing. Concern about the

pure adoption of Western curriculum

and advocacy for an incorporation of

existing models within the specific so-

cial and economic context exists within

the literature (Fang, 2013; Gray, 2008;

Jia, 2008; Liu, Sun, & Anderson, 2013;

Xiong & Wang, 2007; Yan, Ge, Cheng,

& Tsang, 2009).

Research indicates that a deficien-

cy in the practice curriculum may exist

in social work education in China (Yan

et al., 2013). This lack of a practical cur-

riculum may be impacting the effec-

tiveness of Master’s level social work-

ers in China as little variation in con-

tent or skills may not address the di-

verse client populations (Li et al.,

2012). The current curriculum has been

criticized for being theory focused and

neglecting to provide practical courses

(Wang & Huang, 2013). Context-

specific field curriculum design in Chi-

na is critical, as researchers are citing

the equal importance of classroom and

field curriculum in student learning

(Liu et al., 2013). Findings from a study

that examined the education concerns

of Master’s students in China indicate

that field education is not well incor-

porated in the curriculum and gaps

between theory and practice exist (Liu

et al., 2013). Other factors, such as the

limited connection between field

placement and future career, the lack

of supervision in social work agencies,

the lack of specialized social work fac-

ulty, and inadequate on-site training,

also impede the development of practi-

cal curriculum in China (Fang, 2013;

Liu et al., 2013).

Competency-based social work

education

1. Concept of competency-based edu-

cation

The competency-based education

originated from behaviorist learning

theory, which emphasizes the stimulus

and response mechanism. Predeter-

mined education objectives would

help teachers to evaluate the behaviors

and provide feedbacks to students.

Tyler (1949) raised the importance of

educational objectives as early as 1949.

He argued that the curriculum design

should be guided by the explicit objec-

tives expressed in terms of changes in

students’ behaviors that the learning

experience was supposed to produce.

The approach of outcome-orientated

education has been widely adopted by

various training programs and profes-

sional education programs, including

medical, nurse, law, and social work.

Competency is regarded as an in-

tegration of knowledge, skills, and atti-

tudes (Albanese, Mejicano, Mullan,

Kokotailo, &Gruppen, 2008; Carraccio

et al., 2002). Competency is defined as

an individual ability of deliberately

choosing from repertories of behaviors

under unique context of professional

practice (Govaerts, 2008; Kirschner et

al., 2006). This approach has two impli-

cations. One is that it expanded the

contents of professional learning.

Kirschner et al. (2006) distinguished

competency from knowledge and cog-

nitive skills. Competency is not only

about knowing (knowledge) and per-

forming (cognitive skills), it is more

like a strategy and personal ability

(Carraccio et al., 2002; Kirschner et al.,

2006; Sandberg &Pinnington, 2009). It

also emphasizes the role of contexts in

achieving competency. Competency is

the ability to apply knowledge and

skill into practice and action, as well as

the professional understandings of

their practice.

2. Competency-based education in

social work

After decades of development, in

2008, the Educational Policy and Ac-

3

creditation Standard (EPAS) was ap-

proved by CSWE (Council on Social

Work Education). EPAS was noted as a

major transformation from traditional

education to competency-based educa-

tion in the social work area. EPAS de-

fines competencies as “measureable

practice behaviors that are comprised

of knowledge, values, and skills.” The

competency-based education approach

emphasizes integration of knowledge,

values, and skills (Kuhlman, 2009), as

well as the transformation from gain-

ing knowledge to application of

knowledge and skills in social work

practice.

Ten core competencies were iden-

tified by EPAS in order to establish

criteria for a social work explicit curric-

ulum. Social work students are exam-

ined to measure their integration of

these competencies in practice with

individuals, families, and communities

(CSWE, 2008). Each of the ten compe-

tencies constitutes related knowledge,

values, skills, and measurable practice

behaviors.

The core competencies include

identifying as a professional social worker

and conduct accordingly, applying social

work ethical principles to guide profession-

al practice, applying critical thinking to

inform and communicate professional

judgments, engaging diversity and differ-

ence in practice, advancing human rights

as well as social and economic justice, en-

gaging in research-informed practice and

practice-informed research, applying

knowledge of human behavior and the so-

cial environment (HBSE), engaging in

policy practice to advance social and eco-

nomic well-being and to deliver effective

social work services, responding to con-

texts that shape practice, as well as engag-

ing, assessing, intervening, and evaluating

with individuals, families, groups, organi-

zations, and communities (CSWE, 2008).

Presently, more social work programs

are focusing on the core competencies

in their training and are evaluating

training outcomes in relevant ways.

3. Competency-based learning frame-

work

As social work has transferred

from knowledge-based education to

competency-based education, more

emphases have been put into applied

knowledge and skills. Several elements

are important in this learning process,

including pre-existing knowledge and

skills, application of knowledge, as-

sessment and feedback, and attitudes,

which are all important for the gaining

of competencies (Albanese, Mejicano,

Anderson & Gruppen, 2010; Miller,

Todahl & Platt, 2010; Ragg, Piers, &

Kahn, 2012). Development of compe-

tencies starts from existing knowledge

and skills. Through application of ex-

isting knowledge and skills in practice,

people can get feedback for their

knowledge and skills. They choose

suitable practical knowledge from cur-

rent knowledge pool, or replace exist-

ing knowledge and skill with new

knowledge and skill from practice and

feedback in order to gain competencies

(Kirschner, Vilsteren, Mummel, &

Wigman, 2006; Ragg, et al., 2012).

The importance of practice has

been mentioned by many researchers

(Govaerts, 2008;Kirschner, et al., 2006;

Velde, 1999). The application high-

lights reflective thinking of students’

professional practice within the out-

side settings. People observe and ac-

cess the environment, and then think

critically about what application fits

the situation best (Ku, Yeung, & Sung-

Chan, 2005).

Practice in realistic settings has

many functions for gaining competen-

cies. One is through providing plat-

form for feedback and assessments

from other people and the context, in

order to test existing knowledge and

skill. Competency-based learning re-

search highlights proficiency, which

was thought as one criterion of achiev-

ing competency and can only be

achieved by repeated practices

(Morcke, Dornan, &Eika, 2013; Swing,

2010; Velde, 1999). The attitude and

motivations of learning are also high-

lighted in the learning process

(Kirschner, et al., 2006; Swing, 2010).

Positive attitude and motivations can

facilitate the learning process, and vice

versa.

Figure 1 shows an integrated mod-

el for a competency-based learning

process that we built to summarize

factors that can facilitate the develop-

ment of competency. The basic compe-

tency-based learning process is a mu-

tual interaction between learners and

outside contexts. The learning process

is guided by predetermined learning

objectives. The effectiveness of learn-

ing is influenced by attitude and moti-

vations. Repeated practices can help to

achieve competencies.

Methods 1. Sample

The sample was recruited from the

MSW students of five universities in

China. We chose universities from

different geographic locations and

school rankings to make the sample

representative to the whole population

of MSW students in China. The five

universities are dispersed in 4 loca-

tions, two Northern cities: Beijing and

Tianjin, one Northern province: Shan-

dong Province, and one Southern

province: Jiangxin Province. The sur-

vey was conducted in the fall semester

of 2013 and 209 MSW students from

the five universities completed the sur-

vey. We dropped 33 cases due to miss-

ing data on our key variables, and ob-

tained a final sample of 176 cases for

regression analysis.

2. Measures

Ten core competencies

A 44-item scale was developed by

Battle and Farmer (2010) at Rutgers

University to measure MSW students’

ten core competencies of social work’s

explicit curriculum. The original scale

has two to six questions measuring

each competency using a five-point

4

Likert scale. Students were asked to

rate each of their competencies from 1

“poor” to 5 “excellent”.

In our study, we used a short ver-

sion of this scale with only one to two

questions measuring each competency.

We made this change due to resource

limitation and inapplicability of some

items in China’s context and social

work education design. The items se-

lected were those both most applicable

and comprehensively characterized

each competency. Item selection was

conducted through a discussion be-

tween three faculty members with

Ph.D. in social work and six postgrad-

uate students in social work program.

By keeping one to two representative

items for identical or highly similar

items, twelve items were selected after

this procedure (see Results for more

details). Then a pilot study was con-

ducted among 46 social work students

to test this scale’s applicability in Chi-

na. The short version of social work

explicit curriculum competencies is

shown in table 1. There were twelve

questions asked to measure the ten

competencies. Two questions were

kept for competency six to cover the

mutual process of research-informed

practice and practice-informed re-

search. Two questions were asked for

competency ten to cover both process-

es of developing interventions and

evaluating interventions. We used one

question for each competency to meas-

ure the other eight competencies.

The short version scale was trans-

lated into Chinese and after that anoth-

er translator translated the Chinese

version back into English. After com-

paring the translated English version

scale with the original English scale,

we refined the Chinese version to in-

crease the validity of the Chinese ver-

sion scale. The Cronbach’s alpha test

for our sample is 0.90, indicating good

internal reliability.

Knowledge and skills learned in school

(knowledge)

Four variables were used to meas-

ure knowledge and skills learned in

school: BSW degree, university type,

curriculum content satisfaction, and

grade. BSW degree was a binary varia-

ble, measuring whether students ma-

jored in social work at undergraduate

level. Students with a BSW degree

were assumed to have more social

work knowledge and skills. We used

university type as a proxy for gained

knowledge and skills in classes. We

classified the five universities into two

groups: 985 universities and other uni-

versities. 985 universities are those in-

cluded in the “985 project” by the Min-

istry of Education in China. The “985

project” selects top universities and

offers them priority of development

and funds from the government. 985

universities are also recognized by the

public as the top universities in China.

Among the five universities, two are

985. Curriculum content satisfaction

examined how much students are sat-

isfied with the curriculum content,

measured by a three-point Likert scale.

Higher score indicated that students

had higher satisfaction with the curric-

ulum content. Grade measured which

grade students were currently in. It

was used as a binary variable, 0 for

first year and 1 for second and third

years. In China, there are both two-

year and three-year MSW programs.

We assumed that compared to first

year students, second and third year

students had received more social

work knowledge and skills from clas-

ses.

Learning process in field placement (field

placement)

Two levels of contexts influenced

the learning process of social work

competency: field placement and social

context.

Field placement in professional

education is an essential part to con-

nect what students learned in class to

practices in real working settings. Four

variables measured learning process in

field placement: field placement, gains

from field placement, frequency of su-

pervision, and frequency of feedback.

Field placement was a binary variable,

indicating whether the student had

any field placement experience in

MSW program. Gains from field place-

ment, frequency of supervision, and

frequency of feedback were all meas-

ured by Likert scale. Gains from field

placement measured self-rated gains

from field placement, ranging from 1

“a little” to 3 “a lot”. Frequency of su-

pervision and frequency of feedback

measured how frequently the student

received supervision and how often

they got helpful feedback from their

supervisors, including 1 “never”, 2

“once every two or three months”, 3

“once a month”, and 4 “several times a

month.” As indicated in competency-

based learning framework, the two

indicators were included in the analy-

sis because timely feedbacks are im-

portant for building competencies.

Learning process in social context

(context)

In this study, we used three varia-

bles to measure students’ reflective

thinking of both social context and

feedback from social context that relat-

ed to individual professional develop-

ment: knowledge and work connec-

tion, knowing career choice of former

graduates, and perceived required de-

gree for social work practice.

Knowledge and work connection was

measured by a binary variable, meas-

uring whether the student thought

there was a connection between what

they learned in school and required

skills needed for a career. Students

were asked whether students knew the

career choices of former graduates,

and this was measured as a binary var-

iable. It was expected that if people

had better knowledge of the former

graduates’ career choices, they would

know more about their career out-

looks. The perceived required degree

for social work practice measured the

5

perceived professional qualification for

social work practice. Higher score indi-

cated higher degree requirement, 1 for

no requirement, 2 for BSW degree, and

3 for MSW degree. If they thought the

requirement for social work practice

was high, as MSW students, they were

expected to have high expectations to

their professional development.

Attitude in social work learning process

(attitude)

Four variables were used to meas-

ure attitudes regarding social work

profession and knowledge: previous

social work experience, choosing social

work major as their first choice for

their Master’s degree, reported prefer-

ence of the social work profession, and

likelihood of choosinga social work

career after graduation. Previous social

work experience was a binary variable,

measuring whether the student en-

tered the social work major after any

social work experience. Choosing so-

cial work majors as their first choice

fortheir Master’s degree was also a

binary. “Yes” indicated either students

took a graduate school entrance exam

for their MSW and got admitted, or

they were transferred from a social

work program in another school. In

both cases, students would have high-

er commitment to the social work dis-

cipline compared to those who did not

choose a social work major as their

first choice.Reported preference to the

social work profession asked for stu-

dents’ perceived fondness of the social

work profession. It was measured by a

three-point Likert scale, a higher score

indicating more preference to the so-

cial work profession. The possibility of

choosing a social work career was also

measured by a three-point Likert scale,

a higher score indicating that students

were more likely to choose social work

as their future career.

Control variables

We controlled demographic and

socioeconomic variables, including

age, gender, family region, and per-

ceived family economic status. Family

region was measured by categorical

variables, including four categories:

big city, middle or small city, town-

ship, and village. Perceived family eco-

nomic status was reported by social

work students. It was measured by a

three-point Likert scale, ranging from 1

to 3, indicating from low to high social

economic status.

3. Analytic Approach

We first used a t-test to explore the

differences of ten core competencies

between MSW students from China

and the U.S. The data for MSW stu-

dents in the U.S. was collected by Rut-

gers University’s school of social work

in 2011, with the use of student’s self-

assessment and academic research.

The sample size for the U.S. was 229,

compared to the final sample size of

176 for China.

Then we conducted a series of Or-

dinary Least Squares regressions (OLS)

to examine the ten competencies sepa-

rately and the average score of the ten

competencies in China. The four

groups of factors and control variables

were included in each regression mod-

el to test their effects on the competen-

cy achievement for MSW students in

China.

Results 1. Descriptive analysis

The results of the descriptive sta-

tistics of independent variables were

shown in table 2. For knowledge varia-

bles, 63.07% of current MSW students

had a BSW degree. About 31.58% stu-

dents were from the two 985 universi-

ties. The average score for curriculum

content satisfaction was 1.97, with a

standard deviation of 0.38, showing

that most students rated neutral atti-

tude to curriculum content. Slightly

more than half of the students were in

their first year of the MSW program.

For field placement indicators, the ma-

jority of MSW students had taken a

field placement. Among those students

who had taken a field placement, they

reported 2.52 average score for gains

from field placement, indicating posi-

tive feedback to their field placement

experience. They reported 2.63 for fre-

quency of supervision, and 2.87 for

frequency of feedback, indicating that

most people reported that they re-

ceived supervision and helpful feed-

back between “once every two or three

months” and “once a month.” For con-

text variables, 63.64% reported there

was a connection between what they

learned in this program and their fur-

ther career. Almost 80% of students

knew the careers of former graduates.

The average level for perceived re-

quired degrees for social work practice

was 1.85. For attitude that could facili-

tate development of competencies,

33% of MSW students had previous

social work related working experi-

ence, and 75.6% had chosen a social

work major as their first choice when

they entered graduate schools. They

reported a relatively higher average

score of 2.41 on preference of a social

work profession and a low average

score of 1.93 on possibility of choosing

a social work career. For control varia-

bles, age ranged from 21 to 39, with an

average age of 24.14. Almost 70% of

students were females. 40% of students

came from families in big cities, 18%

from middle or small cities, almost

30% from townships, and only 13%

from villages. The average score for

perceived family economic status was

almost 2, which indicated the average

family economic status for MSW stu-

dents was the middle economic status.

2. Comparative analysis

The comparative analysis of the

ten competencies was shown in Table

1 and Figure 2. The t-test result

showed there were significant differ-

ences of all ten dimensions between

MSW students from China and from

the U.S. The MSW students in the U.S.

reported higher scores than China’s

students in all ten competencies. The

6

difference was .52 in average and the

differences for each dimension ranged

from .28 to .65. As shown in Figure 2,

even though the China students’

scores were lower, the pattern among

the ten competencies was similar in the

U.S. and China. Students from both

countries rated high for competency

one, four, and seven, which were pro-

fessional identity, diversity, and apply-

ing knowledge of human behavior and

social environment. They rated low for

competency eight and nine, which

were engaging in policy practice and

responding to context. We can see

from the pattern that students rated

high for competencies of personal atti-

tudes and abilities, but rated low for

abilities involving practices at the mac-

ro level.

3. Regression analysis

Eleven OLS regressions were con-

ducted to examine overall and each

core social work competency. The R2

for regressions showed that for most

competencies, all the indicators could

explain more than 20% of the variance

of the ten competencies. The indica-

tors, however, had different effects on

predicting different competencies.

For indicators of knowledge and

skills learned in classes, only grade

had a significant effect on the overall

competency score. Compared to first

year students, second or third year

students reported a .245 higher score

on overall competency score. They also

reported significantly higher score on

competencies two, three, four, and

nine, which were social work ethics,

critical thinking and communicates,

diversity, and responding to context.

The BSW degree did not have signifi-

cant effects on all ten competencies.

However, university type had signifi-

cant effects on competencies one, four,

seven, eight, and ten. Compared to

students from other universities, stu-

dents from 985 universities reported

significantly higher scores on compe-

tencies one, four, seven and ten, which

were professional identity, diversity,

applying knowledge of human behav-

ior and the social environment, and

intervention and evaluation. However,

they also reported significantly lower

scores on competency eight, which

was engaging in policy practice. Cur-

riculum content satisfaction had sig-

nificantly positive effects on competen-

cy ten only. Students who reported

one score higher on curriculum con-

tent satisfaction also reported .40 high-

er on skills of intervention and evalua-

tion.

For indicators of learning process

in field placement, none of the four

indicators had significant effects on the

overall competency score. Self-rated

gains from field placement had signifi-

cant positive effects on competency

four, which was diversity. Frequency

of feedback had significant positive

effects on competencies six and ten,

which were research-informed practice

and practice-informed research, and

intervention and evaluation. Unex-

pectedly, neither whether students had

a field placement nor frequency of su-

pervision had significant effects on any

social work competencies.

For the three indicators of learning

process in social context, both binary

variables of knowledge and work con-

nection and knowing career of former

graduates had significant effects on the

overall competency score. Compared

to others, students who thought there

was a connection between what they

learned at their university and their

future career reported .41 higher on

overall competency score. In addition,

they also reported significant higher

scores on six competencies, including

one, two, four, five, six, and ten, which

were professional identity, social work

ethics, diversity, human rights, re-

search-informed practice and practice-

informed research, and intervention

and evaluation. Students who knew

the careers of former graduates

were .27 higher on overall competency

score than those who did not. Also,

they reported significantly higher

scores on competencies one and five,

which were professional identity and

human rights. The perceived required

degree of social work practicedid not

have a significant effect on the overall

competency score, but did have signifi-

cant positive effects on competencies

three and seven, which were critical

thinking and communicating and ap-

plying knowledge of human behavior

and social environment.

Attitude, however, did not show

significant effects on competencies as

we expected. None of the four indica-

tors for attitude regarding social work

had significant effects on the overall

competency score. Students who chose

a social work major as their first choice

when entering graduate school report-

ed .55 higher on competency seven,

applying knowledge of human behav-

ior and the social environment. Incon-

sistent to our hypothesis, students who

reported more probability of choosing

a social work career, howev-

er,reporteda significantly lower score

on competency ten, which was inter-

vention and evaluation. Previous so-

cial work experience and preference to

social work profession did not have

significant effects on any competen-

cies.

Additionally, family region had

significant effects on the overall com-

petency score, competency two, and

competency eight. Compared to those

coming from big cities, students who

came from villages reported a signifi-

cantly higher score on overall compe-

tencies, social work ethics, and engag-

ing in policy practice.

Implications The current study finds that com-

pared to the social work competencies

of MSW students in the U.S., MSW

students in China reported significant-

ly lower scores in all the ten social

work competencies. Based on previous

7

research and competency-based learn-

ing theory about factors that may facil-

itate or impede the development of

social work competency, we tested

what factors in MSW students’ learn-

ing experience would affect their social

work competencies. Through regres-

sion analysis, we found that different

competencies, that highlighted differ-

ent aspects of social work professional

capabilities, were influenced by differ-

ent factors in students’ learning experi-

ence.

All four groups of factors, includ-

ing knowledge and skills learned in

classes, learning process in field place-

ment, learning process in social con-

text, and attitude, have effects on social

work competencies. For example,

higher grade in school may increase

the competencies that relate to both

practice skills and social work ethics.

Frequency of receiving helpful feed-

back may help to enhance some social

work competencies. We found that the

learning process in social context has

the greatest effects on social work com-

petencies. The perceived knowledge

and future work connection, knowing

the career choice of former graduates

and perceived required degree of so-

cial work practice could be seen as re-

flective thinking of the social context.

They all have significant effects on

competencies, especially knowledge

and work connection.

There are also some results incon-

sistent to our hypothesis. The learning

process in field placement and attitude

regarding social work profession, un-

expectedly, only shows limited im-

pacts on social work competencies.

Students from 985 universities, alt-

hough rated higher on some compe-

tencies, rated lower on engaging in

policy practice. It may be because stu-

dents in better schools prefer micro-

level social work practice, or they have

higher standards for policy-related

competency, as the scores were self-

rated. Similarly, students who were

more likely to choose a social work

career after graduation reported lower

scores on competencies, which may be

also because they have higher stand-

ards for social work professional prac-

tice.

There are several practical ap-

proaches we can adopt to improve so-

cial work competencies. Feedback in

field placement is important for devel-

oping social work competencies.

Therefore, qualified social work field

supervisors who can offer timely and

helpful feedback to MSW students in

their field placements are important

for developing social work competen-

cies. The reflective thinking of the

large social context has great impacts

on developing social work competen-

cies. The future career for social work

graduates and the disconnection of

what they learned in school and the

application of knowledge and skills in

real social context impedes the devel-

opment of social work competencies.

Therefore, in order to improve social

work competencies of MSW students,

we should design a social work curric-

ulum and enrich social work

knowledge and skills based on China’s

social context and social problems.

Indigenous knowledge and skills for

social work practice created by social

work practitioners, social work re-

searchers, and research from sociology,

psychology, public policy, public

health, and related fields should be

included in social work education in

China. Besides the modifications made

within the social work education sys-

tem, providing a better social environ-

ment for social work development in

China, like providing more opportuni-

ties for career development, can also

benefit the development of individual

social work competencies.

Limitations Although we increased the hetero-

geneity of our sample by selecting uni-

versities in different regions and that

rank differently in China, the conven-

ience sampling method may affect the

generalization of our findings to the

whole population. In addition, the US

data was solely based on one conven-

ience sample, thus the findings of

difference between the China and the

US data can not be generalized back to

their populations. However, the con-

sistent findings across ten competen-

cies increase our confidence of the re-

sults. Besides, the ten competencies, as

evaluation standards for learning out-

comes, may not fit China’s social work

education well due to different social

contexts and education system. The

mechanism of how social context, es-

pecially the career opportunities and

requirements, affects the development

of social work competencies was not

discussed in this research. Some possi-

ble mediators, including lacking of

professional identity and improper

field placement, should be tested in

further studies.

8

Competency Items

China (N=176)

US (N=229) t-test

Mean S.D.

Mean

S.D.

Mean Differ-ence

C1 Identify as a professional social worker and conduct oneself accordingly

Attend to professional roles and bound-aries

3.74 0.99 4.24 0.78 -0.50***

C2 Understands and applies social work ethical principles to guide professional practice

Recognize and manage personal values in a way that allows professional val-ues to guide practice

3.60 0.91 4.15 0.77 -0.55***

C3 Applies critical thinking and communicates effectively

Distinguish, appraise, and integrate multiple sources of knowledge, includ-ing research-based knowledge, and practice wisdom

3.28 0.91 3.90 0.82 -0.62***

C4 Engages diversity and differ-ence in practice

Gain sufficient self-awareness to elimi-nate the influence of personal biases and values in working with diverse groups

3.61 0.87 4.20 0.71 -0.58***

C5 Advances human rights and economic justice

Engage in practices that advance social and economic justice

3.39 1.04 3.79 0.92 -0.39***

C6 Engage in research-informed practice and practice-informed research

a. Use practice experience to inform scientific inquiry b. Use research evidence to inform practice

3.25 0.92 3.53 0.87 -0.28**

C7 Applies knowledge of human behavior and the social envi-ronment

Critique and apply knowledge to un-derstand person and environment

3.63 0.90 4.12 0.76 -0.49***

C8

Engages in policy practice to advance social and economic well-being and to deliver effec-tive social work services

Analyze, formulate, and advocate for policies that advance social well-being

2.92 0.99 3.55 1.06 -0.63***

C9 Responds to contexts that shape practices in policy practice

Continuously discover, appraise, and attend to changing locales, populations, scientific and technological develop-ments, and emerging societal trends to provide relevant services

2.90 1.00 3.55 0.97 -0.65***

C10

Demonstrates effective profes-sional practice utilizing the skills of engagement, assess-ment, intervention and evalua-tion within the context of the services provided by the agency and specific assignments

a. Collect, organize, and interpret client data to develop effective interventions b. Critically analyze, monitor and eval-uate interventions

3.25 0.89 3.79 0.85 -0.54***

All Average of the ten competencies 3.36 0.68 3.88 0.61 -0.52***

Table 1. Comparison of ten core competencies between China and the United States

Note: **p<.01, ***p<.001

9

Variable Mean or percentage S.D.

Knowledge

BSW graduate 63.07

University type

985 universities 31.58

Other universities 68.42

Curriculum content satisfaction (1-3, higher=higher satisfaction) 1.97 0.38

Grade

First year 55.68

Second or third year 44.32

Field placement

Field placement 82.95

Gains from field placement (1-3, higher=gains more) 2.52 0.50

Frequency of supervision (1-4, higher=more frequent) 2.63 0.90

Frequency of feedbacks (1-4, higher=more frequent) 2.87 0.78

Context

Knowledge and work connection 63.64

Knowing career choice of former graduates 79.55

Perceived required degree for social work practice (1-3, higher=higher de-

gree) 1.85 0.57

Attitude

Previous social work experience 32.95

Social work major as first choice 75.57

Preference to social work profession (1-3, higher=more prefer) 2.41 0.59

Possibility of social work career (1-3, higher=more likely) 1.93 0.63

Control variables

Age (21-39) 24.14 2.43

Female 69.89

Family regions

Big city 40.34

Middle or small city 18.18

Township 28.41

Village 13.07

Perceived family economic status (1-3, higher=higher economic status) 2.07 0.34

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics (N=176)

10

A

ll

C1

C

2

C3

C

4

C5

C

6

C7

C

8

C9

C

10

Know

ledge

BS

W g

raduat

e -0

.03

6

0.1

68

-0

.028

-0

.001

0.1

66

-0

.088

0

.02

4

-0.1

37

-0

.19

6

-0.2

54

-0

.01

1

(0.1

1)

(0.1

6)

(0.1

5)

(0.1

5)

(0.1

4)

(0.1

7)

(0.1

5)

(0.1

5)

(0.1

7)

(0.1

7)

(0.1

4)

Univ

ersi

ty t

ype

(ref

eren

ce g

rou

p:

oth

er u

niv

ersi

ties

)

985 u

niv

ersi

ties

0

.16

5

0.3

76*

0.3

07

0.0

74

0.4

12**

0.1

82

0

.09

4

0.3

70

*

-0.4

23

*

-0.1

17

0

.38

0*

(0.1

2)

(0.1

7)

(0.1

6)

(0.1

6)

(0.1

5)

(0.1

8)

(0.1

6)

(0.1

6)

(0.1

8)

(0.1

8)

(0.1

5)

Curr

iculu

m c

onte

nt

sati

sfac

tio

n

0.1

47

0.1

96

0.0

2

0.2

88

0.0

49

0.0

04

0

.23

4

0.0

83

-0

.02

5

0.2

19

0

.40

2*

(0.1

4)

(0.2

0)

(0.1

9)

(0.2

0)

(0.1

8)

(0.2

2)

(0.1

9)

(0.1

9)

(0.2

1)

(0.2

1)

(0.1

9)

Gra

de

(ref

eren

ce g

rou

p:

firs

t yea

r)

Sec

ond o

r th

ird

yea

r

0.2

45

*

0.2

16

0.3

17*

0.3

13*

0.4

29**

0.1

81

0

.10

5

0.2

0

.23

3

0.3

67

*

0.0

85

(0.1

0)

(0.1

5)

(0.1

4)

(0.1

4)

(0.1

3)

(0.1

6)

(0.1

4)

(0.1

4)

(0.1

6)

(0.1

6)

(0.1

4)

F

ield

Pla

cem

ent

Fie

ld p

lace

men

t 0

.10

8

0.2

87

0.0

48

0.2

82

-0

.007

0.0

91

0

.01

9

0.0

21

0

.20

3

0.1

48

-0

.00

7

(0.1

4)

(0.2

0)

(0.1

9)

(0.1

9)

(0.1

8)

(0.2

2)

(0.1

9)

(0.1

9)

(0.2

1)

(0.2

1)

(0.1

8)

Gai

ns

from

fie

ld p

lace

men

t 0

.08

1

0.1

3

0.2

77

0.0

42

0.3

59*

0.1

63

0

.23

5

-0.0

75

-0

.15

8

-0.1

42

-0

.02

1

(0.1

2)

(0.1

7)

(0.1

6)

(0.1

6)

(0.1

5)

(0.1

9)

(0.1

6)

(0.1

6)

(0.1

8)

(0.1

8)

(0.1

6)

Fre

quen

cy o

f su

per

vis

ion

0

.00

3

0.0

48

0.1

14

0.0

43

-0

.011

0.0

63

-0

.02

3

-0.0

2

-0.0

05

-0

.11

8

-0.0

63

(0.0

6)

(0.0

9)

(0.0

9)

(0.0

9)

(0.0

8)

(0.1

0)

(0.0

9)

(0.0

9)

(0.1

0)

(0.1

0)

(0.0

9)

Fre

quen

cy o

f fe

edbac

ks

0.1

31

0.1

34

-0

.01

0.0

74

0.0

69

0.1

27

0

.20

1*

0

.18

1

0.0

29

0

.21

0

.29

1*

*

(0.0

7)

(0.1

1)

(0.1

0)

(0.1

0)

(0.0

9)

(0.1

2)

(0.1

0)

(0.1

0)

(0.1

1)

(0.1

1)

(0.1

0)

C

onte

xt

Know

ledge

and w

ork

co

nnec

tio

n

0.4

11

**

0.5

26**

0.4

86**

0.2

77

0.4

07*

0.5

86**

0

.56

9*

*

0.3

53

0

.17

8

0.3

04

0

.41

9*

(0.1

3)

(0.2

0)

(0.1

9)

(0.1

9)

(0.1

7)

(0.2

1)

(0.1

9)

(0.1

8)

(0.2

0)

(0.2

1)

(0.1

8)

Know

ing c

aree

r of

form

er g

rad

uat

es

0.2

74

*

0.3

78*

0.1

91

0.1

65

0.1

91

0.5

11*

0

.26

7

0.1

54

0

.31

8

0.3

34

0

.22

9

(0.1

2)

(0.1

8)

(0.1

7)

(0.1

8)

(0.1

6)

(0.2

0)

(0.1

7)

(0.1

7)

(0.1

9)

(0.1

9)

(0.1

7)

Per

ceiv

ed r

equ

ired

deg

ree

of

soci

al

work

pra

ctic

e 0

.11

6

0.1

86

0.1

44

0.2

53*

0.0

89

-0

.197

0

.10

3

0.3

26

**

0

.10

4

0.1

04

0

.04

8

(0.0

9)

(0.1

3)

(0.1

3)

(0.1

3)

(0.1

2)

(0.1

4)

(0.1

3)

(0.1

2)

(0.1

4)

(0.1

4)

(0.1

2)

Tab

le 3

. O

LS

reg

ress

ion

s of

ten c

ore

com

pet

enci

es (

N=

176)

11

Att

itude

Pre

vio

us

soci

al w

ork

ex

per

ien

ce

0.1

31

-0

.101

-0

.007

-0

.06

0.2

57

0.3

31

0

.22

9

0.1

32

0

.12

1

0.1

04

0

.30

2

(0.1

1)

(0.1

7)

(0.1

6)

(0.1

6)

(0.1

5)

(0.1

8)

(0.1

6)

(0.1

6)

(0.1

8)

(0.1

8)

(0.1

5)

Soci

al w

ork

maj

or

as f

irst

ch

oic

e 0

.02

2

-0.1

47

-0

.257

-0

.085

-0

.168

0.0

95

0

.14

4

0.5

46

**

-0

.09

4

0

0.1

9

(0.1

2)

(0.1

8)

(0.1

7)

(0.1

7)

(0.1

5)

(0.1

9)

(0.1

7)

(0.1

6)

(0.1

8)

(0.1

9)

(0.1

6)

Pre

fere

nce

to s

oci

al w

ork

pro

fess

ion

0

.04

4

-0.0

7

-0.0

36

0.0

57

-0

.026

0.0

46

-0

.02

0

.07

3

0.1

16

0

.15

7

0.1

47

(0.1

0)

(0.1

5)

(0.1

5)

(0.1

5)

(0.1

4)

(0.1

7)

(0.1

5)

(0.1

4)

(0.1

6)

(0.1

6)

(0.1

4)

Poss

ibil

ity o

f so

cial

wo

rk c

aree

r

-0.1

11

0.0

84

-0

.126

-0

.11

-0

.158

-0

.217

-0

.28

0

.00

7

0.0

71

-0

.09

1

-0.2

89

*

(0.1

1)

(0.1

5)

(0.1

5)

(0.1

5)

(0.1

4)

(0.1

7)

(0.1

5)

(0.1

4)

(0.1

6)

(0.1

6)

(0.1

4)

C

ontr

ol

vari

ab

les

Age

0

.01

8

0.0

25

0.0

21

0.0

41

0.0

18

0.0

21

0

.01

9

-0.0

25

0

.02

7

0.0

18

0

.01

4

(0.0

2)

(0.0

3)

(0.0

3)

(0.0

3)

(0.0

3)

(0.0

4)

(0.0

3)

(0.0

3)

(0.0

4)

(0.0

4)

(0.0

3)

Fem

ale

0.0

14

0.1

15

0.1

5

-0.0

23

0.1

01

-0

.169

0

.05

0

.29

-0

.06

8

-0.1

78

-0

.12

8

(0.1

1)

(0.1

6)

(0.1

5)

(0.1

6)

(0.1

4)

(0.1

8)

(0.1

5)

(0.1

5)

(0.1

7)

(0.1

7)

(0.1

5)

Fam

ily r

egio

n (

refe

rence

gro

up

: big

ci

ty)

M

iddle

or

smal

l ci

ty

0.0

62

0.2

1

0.0

7

-0.0

37

0.1

87

-0

.244

0

.26

5

0.1

85

0

.04

8

-0.1

92

0

.12

4

(0.1

4)

(0.2

1)

(0.2

0)

(0.2

0)

(0.1

8)

(0.2

3)

(0.2

0)

(0.1

9)

(0.2

2)

(0.2

2)

(0.1

9)

T

ow

nsh

ip

0.1

17

0.2

14

0.2

74

-0

.032

0.1

31

0.1

54

0

.24

5

0.1

97

-0

.00

1

-0.1

77

0

.16

4

(0.1

3)

(0.1

9)

(0.1

8)

(0.1

9)

(0.1

7)

(0.2

1)

(0.1

9)

(0.1

8)

(0.2

0)

(0.2

1)

(0.1

8)

V

illa

ge

0.3

63

*

0.3

57

0.5

48*

0.3

06

0.2

17

0.2

66

0

.43

6

0.3

67

0

.54

6*

0

.23

3

0.3

56

(0.1

7)

(0.2

5)

(0.2

4)

(0.2

4)

(0.2

2)

(0.2

8)

(0.2

4)

(0.2

3)

(0.2

6)

(0.2

7)

(0.2

3)

Per

ceiv

ed f

amil

y e

cono

mic

sta

tus

0.1

12

0.2

99

0.4

28

0.2

38

0.0

41

0.0

77

0

.10

9

0.0

59

-0

.10

9

0.0

41

-0

.05

9

(0.1

6)

(0.2

3)

(0.2

2)

(0.2

2)

(0.2

0)

(0.2

5)

(0.2

2)

(0.2

2)

(0.2

4)

(0.2

5)

(0.2

1)

Inte

rcep

t 0

.83

3

-0.3

43

0.4

58

-0

.231

1.1

45

1.4

16

0

.31

5

1.5

89

1

.90

1

1.2

2

0.8

65

(0.7

9)

(1.1

6)

(1.1

0)

(1.1

2)

(1.0

2)

(1.2

7)

(1.1

0)

(1.0

8)

(1.2

1)

(1.2

3)

(1.0

6)

R2

0

.28

06

0.2

638

0.2

295

0.1

940

0.2

577

0.2

099

0

.22

48

0

.23

72

0

.20

66

0

.19

35

0

.24

77

No

te:

*p

<.0

5,

**p

<.0

1,

***p

<.0

01

, B

(co

effi

cient)

and

SE

(st

and

ard

err

or,

in p

aren

thes

is)

are

rep

ort

ed.

12

Figure 1. Competency-based learning process

Figure 2. Comparison of ten core competencies between China and the US

13

Reference Albanese, M., Mejicano, G., Anderson,

W., &Gruppen, L. (2010). Building

a competency-based curriculum:

The agony and the ecsta-

sy. Advances in Health Sciences Edu-

cation, 439-454.

Albanese, M., Mejicano, G., Mullan, P.,

Kokotailo, P., &Gruppen, L. (2008).

Defining characteristics of educa-

tional competencies. Medical Edu-

cation, 42, 248-255.

An, Q. & Chapman, M.V. (2014).The

early professional experience of a

new social worker in China. Jour-

nal of Social Work Education, 50 (2),

322-333.

Battle, D., & Farmer, A. Y. (2010).

Teaching diversity: Implications

for implicit and explicit curricu-

lum and the new CSWE education

policy and accreditations stand-

ards. Paper presented at the 90th

Annual Meeting of the Southwest-

ern Social Science Association.

Houston, Texas.

Carraccio C, Wolfsthal SD, Englander

R, Ferentz K, & Martin C. (2002).

Shifting paradigms: from Flexner

to competencies. Academic Medi-

cine, 77 (5): 361–367.

Council on Social Work Education.

(2008). Educational Policy and Ac-

creditation Standards

(EPAS).Retrieved from http://

www.cswe.org/File.aspx?id=13780

Council on Social Work Education.

(2013). Statistics on social work edu-

cation in the United States. Re-

trieved from http://www.cswe.org/

File.aspx?id=74478

Fang, Y. (2013). China’s social work

education in the face of

change.Chinese Education and Socie-

ty, 46(6), 28-34.

Govaerts, M. (2008). Educational com-

petencies or education for profes-

sional competence? Medical Educa-

tion, 42, 234-236.

Gray, M. (2008). Some considerations

on the debate on social work in

China: Who speaks for whom?

International Journal of Social Wel-

fare, 17, 400-406.

Guo, Y., Lu, S., Wang, Y., & Huang C-

C. (2014). Core Competence of So-

cial Work Undergraduates in Chi-

na (Working Paper). Retrieved

from Huamin Research Center

website: http://

socialwork.rutgers.edu/Libraries/

Huamin/Report_15.sflb.ashx.

Huang, Y., Fu, Y., & Wong, H. (2014).

Challenges in social workers’ in-

volvement in the recovery of the

5.12 Wenchuanearthquake in Chi-

na. International Journal of Social

Welfare, 23, 139-149.

Jia, C. (2008). Correcting misconcep-

tions about the development of

social work in China: A response

to Hutchings and Taylor. Interna-

tional Journal of Social Welfare, 17, 98

-101.

Kirschner, P., Vilsteren, P., Hummel,

H., &Wigman, M. (1997). The de-

sign of a study environment for

acquiring academic and profes-

sional competence. Studies in High-

er Education, 22(2), 151-171.

Ku, H., Yeung, S., & Sung-Chan, P.

(2005). Searching for a Capacity

Building Model in Social Work

Education in China. Social Work

Education: The International Journal,

24(2), 213-233.

Kuhlmann, E. (2009). Competency-

Based Social Work Education: A

Thirty-Year Retrospective on the

Behavioral Objectives Movement.

Social Work & Christianity, 36(1), 70

-76.

Li, Y., Han, W-J., & Huang, C-C.

(2012). Development of social

work education in China: Back-

ground, current status and pro-

spect. Journal of Social Work Educa-

tion, 48 (4), 635-53.

Liu, M., Sun, F., & Anderson, S. G.

(2013). Challenges in social work

field education in China: Lessons

from the western experience. Social

Work Education: The International

Journal, 32(2), 179-196.

Miller, J., Todahl, J., & Platt, J. (2010).

The Core Competency Movement

In Marriage And Family Therapy:

Key Considerations From Other

Disciplines. Journal of Marital and

Family Therapy, 36(1), 59-70.

Morcke, A., Dornan, T., &Eika, B.

(2013). Outcome (competency)

based education: An exploration of

its origins, theoretical basis, and

empirical evidence. Advances in

Health Sciences Education, 18, 851-

863.

Ragg, D., Pier, J., & Kahn, M.

(2012).Engaging students' pre-

existing skills as an element of the

competency-focused practice class.

Paper presented in the BPD Annual

Conference. OR: Portland.

Sandberg, J., &Pinnington, A. (2009).

Professional Competence as Ways

of Being: An Existential Ontologi-

cal Perspective. Journal of Manage-

ment Studies, 46(7), 1138-1170.

Sha, W., Wong, Y-C., Lou, W-Q, Per-

son, V. &Gu, D-H. (2012). Career

Preferences of

Social Work Students in Beijing and

Shanghai. Social Work Education:

The International Journal, 31(1), 4-

21.

Swing, S. (2010). Perspectives on com-

petency-based medical education

from the learning sciences. Medical

Teacher, 32, 663-668.

Tyler, R.W. (1949). Basic Principles of

Curriculum and Instruction. Chi-

cago: University of Chicago Press.

Velde, C. (1999). An alternative con-

ception of competence: Implica-

tions for vocational educa-

tion. Journal of Vocational Education

& Training,51(3), 437-447.

Wang, Z. & Huang, L. (2013). Explor-

ing models for indigenizing social

work education in China. Chinese

Education and Society, 46(6), 42-49.

Wong, D., Li, C. Y., & Song, H. X.

14

(2007). Rural migrant workers in

urban China: living a marginalized

life. International Journal of Social

Welfare, 16(1), 32-40.

Xia, X., & Guo, J. (2002). Historical de-

velopment and characteristics of

social work in today's China. Inter-

national Journal of Social Welfare, 11,

254-262.

Xiong, Y. & Wang, S. (2007). Develop-

ment of social work education in

China in the context of new policy

initiatives: Issues and challenges.

Social Work Education: The Interna-

tional Journal, 26(6), 560-572.

Xinhua Net. (2013, August 8). China

Has 300, 000 Social Workers: Blue

Book. Retrieved from http://

www.mca.gov.cn/article/mxht/

mtgz/201308/20130800510249.shtm

l

Yan, M.C., Gao, J.G, & Lam, M.C.

(2013). The dawn is too distant:

The experience of 28 social work

graduates entering the social work

field in China. Social Work Educa-

tion: The International Journal, 32(4),

538-551.

Yan, M.C., Ge, Z-M., Cheng, S-L., &

Tsang, A.K.T. (2009). Imagining

social work: A qualitative study of

students’ perspectives on social

work in China. Social Work Educa-

tion: The International Journal, 28(5),

528-543.

Yan, M.C., & Tsang, A.K.T. (2005). A

snapshot on the development of

social work education in China: A

Delphi study. Social Work Educa-

tion: The International Journal, 24(8),

883-901.

Yuen-Tsang, A., & Wang, S. (2002).

Tensions confronting the develop-

ment of social work education in

China: Challenges and opportuni-

ties. International Social Work, 45(3),

375-388.

Zhang, M. (2011). Social work educa-

tion in China: A brief history and

contemporary developments. Mul-

ticultural Education Review, 3(2),

103-124.

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey School of Social Work

390 George Street, Room 503 New Brunswick, NJ 08901 848-932-7520, ext. 28256

socialwork.rutgers.edu/huamin