The Role of Educators in Preparing the Confident Graduate Student

Th e Role of Edu ca t or s in Pr e p a r in g t h e Con fide n t Gr a du a t e

St u de n t

Ger i Dick ey, PhD

Assist ant Professor , Mast er of Social Work Pr ogr am Par k Univ ersit y

Joseph Kline, MSW- C Social Work Gr aduat e St udent

Univ er sit y of Kansas

Gr egor y Lindst eadt , PhD

Associat e Professor and Chair of t he Cr im inal Just ice, Legal St udies and Social Work Depar t m ent

Missour i West er n Univ er sit y

Wit h lar ge num bers of non- BSW gr aduat es gr av it at ing t ow ard MSW pr ogr am s of st udy , BSWs m ust dem onst r ate t heir abilit y t o handle t he r igor of gr aduat e school in

order t o rem ain com pet it iv e in t he classr oom and field. This st udy ut ilized an online sur vey of MSW st udent s ( N= 107) fr om four differ ent universit ies t o ex am ine how w ell st udent s believe t heir part icular undergr aduat e degr ee progr am prepar ed t hem

t o m eet t he academ ic dem ands of t he MSW pr ogram s. Bivariat e and m ult iv ariat e analyses w ere perform ed and result s indicat e BSW gr aduat es feel m ore prepar ed

t han non- BSWs to com plet e their MSW pr ogr am . The ex cept ion for BSWs w as found in areas of r esear ch and st at ist ics w hen com par ed specifically to t hose w it h

psychology bachelor degr ees.

Th e Ba ch e lor of Socia l W ork D e gr e e

The Bachelor of Social Work ( BSW) degr ee is designed t o pr ov ide t he k now ledge, v alues and sk ills of gener alist social wor k pract ice. BSW cur r iculum equips st udent s w it h a broad under st anding of t he concept of social welfare and w ell- being. BSW st udent s ent er social w or k progr am s w it h a w ide r ange of w or ldview s and life ex per iences. Undergr aduat e social w or k progr am s’ curr icula ex pose t he BSW st udent t o t he r ich t r adit ions and hist or y of t he pr ofession and how social work is shaped by t he profession’s vision, m ission and purpose. Also, BSW cur r icula prov ide inst r uct ion on how gener alist s m ust underst and and apply m ult iple t heor ies t o infor m effect ive and efficient pr act ice, and how social w ork cor e values serv e to guide pr act ice on m ult iple lev els. Finally , t he BSW st udent lear ns how social work resear ch focuses on quest ions t hat direct ly addr ess policies and int er v ent ions t hat serv e t o prom ot e social well- being, pr ev ent ion, and equal oppor t unit y for all people. Consequent ly, BSW st udent s ar e ex pect ed t o develop a concept ual fr am ework for t he essent ial helping funct ions of gener alist pr act ice t hat span int er v ent ions w it hin and bet w een indiv iduals, fam ilies, groups, or ganizat ions and com m unit ies ( Kist har dt , 2015) .

Therefore, t o creat e a consist ent curriculum am ongst t he over 490 accr edit ed progr am s, t he Council on Social Wor k Educat ion has designed cr it er ia for m inim um non- elect iv e cont ent ( CSWE, 2014) . Since int roduced in 1974, t he cr it er ia hav e cont inued t o ev olv e, w it h t he m ost r ecent Educat ional Policy & Accr edit at ion St andar ds ( EPAS) put in place in 2008.

for all per sons ( CSWE, 2011) . Consequent ly , t he br oad k now ledge base of a gener alist social w or k educat ion and t he unique licensing oppor t unit y for t he gr aduat es oft en leads t o a v ar iet y of em ploy m ent oppor t unit ies for t he BSW gr aduat e. How ev er , Kar ger ( 2012) ar gues t hat in light of r ecent econom ic t r ends, concer n ex ist s around t he liv able m eans em ploy m ent or car eer adv ancem ent pot ent ial t hat a BSW degree pr ov ides. He suggest s t he abundance of BSW gr aduat es has dr iv en dow n t he value of t he BSW degr ee in salar y. Fur t her m or e, evidence suggest s t hat for career advancem ent and increased com pensat ion t he bachelor ’s lev el social work er w ill need t o pur sue an adv anced degr ee ( Jones et al., 2013; Whit aker & Wilson, 2010) . Ther efor e, t his paper em phasizes t hat w hen laying t he groundwork for st udent success, BSW pr ogr am ing needs t o keep cur rent and m onit or BSW cur r iculum t o assur e oppor t unit ies for adv anced educat ion for t he BSW ( Aguilar , Br ow n, Cow an, & Cingolani, 1997; Jones et al., 2013) . The focus of t his st udy is t o invest igat e BSW st udent s’ feelings of preparedness for t he academ ic r igor of MSW cur r iculum .

Lit e r a t u r e Re v ie w

I n t he past decade t he num ber of st udent s seek ing MSW degr ees has grow n ex ponent ially ( CSWE, 2014) . Fur t her m or e, t he r each of social w ork educat ion int o vocat ional fields such as cr im inal j ust ice, subst ance abuse counseling, and educat ion underscores a need and incr eases t he value of t he MSW degr ee. However , t he r ole t he BSW degr ee cont r ibut es to t he gr ow t h of t he MSW progr am s is som ew hat per plex ing. I n t he m ost r ecent CSWE ( 2014) Educat ion sum m ar y of t he 2013 academ ic y ear , univ er sit ies conferred over 5,400 m or e MSW degr ees t han BSW degr ees. These dat a indicat e t he t ot al num ber of BSW degr ees aw ar ded in 2011 fell about 8,000 st udent s shor t of t he MSW degrees aw arded in 2013. Based on t hese dat a, it conserv at iv ely est im at ed a m inim um of 35% of all MSW st udent s are alum ni of pr ogr am s out side a BSW.

Reasons ex ist t o ex plain t his par t icular phenom enon. The MSW degr ee and subsequent adv anced licensing oppor t unit ies giv e t his degree a sense of pr act icalit y t o t hose int er est ed in t he helping profession w it h a focus on t he indiv idual t her apeut ic em ploy m ent ( Aguilar et al., 1997; Ost een, 2011) . Fur t her m ore, individuals seek ing a change of pace fr om t heir under gr aduat e educat ion m ay find t he MSW pr ogr am com plem ent ar y t o t heir gener al educat ion degree ( Aust in, 1997; Gelm an & Lloy d, 2008) .

The aut hor s found lim it ed r esear ch since 1990 t hat specifically ev aluat es BSW and non- BSW progr am success w it h t he MSW degree ( Johnson- Mot oy anna, Pet r , & Mit chell, 2014; Noble & Hepler , 1990) . How ev er , t he lim it ed lit er at ur e found on t he t opic suggest s BSW progr am gr aduat es perfor m ed poor er t han non- BSW st udent s in MSW program s, as w ell as in placem ent exam s ( Fort une, Green, & Kolev zon, 1987; Johnson- Motoy anna et al., 2014; Noble & Hepler , 1990) . Fur t her , t he lit er at ur e indicat es m any BSW pr ogr am s fail t o prov ide academ ic r igor in t heir progr am s and exper ience inflat ed gr ading scales ( Adam , Zosky, & Unr au, 2004; Br em ner & Zast row , 2008; Noble & Hepler , 1990; Spr echt , Br it t , & Fr ost , 1984) .

I n 1995, Gibbs ident ified t he applicat ion of resear ch in pract ice t o be t he m ost com m on deficiency am ong progr am s in t he accredit at ion or r eaffirm at ion process. Mor e recent r esearch suppor t s Gibbs’ ( 1995) findings, ident ify ing low er lev els of r esear ch confidence in BSWs t han non- BSW st udent s ( Elliot , Choi, & Fr iedline, 2013; Wells, Maschi, & Slat er , 2012) . I n t heir field int er v iews, Hessenauer and Zastr ow ( 2013) found a com m on t hem e am ong BSW gr aduat es r egar ding r esear ch m et hods cour se work . Specifically , t hese BSW gr aduat es w ere unable t o ident ify t he usefulness of m et hods cour ses or in som e cases ev en had difficult y recalling r esear ch ex ercises and act iv it ies t hey found applicable t o t heir w or k ( Bolin, Lee, GlenMay e, & Yoon, 2012; Hessenauer & Zast r ow , 2013; Mor r is, 1992) . Relevancy t o t he field r em ains t he pivot al com ponent t o m aking r esear ch and st at ist ics courses m eaningful t o bot h st udent and facult y ( Bolin et al., 2012; Pet er son et al., 2011) . Since self- efficacy or confidence is a result of success and m ast er y of a concept or act ivit y , cr eat ing m eaningful research and st at ist ics cour ses could enhance t he st udent s’ confidence ( Bolin et al., 2012; Clem , Mennick e, & Beasley , 2014; Lane, Lane, & Ky pr ianou, 2004) . Alt hough self- repor t ed pr eparedness is not a dir ect m easur e of success in cour sew or k or com pet ency in pr act ice, r esear ch indicat es t hat academ ic confidence does indeed pr edict academ ic achiev em ent and per sist ence ( Bolin et al., 2012; Dunlap, Henley , & Fr aser , 1998; MacPhee, Far ro, & Canet t o, 2013) .

CSWE required sect ions of EPAS 2.1.10 Engage, Assess, I nt er v ene, and Ev aluat e out line resear ch com pet encies; how ever, according to t he lit erat ur e, r esist ance at bot h under gr aduat e and gr aduat e educat ion hav e per pet uat ed w hat Elliot et al. ( 2013) r efer t o as t he r esear ch reluct ance of t he social w or k discipline ( Bolin et al., 2012; Dav is et al., 2013) .

Sum m a r y

An MSW degree is requir ed if BSW professionals choose to advance t heir career and achieve advanced licensure. The lit erat ure suggest s BSW st udent s vary on level of pr eparedness for t he r igors of an MSW educat ion. Ther efor e, t he pur pose of t his st udy is t o inv est igat e t he per cept ion of pr eparedness of BSW st udent s for an MSW educat ion.

This st udy com par es t hose graduat es w ho com plet ed a BSW degr ee to t hose fr om Psychology , Sociology , Cr im inal Just ice, and ot her Hum an Serv ices disciplines. The BSW curr iculum is unique in t hat gr aduat es fr om accr edit ed progr am s com plet e a st andar dized cur r iculum . Evidence of self- repor t ed pr eparedness for t he r igor of MSW st udies w ill be gleaned thr ough a sur v ey . Based on t he lit er at ur e it is ex pect ed BSW gr aduat es w ill repor t less confidence ( feelings of being less t han w ell pr epared) t han ot her disciplines in ar eas of resear ch and st at ist ics of gr aduat e cur r iculum . Conv ersely , based on t he com plet ion of a st andar dized core cur r iculum , it is ex pect ed t hat t he BSW gr aduat es w ill self- r epor t gr eat er confidence in ar eas such as: case m anagem ent , policy analy sis, cult ur al com pet encies and et hics.

M e t h od

This st udy is unique for sev eral r easons. Fir st , t he goal of t his pr oj ect w as t o exam ine how BSW and non- BSW degr ee earning MSW st udent s felt prepared by t heir individual bachelor ’s program for t he academ ic rigor of a MSW degr ee ( Rishell & Maj ew ski, 2009) . As st ated, t he lit erat ur e is not iceably void w hen evaluat ing BSW success in MSW pr ogr am s. Nex t , t his st udy ex am ined not only one inst it ut ion’s MSW st udent s but four inst it ut ions.

e-m aj or / int ended BSW st udent s. A pur posive sae-m pling of six r egional MSW progr ae-m s list ed m ost fr equent ly as ‘applied t o’ by t his univ er sit y ’s BSW senior s w as ut ilized. This st udy ’s int ent is t o develop a bet t er under st anding of t he unique feat ur es of MSW pr ogr am s m ost fr equent ed by t his BSW progr am ’s st udent s to im pr ov e adv isem ent for adv anced degr ee seek ing

st udent s. I n addit ion, t hese par t icipat ing inst it ut ions w er e v isit ed by facult y and BSW st udent r esearcher s t o int er v iew and lear n m or e from t he MSW progr am facult y. Of t hese six pr ogr am s, four agr eed t o par t icipat e in t his pr ocess. Tw o

of t hese univer sit ies ar e considered Research Univer sit ies ( RU) by t he Car negie Classificat ion; w hereas, t he ot her t w o univer sit ies are consider ed Mast er s M

inst it ut ions. An elect ronic sur v ey w as dev eloped ( Scant ron: Class Clim at e®) and sent t o each par t icipat ing MSW progr am . Surv ey s w er e elect r onically dist r ibut ed to t he MSW st udent s by t he par t icipat ing MSW pr ogr am . These surv eys int ent ionally w ere r eleased past t he m idpoint of t he spr ing sem est er t o ensur e st udent s r eceiv ing t he sur v ey had exper ience in t heir Mast er ’s level course w or k . MSW st udent s at t hese four inst it ut ions w ere sur v ey ed t o det er m ine how w ell t hey believ ed t heir specific bachelor s pr ogram prepared t hem t o succeed in t heir MSW educat ion ( Rishell & Maj ew ski, 2009) . The sur v ey dat a wer e supplem ent ed by face- t o- face facult y int er v iew s at each of t he four par t icipat ing inst it ut ions. I nt erv iew s w er e conduct ed using a collabor at iv e int er v iew t eam of four differ ent BSW st udent s and t hr ee different facult y m em bers. This st udy did not focus on any single BSW progr am ’s alum ni.

Due t o t he par t icipat ing MSW progr am s r equest t o int er nally dist r ibut e t he elect r onic instr um ent t o t heir list ser v , t he m et hod’s r et ur n r at e w as ham pered by t he inabilit y t o cont r ol for dist r ibut ion and t o ev aluat e t he num ber of surv eys r eceiv ed and or declined. Based on t he ret urn a conservative est im at e of response r at e w ould be in t he low r ange ( 16- 22% ) . This r at e should be consider ed w hen ex am ining and ev aluat ing r esult s. Each par t icipat ing inst it ut ion r eceiv ed a sum m ary r epor t of t heir findings com par ed t o t he full sam ple of t he four par t icipat ing MSW progr am s.

The sur v ey inst r um ent r equest ed par t icipant s t o ident ify t he inst it ut ion and discipline t hey receiv ed t heir Bachelor’s degr ee from pr ior t o ent er ing t he MSW progr am . Of t he 107 usable sur v ey s, r espondent s ident ified 45 unique inst it ut ions t hat conferr ed t heir individual Bachelor ’s level degree. Of t hese 45 inst it ut ions, 29 w ere ident ified only once by t hese MSW st udent s and 4 schools ident ified 5 or m ore MSW st udent respondent s. Only 3 st udent s from t he resear ch t eam ’s univ er sit y par t icipat ed.

Re su lt s

Table 1 prov ides a sum m ar y of self- r epor t ed ( dem ogr aphic, personal and educat ional) v ar iables. The r esponses w er e com par ed based on t heir repor t ed under gr aduat e degr ee ear ned: BSW (n= 39; 36.4% ) and non- BSW st udent s (n= 68; 63.6% ) . I n sum , t he sam ple w as pr im ar ily w hit e, fem ale and had a m ean age of 33.0. No st at ist ically significant differ ences w er e found based on t hese t hr ee fact ors bet w een t he BSW and non- BSW groups ( see Table 1) . I n addit ion, no st at ist ically significant differences w er e found bet ween t hese two gr oups self- r epor t ed under gr aduat e GPA ( UGGPA) or gr aduat e GPA ( GGPA) . As ex pect ed, t he BSW group w as significant ly m or e lik ely t o r epor t longer under graduat e int er nships and m ore lik ely t o be in adv anced st anding pr ogr am s ( see Table 2) . No significant differ ences ex ist ed bet ween t hese t w o groups in ot her ar eas of undergr aduat e applied lear ning ex per iences such as resear ch pr esent at ions, publicat ion, or st udy abr oad.

Table 1

Descr ipt ion of Self- Repor t ed Dem ogr aphics: BSW & Non- BSW MSW St udent s ( N= 107)

Var iable Tot al BSW Non- BSW

N( % t ot al) 107 39( 36.4% ) 68( 63.6% )

Gender ( % fem ale) 95.4% 100. % 92.6%

Race ( % whit e) 82.2% 79.5% 83.8%

Age ( m ean/ sd) 33.0/ 10.01 30.6/ 8.33 34.3/ 10.68

UGGPA ( % < 3.0) 13.1% 10.3% 14.7%

MSW GPA ( % < 3.0) 2.8% 0% 3.0%

Em ployed ( % > 20 hour s)

45.8% 46.2% 45.6%

Em ployed Social Serv ice ( % y es)

61.7% 64.1% 60.3%

Resear ch Pr oj ect ( % y es)

23.4% 25.6% 22.1%

I nt er nship ( % > 250 hour s) * *

45.8% 89.7% 20.6%

( % < 100 hour s) * * 49.6% 7.7% 73.5%

Pr esent at ion ( % y es) 29.0% 30.8% 27.9%

Publicat ion ( % y es) 9.3% 12.8% 7.4%

St udy Abr oad ( % y es) 12.1% 7.7% 14.7%

Not e. * p< .05, * * p< .01. To det er m ine significance chi- square w as used to exam ine cat egor ical dat a. A t- t est w as used to ex am ine age in years.

Table 2

Descr ipt ion of Self- Repor t ed Dem ogr aphics by Bachelor s Discipline ( Four Cat egor ies; N= 107)

Var iable Tot al BSW Psy chology Hum an

Serv ices

Non-Hum an Serv ices

N( % t ot al) 107 39( 36.4% ) 25( 23.4% ) 23( 21.5% ) 20( 18.7% ) Gender

( % fem ale)

95.4% 100. % 92.0% 91.3% 95.0%

Race ( % whit e) 82.2% 79.5% 88.0% 82.6% 80.0%

Age

( m ean/ sd) * *

33.0/ 10.01 30.6/ 8.33 30.9/ 8.57 32.8/ 9.82 40.4/ 11.8

UGGPA ( % < 3.0)

13.1% 10.3% 8.4% 13.2% 25.0%

MSW GPA ( % < 3.0)

2.8% 0% 0% 8.6% 0%

Em ployed ( % > 20 hour s)

45.8% 46.2% 52.0% 34.7% 50.0%

Em ployed Social Serv ice ( % y es)

61.7% 64.1% 60.0% 56.5% 65.0%

R Pr oj ect ( % y es) * *

Var iable Tot al BSW Psy chology Hum an Serv ices

Non-Hum an Serv ice

I nt er n ( % > 250 hour s) * *

45.8% 89.7% 12.0% 30.4% 20.0%

( % < 100 hour s) * *

49.6% 7.7% 84.0% 65.2% 70.0%

Pr esent at ion ( % y es)

29.0% 30.8% 44.0% 13.0% 25.0%

Publicat ion ( % y es)

9.3% 12.8% 12.0% 4.3% 5.0%

St udy Abr oad ( % y es)

12.1% 7.7% 12.0% 26.1% 5.0%

Not e: * p< .05, * * p< .01, To det er m ine significance chi- squar e w as used t o ex am ine cat egor ical dat a. A t - t est w as used t o ex am ine age in y ear s.

Due t o t he num ber of unique degr ee pr ogr am s indicat ed by MSW st udent s, a second independent v ar iable w as cr eat ed ut ilizing four specific cat egor ies. I n par t , t he cr eat ion of broader cat egor ies r esult ed from t he int er v iew s w it h MSW facult y w ho addr essed t heir personal ex per ience w it h non- BSW degr eed st udent s and specifically w it h st udent s w it h a bachelor of psychology degr ee. Groupings w ere cr eat ed using t he m ost fr equent ly r epor t ed non- BSW pr ogr am of Psychology

( 23.4% ) , ot her Hum an Serv ices Field1 ( 21.5% ) and Non- Hum an Serv ices2 ( 18.7% ) ( see Gelm an & Loyd, 2008) . The Non- Hum an Ser v ices cat egor y indicat ed st udent s’ ages as significant ly older t han each of t he ot her t hr ee groups (M> 7.54 years) , but t here w ere no significant differ ences in gender or race between t hese four gr oups.

Fe e lin gs of Pr e pa r e dn ess

Par t icipat ing MSW st udent s addressed feelings of ‘pr epar edness’ t hrough a ser ies of 11 scaled quest ions (ver y poor ly prepar ed to v ery w ell pr epar ed) . St udent s w ere ask ed t o r at e how w ell t heir par t icular bachelor s pr ogr am pr epared t hem for ar eas of applicat ion w it hin t he MSW pr ogram . These areas included:

Resear ch, Theor y , Et hics, St at ist ics, Clinical Diagnosis, Policy Analy sis, Case Managem ent , Adm inist r at iv e Theory , Cult ur al Com pet encies, Leader ship as w ell as

Ov er all Success in t he progr am ( see Table 3) . As a second out com e m easur e, w e cr eat ed a dichot om ous var iable fr om t he Liker t - t y pe scale: 1 (uncer t ain t o v er y poor ly pr epar ed) and 0 (w ell prepar ed or higher) . This m easur e is designed to secur e an indicat or of w hether t he MSW st udent defined being ‘prepar ed’ as opposed t o ‘uncer t ain’.

Table 3 pr ov ides a bivar iat e sum m ar y of t he 11 cat egor ies utLOL]LQJǒ2 t est of significance. Those st udent s indicat ing t hat t hey com plet ed a BSW progr am pr ior t o ent er ing t he MSW gr aduat e pr ogr am self- r epor t ed a st at ist ically significant higher lev el of ‘pr epar edness’ in ar eas of: Et hics S”Policy Analy sis (S”Case Managem ent S”DQGCult ur al Com pet encies S” BSW st udent s r epor t ed a low er percent age of pr epar edness in areas of Resear ch and St at ist ics, but not significant ly lower . I n addit ion, som ew hat sur pr ising was t he finding t hat t he cat egor y Ov er all Success w as slight ly low er for BSWs t han non- BSWs.

1

Hum an Serv ices Fields include: Cr im inal Just ice, Sociology , Hum an Serv ices, Fam ily St udies, et c.

2 _{Non- Hum an Serv ices Fields include: Business, Gener al BS/ BA, Account ing,}

Table 3

Self- repor t ed Prepar edness by Degr ee Progr am : BSW ( n= 39) and Non- BSW ( n= 68)

ǒ2₎

Pr epar ed

for MSW

Degr ee

ǒ2 _ij

BSW Non- BSW

Resear ch 66.7% 72.1% 3.771 .188

Theory 76.9% 69.1% 2.228 .144

Et hics 100% 73.5% 13.272* * .352

St at ist ics 43.6% 51.5% 8.112 .277

Clinical Diagnosis 38.5% 33.8% .118 .118

Policy Analy sis 79.5% 35.3% 24.727* * .481

Case Managem ent 87.2% 25.0% 42.738* * .635

Adm inist r at ive Theor y 43.6% 25.0% 9.184 .293

Cult ur al Com pet encies 92.3% 75.0% 9.807* .304

Leadership 82.1% 75.0% 3.324 .176

Ov er all Success 76.9% 77.9% 5.906 .235

Not e: * p< .05; * * p< .01, Per cent age indicat ing ‘prepar ed or higher ’ only repor t ed. Phi coefficient v alues .1 sm all effect size, .3 m edium effect size, .5 lar ge effect size ( Cohen, 1988) .

An analy sis of t he r elat ionship bet w een st udent s ident ify ing t hey r eceiv ed a BSW degr ee w it h t hose ident ify ing specifically w it h a psychology degr ee is provided in Table 4. This analy sis pr ov ides ev idence t hat MSW st udent s w it h a psy chology bachelor ’s degr ee do indeed r epor t t hey are m ore confident t o face t he r igor s of gr aduat e level course w or k , ty pically found in gener al in social sciences (Resear ch

and St at ist ics) , but do not ident ify as feeling well pr epar ed in areas t hat r eceiv e m uch at t ent ion in BSW pr ogram s (Et hics, Case Managem ent , Cult ur al Com pet encies & Adm inist r at ion) . No st at ist ically significant differences wer e found bet ween t hese t w o Bachelor s pr ogr am alum ni for t he cat egor ies of Theor y or Leader ship. Bot h groups ident ified t hem selves as being w ell pr epar ed for t he MSW ( 77% BSW, 88% Psy chology ) .

Table 4

Self- repor t ed Prepar edness by Degr ee Progr am : BSW ( n= 39) and Psychology ( n= 25ǒ2₎

Pr epar ed

for MSW

Degr ee

ǒ2 _ij

BSW Psychology

Resear ch 66.7% 92.0% 8.378* .362*

Theory 76.9% 88.0% 1.980 .176

Et hics 100% 60.0% 20.204* * .562* *

St at ist ics 43.6% 76.0% 12.241 .437*

Clinical Diagnosis 38.5% 60.0% 9.649* .388*

Policy Analy sis 79.5% 20.0% 32.826* * .716* *

Case Managem ent 87.2% 24.0% 27.948* * .661* *

Adm inist r at ive Theor y 43.6% 16.0% 13.864* * .465* *

Cult ur al Com pet encies 92.3% 72.0% 12.308* * .442* *

Leadership 82.1% 72.0% 4.257 .258

Not e: * p< .05; * * p< .01, Percent age indicat ing ‘pr epar ed or higher ’ only repor t ed.

Sum m a t e d Sca le

An ov er all m easur e w as built by sum m at ing t he scaled quest ions r epr esent ing self- r epor t ed feelings of being ‘w ell pr epared’ by t heir under gr aduat e degr ee pr ogram t o successfully com plet e t he MSW pr ogr am. This m easur e pr ov ides a m easur e of int er nal consist ency of our const r uct repr esent ing how pr epar ed MSW st udent s believe t heir bachelor s pr ogr am pr epar ed t hem t o be successful in t he MSW pr ogr am ( Gliem & Gliem , 2003; War ner , 2008) . A Cr onbach’s alpha ( ) r eliabilit y m easur e w as used t o ex am ine t he int er nal consist ency . This scale w as found t o have a st andar dized scor e of .85 w hich is consider ed t o be in t he st rong r ange for a sum m at ed scale. A t est for im pr ov em ent if it em s w er e delet ed failed t o show scale st r engt h would be gained if any of t hese 11 m easur es w er e delet ed.

Ut ilizing t he dichot om ous independent v ar iable BSW or non- BSW, r esult s indicat ed a st at ist ically significant differ ence bet ween t he sum m at ed m easur e for BSWs and non- BSWs, t ( 102) = 4.25, p < .001; equal v ar iances assum ed. Result s indicat e BSW alum ni ident ified t hem selv es as feeling m ore prepar ed for com plet ion of t he MSW progr am (M = 22.45, SD = 5.92) t han t hose from ot her bachelor ’s progr am s (M = 28.72, SD = 7.94) , w hen fact or ing in all areas addr essed in t he Likert - t ype scale. When ut ilizing t he four cat egories of Bachelor’s degr ees, result s show ed a significant difference bet w een groups, F ( 3,100) = 6.36, p < .001) . Post -hoc t est ( LSD) indicat es a significant differ ence bet ween BSW and all ot her cat egor ies, but no st at ist ically significant differ ences bet ween t he ot her cat egor ies

Psy chology , Hum an Serv ices, or Non- Hum an Ser v ices for the sum m at ed scale (p > .05) r epr esent ing feelings of pr epar edness.

Again, t hose st udent s ident ify ing t hey did com plet e a psy chology degr ee w ere exam ined using t he sum m at ed t ot al repr esent ing t he overall feelings of perceived pr eparedness, w it h t hose ident ify ing t hey com plet ed a BSW pr ior to ent er ing t he MSW progr am . Sum m at ed scale scores represent ing t he overall perceived feelings of preparedness, abbr ev iat ed Liker t values equal ( 1-less t han agr ee) and ( 0- agr ee or higher) , r esult ing in higher t han aver age scores for t hose w it h a Psychology degree indicat ing low er levels of perceived pr epar edness. There is a st at ist ically significant difference bet w een t hese t wo gr oup of MSW st udent s, t

S” Findings indicat e t hose ident ify ing them selv es as receiv ing a BSW r epor t ed feeling m ore pr epar ed (M = 22.45, SD = 5.92) w hen com bining all cat egor ies, t han did t hose fr om t he Psy chology m aj or (M = 28.00, SD = 6.14) .

M u lt iv a ria t e M ode ls

Table 5

Mult iv ar iat e OLS Models of Regr ession: Sum m at ed Pr epar edness as Dependent Var iable ( N= 107)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

R2 _{.142 .133 .164 .186 .244}

SEE 7.271 7.308 7.177 7.081 6.825

F 18.078* * 4.963* * 4.374* * 3.951* * 3.558* *

df 1 4 6 8 13

Bachelors Pr ogr am

BSW/ Non Dem ogr aphic - .388* * - .384* * - .361* * - .370* * - .232*

Gender .076 .123 .105 .106

Race - .104 - .098 - .093 - .090

Age ( y ear s) - .005 .014 - .015 - .025

Academ ic/ Vocat ional

UGPA - .204* - .164 - .127

GGPA .086 .086 .073

Em ploy m ent

Em ployed - .191 - .164

Em ployed in Social Serv ice

.187 .175

Ex per ient ial Lear ning Confer ence

Pr esent at ion

- .220*

I nt er nship ( lengt h) - .188

Resear ch Pr oj ect - .045

St udy Abr oad .035

Publicat ion - .052

Not e: * * p< .01, * p< .05 St andar dized coefficient r eport ed

Result s of t he OLS m odels indicat e st udent s ear ning a BSW w er e significant ly m or e lik ely t o ident ify t hey believ e t hey are well pr epar ed for t he MSW progr am . When cont rolling for dem ogr aphic ( m odel 2) indicat or s, dem ogr aphic and inst it ut ional fact or s ( m odel 3) , as w ell as em ploy m ent ( m odel 4) , BSW r em ained st at ist ically significant . No other v ar iables w er e found t o be significant in m odels 2, 3, or 4, w it h t he except ion of t he pr im ary independent var iable. When adding self-r epoself-r t ed ex peself-r ient ial leaself-r ning expeself-r iences t o t hese m odels t he dichot om ous vaself-r iable r epr esent ing ‘pr esent ed at an academ ic conference’ was found to be a significant pr edict or of ov er all pr epar edness. This m it igat ed t he im pact of t he bachelor ’s degr ee ear ned, m oving t he BSW/ non- BSW degr ee, but it did r em ain significant at p< .05. On fur t her ex am inat ion of t hese dat a, psychology st udent s were significant ly m or e lik ely t o present at confer ences t han all ot her degr ee cat egor ies, including BSW, w it h 44% of all psy chology st udent s r epor t ing pr esent ing at an academ ic confer ence as a part of t heir undergraduat e experience ( see Table 2) .

D iscu ssion

accept ance and funding to MSW pr ogr am s. Specifically , these findings suppor t t he concer ns found in t he lit er at ur e regar ding t he pr epar edness of t he BSW alum nus t o com pet e at t he gr aduat e level.

Alt hough t his st udy w as specific t o BSW educat ion, t he aut hor s believ e t he findings suggest deep root ed issues r egar ding exposur e t o applied r esear ch lear ning at t he under gr aduat e lev el of educat ion. For t his st udy , st udent feelings of pr eparedness t o com plet e ar eas of t he MSW ( gr aduat e cour se work ) w er e t he pr im ary dependent v ar iables. I n t his st udy , BSW st udent s r at ed an ov er all percept ion of pr epar edness as higher t han non- BSW st udent s, but a low er percent age of pr epar edness in ar eas

of resear ch and st at ist ics. Consequent ly , t he lit er at ur e found self- efficacy link ed t o pr ev ious t ask s accom plished, such as individual cour se w or k and assignm ent s, as a st r ong indicat or of perfor m ance in academ ia ( Lane et al., 2004) . Accor ding to lit er at ur e, t hose

st udent s m ore confident in t heir preparedness are m ore lik ely t o pursue cour se w or k and oppor t unit ies out side t heir indiv idual com for t zone ( Elliot et al., 2013; MacPhee et al., 2013) . I n t his st udy t hose st udent s w ho repor t ed having pr esent ed at a confer ence dur ing t he com plet ion of t heir bachelor s’ degree wer e m or e lik ely to expr ess confidence on t he over all scale of feelings of being pr epar ed for t he MSW progr am . When exam ining BSW alum ni only , t hose w ho r epor t ed present ing at confer ences wer e m or e lik ely t o indicat e t hey felt pr epar ed t o com plet e r esear ch and st at ist ics in gr aduat e cour se w or k t han did t hose w ho did not pr esent at confer ences. Only psy chology st udent s, r at her t han BSW st udent s, w er e m or e lik ely t o repor t having presented at a confer ence.

As ex pect ed, BSW st udent s in t his st udy did r epor t t hey felt significant ly m ore pr epar ed in ar eas of policy , case m anagem ent , et hics and cult ur al com pet encies in MSW program w ork . Furt herm ore, a sum m at ed m easur e of ‘feelings of being prepar ed’ show ed BSW st udent s in t his sam ple felt m or e pr epar ed t o successfully com plet e t he MSW t han t hose w ho did not com plet e a BSW as a par t of t heir bachelor degr ee. This indicat es BSW st udent s do in fact believe t hey ar e w ell pr epared for MSW coursework in t he discipline’s language, applicat ion and int er pr et at ion. Also, as expect ed, t his st udy found t hose w ho ident ified as com plet ing a BSW w er e less lik ely to repor t t hey felt prepared t o com plet e gr aduat e cour se work in t he ar eas of r esear ch and st at ist ics. How ever , t hese differences w ere not st at ist ically significant w hen com par ed t o all non- BSWs in t his st udy . Only w hen com par ing BSW gr aduat es t o t he psy chology gr aduat e cat egory w er e t hese cat egor ies found t o be st at ist ically significant ( Bolin et al., 2012) . Result s indicat ed no st at ist ically significant differ ences bet w een BSW gr aduat es and t hose fr om ot her hum an serv ices and non- hum an serv ices bachelor pr ogr am s in resear ch and st at ist ics. Sam ple size lim it ed ex am inat ion of BSW gr aduat es t o ot her indiv idual social science degr ees, such as Sociology, Cr im inal Just ice, or Polit ical Science, as w ell as Business ( Bolin et al., 2012) .

Lim it a t ions

prov ide ev idence to w hat disciplines non- BSW st udent s in MSW pr ogr am s t y pically com e from . As pr ev iously discussed, each MSW pr ogr am dist r ibut ed t he online sur v ey t o t heir st udent list ings, so it is difficult t o assum e an accur at e r esponse r at e. This r at e should be consider ed w hen ex am ining and ev aluat ing r esult s. Finally , alt hough pr ior r esearch indicat es a dir ect r elat ionship bet ween self- efficacy , confidence and achiev em ent , w e cannot pr ov ide a dir ect causal r elat ionship bet w een self- r epor t ed feelings of being pr epared and act ual success achieving t he goals of t he cour sew or k or MSW degr ee pr ogr am .

Con clu sion

I n or der for BSW professionals t o advance t heir car eer s and achieve advanced licensur e, secondary degr ees, such as t he MSW, ar e r equir ed. Lit er at ur e suppor t s t hat m any st udent s from a var iet y of disciplines seek t he MSW degree. I solat ing t he role a BSW degr ee pr ogram plays w hen m easur ing success in MSW educat ion has been lar gely ignor ed in t he lit er at ur e. The ev aluat ion and fut ur e of individuals pr ov ided advanced st anding st at us seem s t o be t he ongoing concer n by r esear cher s in social w or k educat ion ( Aguilar et al., 1997; Br em ner & Zastr ow , 2008; For t une, 2003; Ost een, 2011) . The lack of resear ch ev aluat ing t he BSW st udent s’ over all success in MSW progr am s is som ew hat disappoint ing consider ing t he effor t s t o develop a consist ent cur r iculum for accr edit ed BSW pr ogr am s. BSW educat or s should be concer ned w it h how w ell prepar ed for success t heir st udent s ar e aft er gr aduat ion, w het her it is in t he field or in t he nex t level of educat ion. Ex am ining st r engt hs and deficiencies of t heir for m er st udent s in Mast er s, or Mast er s/ PhD progr am s should precede a reevaluat ion of curr iculum or serv ice needs for t he cur r ent BSW st udent . Accr edit ing bodies can incorpor at e indicat or s of progr am st r engt hs in t he design and deliv ery of BSW cour se r equir em ent s t hat suppor t success in bot h t he field and MSW or MSW/ PhD progr am s.

Est ablishing new m odels of inst r uct ion specific t o t he discipline, but car rying t he w eight of social science m et hods and designs m ay indeed be t he new call t o ar m s for BSW educat ors if BSW alum ni ar e t o r em ain com pet it iv e at t he nex t lev el of higher educat ion. These m odels should include t he com ponent s of resear ch and ev aluat ion ( st at ist ics) as w ell as appropr iat e dissem inat ion for an int ended audience.

The discipline’s popular it y and result ing ex pect at ions for BSW facult y can lim it t he am ount of t im e for facult y and st udent collabor at ions t hat inv olv e co-pr esent ing or co- aut hor ing in a for m al environm ent . Ther efor e, building in- house academ ic pr esent at ions into ex ist ing cur r icula m ay produce a reasonable subst it ut ion. Sim ilar t o t he confer ence pr esent at ion, t hese w ould include num er ous r eview s by facult y and peer s and r ew r it es dur ing t he pr ocess. I t w ould include for m al pr esent at ion of t he w or k in a public v enue t hat m ay include ot her disciplines, peer s, and fam ily m em ber s of t he st udent . Whet her an infor m al local set t ing or in a form al set t ing of a conference t he guided approach influences bachelor ’s st udent s’ feelings of being w ell pr epar ed. Facult y and st udent collabor at ions ar e oft en suppor t ed by higher educat ion inst it ut ions for facult y t enure and prom ot ion, as well as cour se load. To fur t her assist in exper ient ial lear ning oppor t unit ies, m any disciplines provide st udent - only or st udent - facult y oppor t unit ies for pr esent at ion.

Re fe r e n ce s Adam , N., Zosky , D. L., & Unr au, Y. A. ( 2004) . I m proving t he resear ch clim at e in social w or k cur r icula: Clar ifying lear ning expect at ions acr oss BSW and MSW r esearch cour ses. Jour nal of Teaching in Social Wor k, 24( 3/ 4) , 1- 18. doi: 10.1300/ j 067v 24n03_01

Aguilar , G. D., Brow n, K., Cow an, A., & Cingolani, J. ( 1997) . Adv anced st anding r ev isit ed: A nat ional sur vey of adv anced st anding policies and progr am s. Jour nal of Social Wor k Educat ion, 33, 59- 73. doi: 10.1080/ 10437797.1997.10778853

Aust in, D. ( 1997) . The inst it ut ional developm ent of social w ork educat ion: The fir st 100 years and bey ond. Jour nal of Social Wor k Educat ion, 33, 599- 614. doi: 10.1080/ 10437797.1997.10778897

Bolin, B. L., Lee, K. H., GlenMay e, L. F., & Yoon, D. P. ( 2012) . I m pact of r esear ch or ient at ion on at t it udes t ow ard r esear ch of social work st udent s. Jour nal of Social Wor k Educat ion, 48, 223- 243. doi: 10.5175/ JSWE.2012.200900120

Br em ner , J., & Zast row , C. ( 2008) . Adv anced st anding r ev isit ed: Curr ent st at us, st r uct ur e, and issues. Jour nal of Teaching in Social Wor k, 28( 1/ 2) , 101-116. doi: 10.1080/ 08841230802179068

Clem , J., Mennick e, A., & Beasley , C. ( 2014) . Dev elopm ent and validat ion of t he experient ial learning survey. Jour nal of Social Wor k Educat ion, 50, 490- 506.

doi: 10.1080/ 104377797.2014.917900

Cohen, J. ( 1988) . St at ist ical pow er analy sis for t he behav ior al sciences ( 2nd ed.) . Hillsdale, New Jersey : L.

Council on Social Work Educat ion— CSWE. ( 2011) . 2010 St at ist ics on social w or k educat ion in t he Unit ed St at es.

Ret r iev ed fr om ht t p: / / w w w .csw e.org/ File.aspx?id= 5226

9

Council on Social Work Educat ion— CSWE. ( 2014) . 2013 St at ist ics on social w ork educat ion in t he Unit ed St at es.

Ret r iev ed fr om ht t p: / / w w w .csw e.org/ File.aspx?id= 7447 8

Dav is, S., Gerv in, D., Whit e, G., William s, A., Tay lor , A., & McGr iff, E. ( 2013) . Br idging t he gap bet w een r esear ch, ev aluat ion and ev idence- based pr act ice. Jour nal of Social Wor k Educat ion, 49, 16- 29.

doi: 10.1080/ 104377797.2013.755099

Dunlap, K. M., Henley , H. C., & Fr aser , M. W. ( 1998) . The r elat ionship bet w een adm issions cr it er ia and academ ic perfor m ance in an MSW pr ogr am .

Jour nal of Social Wor k Educat ion, 34, 455- 462.

Elliot , W., Choi, E. & Fr iedline, T. ( 2013) . Online st at ist ics labs in MSW r esear ch m et hods cour ses: Reducing r eluct ance t oward st at ist ics. Jour nal of Social Wor k Educat ion, 49, 81- 95.

doi: 10.1080/ 10437797.2013.755095

For t une, A., Gr een, R., & Kolev zon, M. ( 1987) . I n search of t he cont inuum : Gr aduat e school perfor m ance of BSW and non- BSW degr ee holder s. Jour nal of Sociology and Welfare, 14, 169- 189.

For t une, A. ( 2003) . Com par ison of facult y r at ings of applicant s and background char act er ist ics as pr edictor s of per for m ance in an MSW progr am. Jour nal of Teaching in Social Wor k,

23( 1/ 2) , 35- 54.

Gelm an, C., & Lloy d, C. ( 2008) . Pr e-placem ent anx iet y am ong foundat ion year MSW st udent s: A follow up st udy.

Jour nal of Social Wor k Education, 44( 1) , 173- 183.

Git t er m an, A. ( 2014) . Social w or k : A profession in sear ch of it s ident it y .

Jour nal of Social Wor k Educat ion, 50, 599- 607.

doi: 10.1080/ 10437797.2014.947898

Gliem , J., & Gliem , R. ( 2003) . Calculat ing, int er pr et ing and r epor t ing Cronbach’s alpha r eliabilit y coefficient for Liker t - t ype scales. Pr esent ed 203 Midw est Resear ch t o Pr act ice Confer ence in Adult , Cont inuing and Com m unit y

Educat ion. Ret r iev ed from

ht t ps: / / scholar w or ks.iupui.edu/ bit st r ea m / handle/ 1805/ 344/

Gliem % 20&% 20Gliem .pdf?sequence= 1

Hessenauer , S., & Zast row , C. ( 2013) . Becom ing a social wor ker : BSW social w or k er s’ educat ional ex per iences. The Jour nal of Baccalaur eat e Social Wor k,

18, 19- 35. Ret r ieved from

ht t p: / / j bsw .or g/

Johnson- Mot oy anna, M., Pet r , C., & Mit chell, F. ( 2014) . Fact or s associat ed wit h success in doct or al social work educat ion. Jour nal of Social Wor k Educat ion, 50, 548- 558.

doi: 10.1080/ 10437797.2014.947898

Jones, L., Kindle, P., Auch, N., Gr aupm ann, J., Ray , A., Utech, S., & Visser , J. ( 2013) . Advice for BSW st udent s fr om alum ni of r ur al progr am s.

The Jour nal of Baccalaur eat e Social Wor k, 18, 157- 172. Retr iev ed fr om ht t p: / / j bsw .or g/

Kar ger , H. ( 2012) . Lessons from Am er ican social w or k educat ion: Caut ion ahead. Aust r alian Social Work, 65, 311-325.

doi: 10.1080/ 0312407x .2012.678498

Kist har dt , W. E. ( 2015) . Accr edit at ion r ev iew br ief council on social w or k educat ion v ol. I. Unpublished m anuscr ipt , School of Social Work , Park Univ er sit y , Par kv ille, MO.

Lane, J., Lane, A., & Ky pr ianou, A. ( 2004) . Self- efficacy, self- est eem and t heir im pact on academ ic per for m ance.

Social Behav ior and Per sonalit y, 32, 247- 256.

doi: 10.2224/ sbp.2004.32.3.247

MacPhee, D., Far ro, S., & Canet t o, S. ( 2013) . Academ ic self- efficacy and perfor m ance of underr epr esent ed STEM m aj ors: Gender , et hnic and social class pat t er ns. Analy ses of Social I ssues and Public Policy, 13( 1) , 347- 369. doi: 10.1111/ asap.12033

Mor r is, T. ( 1992) . Teaching social w or k er s r esear ch m et hods: Or t hodox doctr ine, her esy , or an at heist ic com pr om ise. Jour nal of Teaching in Social Wor k, 6( 1) , 41- 61.

doi: 10.1300/ j 067v 06n01_04

Noble, J., & Hepler , J. ( 1990) . A closer look at t he adv anced st anding progr am in social w or k educat ion. Ev aluat ion Review, 14, 664- 676.

doi: 10.1177/ 0193841X9001400607

Ost een, P. ( 2011) . Mot iv at ions, v alues and conflict r esolut ion: St udent s’ int egr at ion of per sonal and pr ofessional ident it ies. Jour nal of Social Wor k

Educat ion, 47( 3) , 423- 444.

doi: 10.5175/ JSWE.2011.200900131

Pet er son, S., Phillips, A., Bacon, S., & Machunda, Z. ( 2011) . Teaching ev idence based pr act ice at t he BSW lev el: An effect iv e capst one pr oj ect . Jour nal of Social Wor k Educat ion, 47( 3) , 509- 524. doi: 10.5175/ JSWE.2011.200900129

Rishell, C., & Maj ew sk i, V. ( 2009) . St udent gains in self- efficacy in an adv anced MSW curr iculum : A cust om ized m odel for out com es assessm ent . Jour nal of Social Wor k Educat ion, 45( 3) , 365- 383.

doi: 10.5175/ JSWE.2009.200800101

Sprecht , H., Br it t , D., & Fr ost , C. ( 1984) . Undergr aduat e educat ion and professional achiev em ent of MSWs.

Social Wor k, 29( 3) , 219- 224. doi: 10.1093/ sw / 29.3.219

Wells, M., Maschi, T., & Slat er , G. ( 2012) . I nt egr at ion of resear ch and pr act ice: I nnovat ions and challenges in social work progr am s. Social Wor k Educat ion: The I nt er nat ional Jour nal,

31, 331- 346.

doi: 10.1080/ 02615479.2011.551827

Whit ak er , T., & Wilson, M. ( 2010) . Sum m ary of key com pensat ion findings: Pr epar ed for t he 2010 social w or k

congr ess. Repor t of t he Nat ional Associat ion of Social Wor ker s, Cent er for Wor kfor ce St udies. Ret r iev ed fr om ht t p: / / w w w .nasw dc.or g/ pr essr oom / 201 0/ salar yst udy2010.pdf

Wit k in, S. ( 1992) . Should em pir ically-based pr act ice be t aught in BSW and MSW progr am s? No! Jour nal of Social Wor k Educat ion, 28, 265- 268.

doi: 10.1080/ 10437797.1992.10779169

Ger i Dickey ear ned her bachelor ’s degr ee in social w ork fr om Sout her n I llinois Univ ersit y - Car bondale, her m ast er’s degr ee in social w ork from t he Univ ersit y of I llinois Cham paign- Ur bana, and her PhD in social wor k, w it h em phasis on geront ology, fr om t he Univ er sit y of Missour i- Colum bia.

Dickey spent her t w enty y ear MSW social wor k career pr oviding clinical social work serv ices pr im ar ily w it hin t he m ent al healt h social w or k com m unit y based clinics. Dickey serv ed as Assist ant Pr ofessor and Direct or of Bachelor of Social Wor k Pr ogr am at Missour i West ern St at e Univ er sit y for fiv e y ears. Curr ent ly she is Assist ant Professor at Par k Univ er sit y t eaching in t he MSW Pr ogr am .

Joseph Kline ear ned his BSW from Missour i West er n St at e Univ er sit y ( MWSU) in St . Joseph Missour i May 2015. Kline cur rent ly is an MSW st udent w it h a clinical concent r at ion at t he Univ er sit y of Kansas, expect ing t o gr aduat e in spr ing 2016. He cur r ent ly int ends t o pursue a Doct or al degr ee in Social Wor k aft er obt aining his Licensed Clinical Social Wor k ( LCSW) cr edent ials.