Suggestions for Utilizing the 2008 EPAS in CSWE-Accredited Baccalaureate and Masters Curriculums—Reflections from the Field, Part 1: The Explicit Curriculum

Abstract

In April 2008, the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) issued new guidelines for Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (EPAS). The 2008 EPAS shift the focus of assessment from the evaluation of program objectives to assessment of educational outcomes and student achievement of practice competencies. Major accreditation challenges for social work programs derive from the 2008 EPAS involving sequencing the assessment tasks, and developing accurate and useful instruments. This article is Part 1 of a 2-part series presenting a model for sequencing curriculum accreditation and reaffirmation tasks. In this Part 1, the explicit curriculum is explored including multiple measures to assess the extent to which students are achieving practice behaviors (as indicators of core social work competencies). Part 2 of this discussion, focused on the implicit curriculum, will appear in the next issue of the Journal of Teaching in Social Work (Vol. 30, Issue 3).

KEYWORDS:

• CSWE accreditation
• EPAS explicit curriculum
• EPAS curriculum assessment

As of the February 2010 Commission on Accreditation (COA) meeting, the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) reports there are:

• 470 CSWE-accredited baccalaureate social work programs,

• 200 CSWE-accredited master's social work programs,

• 22 baccalaureate social work programs in candidacy, and

• 19 master's social work programs in candidacy.

The organization that accredits the CSWE is the Council for Higher Education and Accreditation (CHEA). When accreditation entities (such as our own CSWE) apply for accreditation from CHEA, these entities must demonstrate that their accreditation standards and procedures are consistent with CHEA's principles. Principle 1 of CHEA's Statement on Good Practices and Shared Responsibility in the Creation and Application of Specialized Accreditation Standards states:

[Educational outcomes] standards should be designed to produce desired or needed educational outcomes for a profession and should refer to resources only to the extent required for graduates to emerge from programs intellectually prepared for their professional lives. (CHEA, 2001, p. 1)

This principle emphasizes the importance for all accredited programs in higher education to assess the extent to which graduates are demonstrating requisite skills and competencies for professional practice (Holloway, 2008). Various means exist by which programs can assess the extent to which students are demonstrating competencies identified as either core by the profession (and our accrediting body) or as advanced concentration competencies (identified by individual graduate program faculty).

Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (EPAS) outline requisite curriculum features for baccalaureate and master's programs in social work (CSWE, 2008a). Conceptually linked, the EPAS establish what a social work program must accomplish in order to develop, be accredited (or reaffirmed) consistent with CHEA requirements. Hence, the EPAS provide the social work program's threshold for professional social work competence. However, the EPAS do not model a process for successfully identifying and accomplishing the tasks necessary to design an accredited program, potentially leaving administrative officials and faculty at colleges and universities in the United States seeking to develop an accredited social work educational program uncertain as to how to proceed. This article is Part 1 in a two-part series each with two foci. First, we summarize an approach to identifying and sequencing tasks for developing an educational program with assessment. In this Part 1 our discussion will emphasize explicit curriculum requirements of 2008 EPAS; Part 2 will emphasize implicit EPAS requirements. Second, we present sample instruments we believe will be useful in assessing curriculum delivery and the extent to which students are attaining practice behaviors consistent with EPAS professional competencies.

The senior author of this article has been trained by the Office of Social Work Accreditation as a Site Visitor under the 2001 EPAS as well as the 2008 EPAS. She specializes in assessment of social work in the academy as her field of practice. The senior author was a BSW Program Director for six years at a major urban university, responsible for that program's reaffirmation under the 2001 EPAS. Since 2004, she has delivered a PhD course on social work education which emphasizes, in part, the impact of accreditation on the social work course curriculum, and professional roles in social work education. The junior author of this article has visited/consulted with over 70 social work programs in the process of assisting social work programs preparing for initial accreditation, or seeking reaffirmation of existing accreditation. The junior author also has served two terms on the Commission on Accreditation, and has been trained by the CSWE Director of the Office of Social Work Accreditation and Educational Excellence to be a trainer of social work educators in preparing accreditation self-studies utilizing the 2008 EPAS.

However, neither this article nor its subsequent counterpart has been endorsed by the CSWE. Nor is this article intended to replace accreditation or reaffirmation documents available at the CSWE website (http://www.cswe.org). Given our experience and interests, we simply seek to provide insight, ideas, and tools for programs to consider as they approach this new accreditation process.

SEQUENCING OF TASKS IN DEVELOPING AN ACCREDITED PROGRAM OR PREPARING FOR REAFFIRMATION

For accomplishing complex projects, Hepworth, Rooney, Dewberry-Rooney, Strom-Gottfried, and Larsen (2006) have noted it is essential to partialize major tasks into subtasks, thus creating manageable parts for the project. These parts consist of discrete actions which are then broken into subtasks, one flowing to another, in a natural sequence. The following is our suggestion for sequencing accreditation tasks.

The 2008 Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (EPAS) include four features of integrated curriculum design. These are: (a) program mission and goals (including the program's professional purpose and context as well as professional values); (b) explicit curriculum (including field as signature pedagogy of the profession); (c) implicit curriculum, and (d) assessment.

The discussion which follows will address each of these features including how a new program might approach creating a social work curriculum, or an existing program might begin the process of self-study. Holloway (2008) points out the 2008 EPAS mirrors an emphasis on assessment of educational outcomes that has evolved in higher education during the past ten years. He further notes that the 2008 EPAS replaces the notion of assessing educational program objectives with that of assessing practice competencies which emphasize behavioral outcomes for professional social work education. In so doing, and consistent with trends in other professional disciplines, the 2008 EPAS shifts the emphasis of program assessment from, “… what goes into education to a focus on what comes out—the results of the educational process” (2008, p. 2).

With this shift also comes a practical difference in initiating the process of accreditation (or reaffirmation) derived from CSWE's own interpretation of accreditation under CHEA. Historically, schools of social work with combined programs were able to submit one self-study document. To submit for accreditation or reaffirmation under the 2008 EPAS, combined programs will write individual documents for each of their programs. These documents will be read and assessed separately by commissioners experienced with that program level (Comments by Dean Pierce, OSWEE Training, April 17, 2009). While schools with both an MSW and BSW program may find some of their self-study narrative to be duplicative, the logic for this new requirement is understandable. That is, while a school may house both programs, each program is individually accredited. Hence, each program level should submit for accreditation or reaffirmation individual documentation in the form of a separate self-study.

Program Mission and Goals

Whether developing a new program or preparing for reaffirmation of an existing program, the first task is to identify or reaffirm the program's mission. In the past, combined programs generally identified the mission of the school of which they were a part, followed by their own MSW or BSW program goals. However, with the 2008 EPAS, in their separate self-studies, the programs must each individually identify program mission, and goals consistent with the values and purposes of the profession of social work as specified in accreditation standards AS 1.0.1 and AS 1.0.2. To illustrate, a BSW program mission statement might include:

Consistent with the mission of the University and 2008 EPAS requirements of the Council on Social Work Education, the Baccalaureate Social Work Program's mission is to prepare students for entry-level professional generalist practice ¹ . It is the program's vision that its graduates will become national leaders through the provision of social work services that promote human rights, and social and economic justice. The program further holds an expectation that its graduates will contribute to the empowerment of people/groups that experience oppression and discrimination.

A possible MSW program mission statement might then read:

Consistent with the mission of the University and the 2008 EPAS requirements of the Council on Social Work Education, the Masters of Social Work Program's mission is to prepare graduate students for advanced professional practice. The program concentrations are ___________ and ____________. It is the program's vision that its graduates be able to become national and international leaders through the provision of social work services that promote social and economic justice, and human rights. The program further expects graduates to contribute to the empowerment of people and groups that experience discrimination and oppression.

Flowing from the program's mission should be the relevant (albeit individual) programmatic goals, with the self-study document discussing how the individual program goals are systematically derived from the program's mission (AS 1.0.2). At the BSW level, the self-study discusses how the program mission and goals are consistent with the core competencies (educational policy [EP] 2.1) that the 2008 EPAS has used to define generalist practice (AS B2.0.1). The following is an example of a potential program goal statement for a BSW program (with potential edits for MSW program adaptation in parenthesis). Following each goal would be the identified core competencies required by the 2008 EPAS:

With the liberal arts as its foundation, BSW graduates are prepared for continuing their formal education in social work or another graduate discipline [this sentence would be eliminated in MSW goal statements]. Students are further prepared to engage in entry-level social work practice [at the MSW level “advance social work practice” would be inserted]. As such, it is our goal that by completion of the program, students will be prepared to:

1. Engage in evidence-based entry-level social work practice with individuals, families groups, communities and organizations within a multicultural society (EP 2.1.1, EP 2.1.3, EP 2.1.6, EP 2.1.8, EP 2.1.10). (For MSW programs the phrase ‘advanced social work practice’ may replace ‘entry-level social work practice’).

2. Practice according to the principles, values, and ethics that guide the social work profession (EP 2.1.2, EP 2.1.3).

3. Influence social policies with the goal of alleviating poverty, oppression, and social injustice as well as advocating for human rights (EP 2.1.3, EP 2.1.4, EP 2.1.5, EP 2.1.6, EP 2.1.8).

4. Indentify and affect the bio-psycho-social, spiritual, and cultural functioning of people (EP 2.1.7, EP 2.1.9).

5. Evidence practice from a culturally-sensitive perspective which recognizes and appreciates diverse cultures, particularly those that differ from one's own (EP2.1.4).

The self-study narrative then would describe and discuss how the program's adaptations of the competencies are consistent with EP 21.1. through EP 2.1.10(d). In the preceding illustration of program goal statements, for example, each statement identifies the corresponding core competencies to which it is connected. Providing the EPAS competencies that correspond to individual program goals helps illustrate in the self-study document the connection the program makes between its interpretation (and adaptation) of the competencies into its program goals. This same approach can be applied to syllabi development: that is, connecting the course objectives to the specific practice behaviors and competencies measured by each objective. With respect to MSW programs, it is essential that a program develop its concentration curriculum, building upon and applying the ten core competencies consistent with AS M2.0 (i.e., “… advanced curriculum builds on and applies the core competencies in an area(s) of concentration”). The CSWE Office of Social Work Accreditation and Educational Excellence has available on its website model concentration examples illustrating this process for MSW programs to assist in writing self-study narratives that respond, specifically, to AS M2.0.1 through AS M2.0.6. ²

Explicit Curriculum

The explicit curriculum constitutes the program's formal educational structure and includes the courses and the curriculum. Social work education is grounded in the liberal arts, which provide the intellectual basis for the professional curriculum and informs its design. The explicit curriculum achieves the program's competencies through an intentional design that includes generalist courses at the baccalaureate and master's levels and the advanced curriculum offered at the master's level. The BSW curriculum prepares its graduates for generalist practice through mastery of the core competencies. The MSW curriculum prepares its graduates for advanced practice through mastery of the core competencies augmented by knowledge and practice behaviors specific to a concentration. (2008 EPAS, EP 2.0)

Hence, the explicit curriculum can be thought of as being composed of the courses and instruction imbedded in a program's curriculum, while the implicit curriculum refers to the learning environment in which the explicit curriculum is delivered (Holloway, 2008, p. 1). This notion of transaction between the two (i.e., the environment affecting student learning) is consistent with the social work person-in-environment perspective. Therefore, the program's self-study narrative should include a discussion of the rationale for the program's curriculum design, as used to develop a coherent and integrated class and field curriculum, including how the curriculum is structured to ensure the necessary social work practice knowledge, values, and skills are provided to operationalize each practice competency. If a college or university has a special mission (for example, educating students for global citizenship) this special mission also needs to be reflected in the program mission, goals, core competencies and practice behaviors as delivered in the explicit curriculum in the program.

It is desirable (and consistent with AS 3.2.7) that each required course in the BSW or MSW curriculum have a syllabus that systematically and consistently specifies: the course description, course objectives, lecture content, classroom activities, reading material, and assessment measures (such as tests, role-plays, classroom exercises, and student presentations) in order to assess the extent to which students are attaining the course objectives (which incorporate the practice behaviors/competencies). The 2008 EPAS derive from a philosophy of competency-based education which is an outcome assessment approach to curriculum design. Course syllabi, then, serve as a representation of instruction in professional practice behaviors and, as such, an illustration of the agreed upon curriculum design. Objectives in the syllabi illustrate how a particular course is addressing instruction in the practice behaviors. In fact, we recommend syllabi objectives list the individual practice behaviors they measure, since student achievement of the practice behaviors may then be used as a measure of that practice behavior in assessment—serving as indices of the core competency from which they flow. When the goals for the program are established and the required courses identified in order to meet these goals, the next step is to develop syllabi for individual courses and field. At this point in the process, course objectives would be identified. What knowledge, values, and skills will this course or field placement teach? Course objectives should identify specifically how the instructor will know students have achieved the course objectives by the end of the semester in which the course is taught, or the field practicum completed. Course objectives also should have meaning for students. A syllabus that lists more than four to six course objectives may become overwhelming to students. Based on the experience of curriculum designers, it is therefore suggested that a syllabus have no more than six course objectives that focus on the highest level of skill development in order to retain meaning for students. Readers are referred to Bloom's Taxonomy (Clark, 2009) for a discussion of types of learning and domains of educational activities that may be written into course objectives. Bloom identifies three domains of educational activities: cognitive, affective, and psychomotor. The cognitive domain refers to mental skills (consistent with our professional discussion of knowledge). Bloom's affective domain includes growth or feelings in emotional areas (consistent with the social profession's focus on values ³ ). Finally, Bloom's psychomotor domain looks at manual or physical skills to be taught in the classroom (consistent with social work's focus on skills and practice behaviors). Hence, thoughtful assessment of knowledge, value, and skill competencies included in course objectives are a means by which to evaluate student attainment of the core competencies identified in 2008 EPAS (AS 2.1.1–2.1.0(d)).

While focusing on explicit curriculum development and the creation of course syllabi it should be noted that the 2008 EPAS has a different perspective on what we, in social work education, historically have referred to as “foundation” education. While it may seem like a nuance, the move away from prescribing curriculum, seen in the 2008 EPAS, means a shift in the nomenclature of foundation. In other words, since the focus is now on “… what graduates should know and be able to do; what are the requisite skills, capabilities and competencies needed for effective professional practice” (Holloway, 2008, p. 1), one program's foundation content may no longer look the same as another's because individual curriculum content is no longer prescribed. Hence, foundation as it has been thought of historically (that is, the BSW required curriculum and beginning required content in MSW programs) is now viewed as an individual program's curriculum to prepare graduates for generalist practice through their demonstrated mastery of the core competencies (EP 2.0).

In terms of how programs may approach this new treatment of foundation in the development of the explicit curriculum, the simplest avenue may be for BSW-level programs to agree upon a definition of generalist practice (consistent with EP B2.2) and then adapt the core competencies and practice behaviors as stated in EP 21.1. through EP 2.1.10(d). At the graduate level, these core competencies and practice behaviors would be adapted for what has been foundation education with concentrations and specializations building upon them. These statements, coupled with faculty adaptation (subsequently illustrated in syllabi development), should form the requisite underpinnings of the explicit curriculum necessary for the development of a program's assessment plan that will be consistent with EP 4.0. ⁴

Table 1 provides a rubric for identifying practice behaviors (as well as a tool for auditing existing courses) as indices of the 2008 EPAS core competencies, and assessing their coverage in a syllabus. In Table 1, Columns 1, 2, and 3 articulate the core competencies and practice behaviors as identified by 2008 EPAS. An additional column could provide the space to write the course objectives listed in a given syllabus that flows from a particular competency and set of practice behaviors—but is not the practice behavior as identified in 2008 EPAS itself. Since no single class will incorporate all the individual practice behaviors that serve as indices for a particular competency, such a column could answer the question, “Which behaviors do we expect to see in this class from our students relative to these practice behaviors?” A further column might ask for the specific assignments, readings, exams, lectures, films, guest speakers etc. (identified in the syllabus) that measure the specific practice behaviors. A final column should state how the program will know it is meeting the practice behaviors as indices of core competencies. In this sixth column, the program would be able to specify its threshold for achieving competency in the individual practice behaviors. For example, perhaps the program will determine, on a question included on a mid-term exam in a particular course, that an average score of 4 on a Likert scale will be the “passing” measure for that individual practice behavior. It should be noted, “…the experience of COA with assessment suggests that programs select a minimum of two or three discrete measures for their assessment of each practice behavior comprising each student competency (Holloway, 2008, p. 11).

TABLE 1 Syllabus Creation and Evaluation Instrument

2008 EPAS Accreditation Standards: Core competencies	Description of competencies (measurable practice behaviors comprised of knowledge, values, & skills)	The goal will be to demonstrate the integration and application of the competencies in practice with individuals, families, groups, organizations and communities. Below are the practice behaviors provided by 2008 EPAS for use to operationalize curriculum and assessment
EP2.1.1: Identify as a professional social worker and conduct oneself accordingly	Social workers serve as representatives of the profession, its mission, and its core values. They know the professions history. Social workers commit themselves to the profession's enhancement and to their own professional conduct and growth.	Social workers: advocate for client access to the services of social work; practice personal reflection and self-correction to assure continual professional development; attend to professional roles and boundaries; demonstrate professional demeanor in behavior, appearance, and communication; engage in career-long learning; and, use supervision and consultation
EP2.1.2: Apply social work ethical principles to guide professional practice.	Social workers have an obligation to conduct themselves ethically and to engage in ethical decision-making. Social workers are knowledgeable about the value base of the profession, its ethical standards, and relevant law.	Social workers: recognize and manage personal values in a way that allows professional values to guide practice; make ethical decisions by applying standards of the National Association of Social Workers Code of Ethics and, as applicable, of the International Federation of Social Workers/International Association of Schools of Social Work Ethics in Social Work Statement of Principles; tolerate ambiguity in resolving ethical conflicts; and, apply strategies of ethical reasoning to arrive at principled decisions.
EP2.1.3: Apply critical thinking to inform & communicate professional judgments.	Social workers are knowledgeable about the principles of logic, scientific inquiry, and reasoned discernment. They use critical thinking augmented by creativity and curiosity. Critical thinking also requires the synthesis and communication of relevant information.	Social workers: distinguish, appraise, and integrate multiple sources of knowledge, including research-based knowledge, and practice wisdom; analyze models of assessment, prevention, intervention, and evaluation; and, demonstrate effective oral and written communication in working with individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities.
EP2.1.4: Engage diversity and difference in practice.	Social workers understand how diversity characterizes and shapes the human experience and is critical to the formation of identity. The dimensions of diversity are understood as the intersection of multiple factors including age, class, color, culture, disability, ethnicity, gender, gender identity and expression, immigration status, political ideology, race, religion, and sexual orientation. Social workers appreciate that, as a consequence of difference, a person's life experiences may include oppression, poverty, marginalization, and alienation as well as privilege, power and acclaim.	Social workers: recognize the extent to which a culture's structures and values may oppose, marginalize, alienate, or create or enhance privilege and power; gain sufficient self-awareness to eliminate the influence of personal biases and values in working with diverse groups; recognize and communicate their understanding of the importance of difference in shaping life experiences; and, view themselves as learners and engage those with whom they work as informants.
EP2.1.5: Advance human rights and social and economic justice.	Each person, regardless of position in society, has basic human rights, such as freedom, safety, privacy, an adequate standard of living, health care, and education. Social workers recognize the global interconnectedness of oppression and are knowledgeable about theories of justice and strategies to promote human and civil rights. Social work incorporates social justice practices in organizations, institutions, and society to ensure these basic human rights are distributed equitably and without prejudice.	Social workers: understand (sic: “can articulate”) the forms and mechanisms of oppression and discrimination; advocate for human rights and social and economic justice; and engage in practices that advance social and economic justice.
EP2.1.6: Engage in research-informed practice and practice-informed research.	Social workers use practice experience to inform research, employ evidence-based interventions, evaluate their own practice and use research findings to improve practice, policy, and social service delivery. Social workers comprehend quantitative and qualitative research and understand scientific and ethical approaches to building knowledge.	Social workers: use practice experiences to inform scientific inquiry; and use research evidence to inform practice.
EP2.1.7: Apply knowledge of human behavior and the social environment.	Social workers are knowledgeable about human behavior across the life course; the range of social systems in which people live; and the ways social systems promote or deter people in maintaining or achieving health and well-being. Social workers apply theories and knowledge from the liberal arts to understand biological, social, cultural, psychological, and spiritual development.	Social workers: utilize conceptual frameworks to guide the processes of assessment, intervention, and evaluation; and, critique and apply knowledge to understand person and environment.
EP2.1.8: Engage in policy practice to advance social and economic well-being and to deliver effective social work services.	Social work practitioners understand that policy affects service delivery, and they engage actively in policy practice. Social workers know the history of current structures of social policies and services; the role of policy in service delivery; and the role of practice in policy development.	Social workers: analyze, formulate, and advocate for policies that advance social well-being; and collaborate with colleagues and clients for effective policy action.
EP2.1.9: Respond to contexts that shape practice.	Social workers are informed, resourceful, and proactive in responding to evolving organizational, community, and societal contexts at all levels of practice. Social workers recognize the context of practice is dynamic, and use knowledge and skill to respond proactively.	Social workers: continuously discover, appraise, and attend to changing locales, populations, scientific and technological developments, and emerging societal trends to provide relevant services; and, provide leadership in promoting sustainable changes in service delivery and practice to improve the quality of social services.
EP2.1.10: Engage, assess, intervene, and evaluate with individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities.	Professional practice involves the dynamic and interactive processes of engagement, assessment, intervention, and evaluation at multiple levels. Social workers have the knowledge and skills to practice with individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities. Practice knowledge includes indentifying, analyzing, and implementing evidence-based interventions designed to achieve client goals; using research and technological advances; evaluating program outcomes and practice effectiveness; developing, analyzing, advocating, and providing leadership for policies and services; and promoting social and economic justice.	EP2.1.10(a) – Engagement Social workers: substantively & affectively prepare for action with individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities; use empathy and other interpersonal skills; and develop mutually agreed-upon focus of work & desired outcomes.
		EP2.1.10(b)—Assessment Social workers: collect, organize, and interpret client data; assess client strengths and limitations; develop mutually agreed-upon intervention goals & objectives; and select appropriate intervention strategies.
		EP2.1.10(c)—Intervention Social workers: initiate actions to achieve organizational goals; implement prevention interventions that enhance client capacities; help clients resolve problems; negotiate, mediate, and advocate for clients; and facilitate transitions and endings.
		EP2.1.10(d)—EvaluationSocial workers critically analyze, monitor, and evaluate interventions.

Using the rubric columns in Table 1, what follows is an example of a core competency listed in row one: “Identify as a professional social worker and conduct oneself accordingly (EP 2.1.1).” Column 2 articulates the measurable practice behaviors from the 2008 EPAS that describe the knowledge, values, and skills relative to that competency: “Social workers serve as representatives of the profession, its mission, and its core values. They know the professions history. Social workers commit themselves to the profession's enhancement and to their own professional conduct and growth.” ⁵ The 2008 EPAS, which delineates a practice behavior for demonstrating integration and application of the first core competency in social work practice with individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities states,

Social workers advocate for client access to the services of social work; practice personal reflection and self-correction to assure continual professional development; attend to professional roles and boundaries; demonstrate professional demeanor in behavior, appearance, and communication; engage in career-long learning; and, use supervision and consultation. (AS 2.1.1)

A fourth column might then ask for the behaviors listed in an individual course syllabus for this core competency. For example, in a course on social welfare policy, one of the course objectives may read, “By the end of the course, students will demonstrate an understanding of the importance of advocating for client access to social work services.” In order to measure achievement of this course objective a relevant question might be inserted into an exam with the expectation that the appropriate answer is 4 or 5 (see Appendix).

While 2008 EPAS provide the requisite core competencies, descriptions, and practice behaviors, graduate programs must further articulate individual practice behaviors specific to each core competency for their advanced curriculum (i.e., for each concentration and specialization). Hence, programs must begin by identifying each concentration's goals. In the self-study narrative, programs are required to discuss how the MSW program's mission and goals are consistent with a concentration of advanced practice (AS M2.0.1, AS M2.0.2) Moreover, the narrative must explicate how the core competencies are augmented by practice behaviors specific to the identified concentrations. The faculty, then, need to specify how the curriculum (classroom and field) provides the theories, conceptual frameworks, values, and skills needed to operationalize the program's identified concentration competencies (AS M2.0.6). Using the same rubric illustrated in Table 1, the program faculty would further explicate the measurable concentration competencies (Column 2) as well as the practice behaviors that would flow from the knowledge, values, and skills embedded in the concentration competencies.

Unique to 2008 EPAS is the emphasis on field education, referred to as signature pedagogy. Signature pedagogy represents the central form of instruction and learning in which a profession socializes its students to perform the role of practitioner. Professionals have pedagogical norms with which they connect and integrate theory and practice. In social work, the signature pedagogy is field education. The intent of field education is to connect the theoretical and conceptual contribution of the classroom with the practical world of the practice setting. It is a basic precept of social work education that the two interrelated components of curriculum—classroom and field—are of equal importance within the curriculum, and each contributes to the development of the requisite competencies of professional practice. Field education is systematically designed, supervised, coordinated, and evaluated based on criteria by which students demonstrate the achievement of program competencies. (EP 2.3)

The 2008 EPAS emphasizes signature pedagogy as being part and parcel of the explicit curriculum requirements. Hence, field is given equal importance (in explicit and implicit curriculum) with learning that occurs in our classrooms; field (our signature pedagogy) then becomes our classrooms in the community.

According to the 2008 EPAS, the Director of Field Education must have a full-time appointment to the social work program (AS 3.4.5[a–d]) with a minimum of 25% release time committed to a baccalaureate program and a minimum of 50% release time to carry out the administrative functions of field in the MSW program ⁶ . Moreover, the field director must possess a CSWE-accredited degree (either BSW or MSW) plus a minimum of two years postdegree practice experience (AS 3.4.5, AS 3.4.5[b] & AS 3.4.5[d]). The 2008 EPAS requires each program to describe the field director's, “… ability to provide leadership in the field education program through practice experience, field instruction experience, and administrative and other relevant academic and professional activities in social work …” (AS 3.4.5[a]).

Emphasis is placed on the (field education director's) leadership role in: systematic design, supervision, coordination, and evaluation of a field program in which students demonstrate the attainment of the program's competencies; creation of processes and procedures to implement the design of the field program; and, training of field instructors and classroom faculty … Field director's will have to establish advanced practice opportunities for MSW students (consistent with the program's definition of advanced practice)…Field directors will (also) need to work with field settings to enhance their understanding of the program's competencies and their related practice behaviors, develop means of identifying the potential of a given setting to deliver on them, and set up and train field instructors to use learning agreements that focus on the practice behaviors that operationalize the program's competencies. (CSWE, pp. 3 & 8).

Relative to field education, program faculty begin by explicating the connection between theoretical and conceptual contributions of the classroom and the field. Specific to baccalaureate education this discussion requires a focus on the preparation of generalist practitioners (AS B2.0.1–AS B2.0.5); at the graduate level this discussion will focus on the preparation of advanced social work practitioners (EP M2.1.2), further explaining how field will measure the core competencies (AS M2.0.2–AS M2.0.6). Both baccalaureate and graduate social work programs are required to have written policies in place outlining specific criteria that must be met before students may enter field; said policies should state that, “…the field program will only admit students who meet these criteria” (AS 2.1.4) These requisite policies for admission to field build upon the program's written policies for selecting practicum settings, placing and monitoring students within these field settings, maintaining field liaison contacts with placement settings, and the assessment of student learning in the field” (AS 2.1.5). Again, the emphasis in 2008 EPAS is on the program demonstrating its thoughtful consideration of the connection and integration between the classroom and field, assured by written policy. Left unchanged from the previous EPAS (2001) are requirements for field hours (i.e., BSW minimum 400, MSW minimum 900 hours—AS 2.1.3); requisite policies for students in employment-based field placements (AS 2.1.8); field instructor orientation, training and communication (AS 2.1.7); and policies regarding field instructor credentials (i.e., the BSW program minimum is a BSW from a CSWE-accredited program; the MSW program minimum being an MSW from a CSWE-accredited program). Given the importance of field instruction as the profession's signature pedagogy, both baccalaureate and graduate programs assume responsibility for ensuring the social work perspective for any field instructor who does not hold a degree, as required, from a CSWE-accredited program (AS 2.1.6). The new EPAS requires programs to have policies in place for how this will be guaranteed.

ASSESSMENT

We conclude with a discussion of assessment of the explicit curriculum (in both classroom and field) under the 2008 EPAS. Assessment is viewed as being critical to the new EPAS' emphasis on competency-based education. A systematic, ongoing, assessment plan should be devised, utilizing benchmarks, multiple measurement instruments and procedures in order to evaluate the program's competencies (core at the baccalaureate-level and advanced at the graduate level; AS B2.0.3 & AS M2.0.4).

The assessment plan should evaluate both the explicit as well as the implicit curriculum (AS 4.0.3), though we have focused exclusively in this part of these two articles on a discussion of the former. The assessment plan also must include discussion of how the program provides assessment results to stakeholders (AS 4.0.4). In the 2008 EPAS, the self-study for initial accreditation or reaffirmation must include summary data for each measure used to assess the attainment of each competency for at least one academic year (AS4.0.5).

Table 2 provides a visual illustration of an assessment plan for evaluating a program's explicit curriculum. The ideas included in this plan are not meant to be exhaustive, simply exemplars. As Table 2 illustrates in Column 1, the goal is to determine what students will be prepared to do when they graduate. These outcomes correspond to the 10 core competencies in the 2008 EPAS. At this juncture, we do not suggest programs eliminate a core competency since this would require the self-study document to include the program's argument for not being able to demonstrate a requisite skill or competency for professional practice. However, programs are free to add to the core competencies if they feel it is warranted. Column 2 asks the program to identify a numeric representation for each competency of “how well students should perform in assessment of each of the competencies”. Faculty will make a numeric determination that represents achievement overall of a competency. Column 3 represents the practice behaviors, 40 of which are already identified in the 2008 EPAS, the remaining to be determined at the graduate level by the concentration and specialization practice behaviors that will serve as indices of successful attainment of the competencies by advanced practitioners. As noted previously, “… the experience of the COA (Commission on Accreditation) with assessment suggests that programs select a minimum of two or three discrete measures for their assessment of each practice behavior comprising each student competency” (Holloway, 2008 p. 11). Column 4 suggests three environments that may provide options for measuring each practice behavior. One option might come from the classroom (demonstrating social work knowledge of that behavior), while another measurement might emerge from field (demonstrating social work skills related to that practice behavior), and a final measure might come from the students' themselves (demonstrating their values related to the individual practice behavior). Table 2 also provides examples of how these measures might be obtained. In the classroom, for example, students may be similarly scored on scaled test questions offered in multiple classes where a particular practice behavior is serving as a course objective. In the field, similarly scaled items on field evaluation forms could serve as the measure. Moreover, the students themselves might complete an exit survey at graduation where they would select scaled items that would indicate the values they placed on each of the practice behaviors. For example, if each environment (classroom and field) and a student exit survey employ Likert-scaled items (on a scale of 1–5) to assess measures of the individual practice behaviors, then each practice behavior could report a total mean, with each core competency reporting a grand mean on student outcomes relative to that particular competency (a mean of the means serving as the ultimate of indices). Continuing with the example referred to in the discussion of Table 1, in measuring the specific core competency, “Identify as a professional social worker and conduct oneself accordingly,” it was suggested the objective for a social policy course might be the practice behavior, “advocate for client access to the services of social work” (in fact, an example of a Likert-scaled exam question serving as a classroom measure was included previously). If, for that same practice behavior, a Likert-scaled assessment item is included in the field evaluation instrument, a second mean could be calculated for students. Finally, if, prior to graduation, students were administered an exit survey that asked them to indicate (on a Likert-scale) the extent to which they valued “advocacy for client access to the service of social work” as a social work practice behavior, the three measures would provide means capable of being calculated into a grand mean to be cumulatively reported for the first core competency. As noted above, faculty must have determined in advance the numeric threshold which they feel fairly represents overall successful competency achievement. Continuing with the 5-item Likert scale, a previously determined average of 4 on the grand mean would indicate 80% of students being assessed achieved that competency.

TABLE 2 Potential Explicit Curriculum Assessment Plan

EPAS, 2008 competency (What will students be prepared to do when they graduate?)	Benchmark achievement (How well should students' be able to do on the assessments?)	Practice behavior (How will the outcome competency be measured?)	Measures (each practice behavior needs 3 measures) (Who will be assessed, when?)	Procedure for implementation (Who will be assessed, how?)
10 Core competencies required by EPAS 2008 provide the domain of all social work practice.	Numeric representation (for example, “a mean of 4.0 on a scale of 1.0–5.0 or better as grand mean on all measures for this practice behavior”). According to EPAS, outcomes are to be made available to constituents.	Generalist (both BSW & MSW) requires 2–3 measures on 40 practice behaviors serving as indices of the core competencies.MSW concentrations and specializations TBD by individual programs as consistent with core competencies also require 2–3 individual measures.	1. Class (knowledge): EPAS practice behaviors could be used as course objectives to be measured by a required item in the course (for ex., an exam question, assignment, rubric, etc.)	1. In-class measure
			2. Field (skills): Instructors evaluation on field instrument.	2. Consultation between field instructor, student, and faculty field liaison
			3. Students (values): Responses to Questions on Exit Survey evaluation (how student's value or fell they themselves manifest the core competencies)	3. Graduating Student Exit Survey.
Note. While the work in Table 2 is original to the authors, we acknowledge the influence in our thinking by Dean Stephen Holloway. Readers are encouraged to consult Holloway (2008) for an in-depth and excellent discussion of assessment under the 2008 EPAS.

Table 3 revises the rubric presented in Table 1 by adding an additional column used to measure practice behaviors as indices of core competencies. This column visually demonstrates the potential environments for measurements to be utilized in assessment of the explicit curriculum as it assesses student attainment of the core competencies.

TABLE 3 Curriculum Evaluation Instrument

2008 EPAS accreditation standards: Core competencies	Description of competencies (Measurable practice behaviors comprised of social work knowledge, values, and skills)	The goal is to demonstrate the integration and application of the competencies in practice with individuals, families, groups, organizations and communities. Below are the practice behaviors that are provided by 2008 EPAS for use to operationalize curriculum and assessment. (The 4–6 course objectives listed in individual course syllabi should correspond to these competencies, demonstrating where in the program they are measured and how )	Measure: Where does each operationalized behavior appear in the curriculum? (May appear multiple times, for example, in coursework as well as field.)	Assessment criteria: What is the measure? (Specific assignments, readings, exam questions, questions on the field instrument, etc.)	How do we know we're meeting our objectives? What are our benchmarks?
EP2.1.1: Identify as a professional social worker and conduct oneself accordingly	Social workers serve as representatives of the profession, its mission, and its core values. They know the profession's history. Social workers commit themselves to the profession's enhancement and to their own professional conduct and growth.	Social workers: Advocate for client access to the services of social work;	1. Class Measure
			2. Measure from Field
			3. Student Exit Measure
		practice personal reflection and self-correction to assure continual professional development;	1. Class Measure
			2. Measure from Field
			3. Student Exit Measure
		attend to professional roles and boundaries;	1. Class Measure
			2. Measure from Field
			3. Student Exit Measure
		demonstrate professional demeanor in behavior, appearance, and communication;	1. Class Measure
			2. Measure from Field
			3. Student Exit Measure
		engage in career-long learning; and,	1. Class Measure
			2. Measure from Field
			3. Student Exit Measure
		use supervision and consultation.	1. Class Measure
			2. Measure from Field
			3. Student Exit Measure

With respect to our signature pedagogy, assessment requires a field placement instrument to evaluate practice behaviors as well. Program faculty may chose to administer an instrument at the end of field placement, completed by the field instructor and reviewed with the student and faculty liaison for the dual purpose of providing a grade for the field placement as well as assessing the individual student's attainment of practice behaviors necessary for mastery of core competencies. Another approach might involve field instructors completing the evaluation midway through the field placement (i.e., midsemester for a one-term field placement or midyear for a two-term field placement) and then again at termination of the placement. With either approach, benchmarks (as presented in Column 6 of Table 3) need to be established. Some programs may prefer to set an “acceptable” or passing mean score while others may prefer to establish a percentage of students who will be evaluated as demonstrating mastery of competencies relative to specific generalist or advanced practice behaviors.

To use the mean score example, if a program chooses to establish an acceptable mean score benchmark approach, means for all interns enrolled in the same level of placement (for example, all baccalaureate field students) are tabulated. The acceptable benchmark range provides an indication of the achievement of the practice behaviors and competencies appropriate to that level of field. “Unacceptable” benchmarks indicate the program is not successfully preparing field students in the requisite practice behaviors and competencies for that level of field instruction. Under assessment in the 2008 EPAS, the latter would provide the program with the opportunity to identify changes in the explicit curriculum which should result from this information (AS 4.0.3), discussing them in the self-study document as a part of efforts toward continuous assessment and improvement.

While it is too long to be included here in this article, a field assessment document is available online ⁷ which provides an example of a field instrument that may be used in assessment of the practice behaviors and competencies for baccalaureate and generalist graduate student interns. This instrument has a number of strengths. First, it demonstrates how an evaluation instrument can be constructed to focus on identifying the extent to which students are practicing the core competencies. Second, since evaluation of field placement performance is required for the purposes of assessing students, using the very same evaluations to assess core competencies reduces work for the program. Finally, this instrument has the advantage of utilizing external observers (field instructors) to evaluate the interns and, as such, the program's progress toward student achievement of the core competencies.

The 10 core competencies specified in this evaluation derive directly from the 2008 EPAS. For each core competency the field instructor is asked to evaluate whether the intern has “excelled in this area” (5 points); “functioned above expectations for interns in this area” (4 points); “met expectations for interns in this area” (3 points); “not yet met the expectations in this area but gives indication s/he will do so in the near future” (2 points); “has not met expectations in this area, and does not give indication s/he will do so in the near future” (1 point); or “n/a” as the intern has not had the opportunity to demonstrate competence in this area. Field instructors also may be encouraged to write comments to expand upon any competency statement, if they so desire. For example, comments including those indicating practice behavior areas of the student's strength as well as those comments delineating areas in which the student needs to improve.

The field evaluation instrument is intended to provide interns with individual feedback about their performance in the field. Program faculty may choose to use these scores directly or indirectly to calculate a grade for the intern's field placement performance. Accreditation Standards vest the faculty with modeling behavior and values of the profession in the program's educational environment (AS 3.3.6). It is recommended that a field grade be based on the faculty liaison's overall evaluation of the student's performance in the field placement in conjunction with the field instructor's evaluation of the student's performance in the field placement as well as any other contributions to learning (such as submitted field logs; field seminar participation, or requisite papers addressing self-reflection in field that the faculty has designed to add depth and breadth to the field placement experience. Using an instrument such as the one suggested here should provide an appropriate assessment of the student intern's skills and mastery of the practice behaviors and domains of the core competencies for the field practicum.

SUMMARY

This article is Part 1 in a two-part series that articulates a guide for adapting the new 2008 EPAS to the social work curriculum, at both the generalist and advanced level. We believe the interrelated foci of these two articles will present an approach for sequencing tasks involved in developing or reaffirming an accredited social work program. These tasks include: statement of program mission; statement of program goals; statement of competencies/practice behaviors; integrating competencies/practice behaviors with course objectives and into course syllabi; designing an assessment plan (with benchmarks), and developing assessment instruments; implementing the assessment plan; and using the results of assessment to improve the educational program

In Part 2 of this series, which will appear in the next issue of the Journal of Teaching in Social Work, we will continue with a discussion of the implicit curriculum under the 2008 EPAS. Part 2 also will discuss additional assessment issues we feel do not flow directly from the published 2008 EPAS.

It is our hope that this discussion will be particularly useful to those programs that are in candidacy under the new 2008 EPAS, as well as those programs in the process of preparing their self-study documents for reaffirmation of accreditation. ⁸

Notes

1. Though generalist practice is defined in the 2008 EPAS in connection with baccalaureate education (EP B2.2), programs may chose to have it apply as well to the first level of required curriculum in a graduate program. Hence,

• Generalist practice is grounded in the liberal arts and the person and environment construct. To promote human and social well-being, generalist practitioners use a range of prevention and intervention methods in their practice with individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities. The generalist practitioner identifies with the social work profession and applies ethical principles and critical thinking in practice. Generalist practitioners incorporate diversity in their practice and advocate for human rights and social and economic justice. They recognize, support, and build on the strengths and resiliency of all human beings. They engage in research-informed practice and are proactive in responding to the impact of context on professional practice. BSW practice incorporates all of the core competencies. EP B2.2

2. The 2008 EPAS was passed with the understanding that CSWE would work with the education community to create resources for programs in the development of knowledge and practice behaviors specific to competencies for advanced practice. The first of these resources, “Advanced Social Work Practice in the Prevention of substance Use Disorders,” is available at the CSWE website.

3. In the 2008 EPAS, ethical decision making relies on applications of standards of the National Association of Social Workers' Code of Ethics for Social Workers (approved 1996, revised 1999) and, when appropriate, application of standards provided by the International Federation of Social Workers/International Association of Schools of Social Work, “Ethics in Social Work, Statement of Principles” (2004). This should be noted in the program's classroom and field syllabi and documents.

4. Readers are referred to Holloway, Black, Hoffman, and Pierce (2009, p. 6) for a more detailed discussion of the meaning of foundation in the 2008 EPAS.

5. The authors have found it a useful exercise to incorporate wording from individual educational policies into course descriptions should it fit. For example, in a course on ethnicity and diverse populations, it would be useful to incorporate wording from EP2.1.4 into the course description, illustrating the direct link between this educational policy and this particular course.

6. Readers are referred to the second article (Part 2) in this series which identifies and discusses the Commission on Accreditation's current interpretation of the 2008 EPAS as requiring institutions with accredited BSW and MSW programs to appoint a separate individual as field director for each program (CSWE Annual Program Meeting, November 6–9, 2009, San Antonio, Texas).

7. An example of a field instrument that may be used in assessment of the practice behaviors and competencies for baccalaureate and generalist graduate student interns can be found online at http://www.socialwork.pitt.edu/people/documents/Petracchi.pdf

8. Key 2008 EPAS documents readers may find useful are located at http://www.cswe.org/accreditation/Reaffirmation.aspx. These include the 2008 Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (CSWE, 2008a), Compliance, Concern, and Noncompliance Statements–2008 EPAS (CSWE, 2008b), as well as other resources referred to in this article.

APPENDIX

Use the Likert scale to answer the following question:

Table

Exam Question:
“Please indicate the importance of educating mental health professionals on existing child abuse reporting laws knowing reports of suspected child abuse coming from these professional will be more likely to result in needed service delivery to children.”	1 Very Unimportant	2 Somewhat Unimportant	3 Neither Important nor Unimportant	4 Somewhat Important	5 Very Important
Note. Question adapted from Cummins (2005, p. 159).