1. Comparison of Outcomes between an Online MSW Program and a Traditional MSW Program Kate M. Chaffin, LAPSW Sherry M. Cummings, PhD Director Nashville and Online MSW Program Assistant Professor of Practice 2015 DE Conference

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. Methodology  Quasi-experimental research design  Comparison of learning outcomes  Knowledge  Skills  Satisfaction  Students (n=345) graduated in May 2011 and 2012  Traditional (face-to-face) = 255 (73.9%)  Online = 90 (26.1%)

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. Findings VariableAll StudentsF2F StudentsOnline Students M (SD) or % Instruct Method 73.9%26.1% Age29.5 (8.8)29.1 (9.1)30.1 (8.0) Gender (Female)86.484.392.2 Race (Caucasian)74.874.575.6 Program Full-Time43.248.632.7 Adv Standing32.122.429.1 Ext Study11.629.038.2 Concentration-EBIP82.682.782.2

15. 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 F2FOnline FT3.76 (.20)3.70 (.26) ESP3.66 (.24)3.69 (.21) AS3.81 (.15)3.65 (.20)* Findings

16. 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

17. Field CompetencyAll StudentsF2F StudentsOnline Students M (SD) Assessment4.3 (.76)4.2 (.77)4.5 (.70)** Intervention4.1 (.80)4.1 (.76)4.3 (.81)* Policy4.0 (.80)3.9 (.80)4.1 (.78)* Leadership4.2 (.80)4.1 (.80)4.4 (.77)** Ethics4.1 (.77)4.3 (.77)4.5 (.72) Evaluation4.1 (.83)4.0 (.82)4.3 (.81)** Advocacy4.2 (.80)4.1 (.79)4.4. (.78) * Prof Development4.3 (.76) 4.4 (.75) Findings

18. Overall Field Competency Ratings - By Method & Program F2FOnline All Students32.9 (5.1)34.8 (5.1) Full-time32.7 (5.0)34.6 (6.0) Advanced Standing33.7 (5.0)34.1 (5.3) Extended Study32.1 (5.8)36.2 (4.0)** Findings

19. Student Exit Survey Ratings by Instructional Method M (SD) Faculty Access3.6 (1.0)3.5 (1.0)3.9 (1.0)** Faculty Support3.8 (1.0)3.7 (1.1)4.1 (.94)* Maj Prof Access3.1 (1.5)2.9 (1.5)3.6 (1.3)** Maj Prof Advising3.0 (1.5)2.6 (1.5)3.5 (1.4)*** Preparedness3.8 (.95)3.5 (.95)4.3 (.76)** Findings

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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 http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf References

24. 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 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