INTRODUCTION TO ONLINE MSW PROGRAMS
Standards, Ethical Issues and Educational Limitations
F. Douglas Stephenson, LCSW, BCD
Former President, The Florida Society for Clinical Social Work
There are over 20 MSW online programs offering CSWE approved degrees which require minimal face-to-face, in-person interaction. Some of these programs serve only a few dozen students in a small geographical area; others, like The University of Southern California (USC) has over 1500 online students nationwide plus international students. The number of such programs is growing annually and now, Walden University, a for-profit online corporation is offering a MSW degree and seeks full CSWE accreditation.
Alarmingly, CSWE does not currently review the content and procedures of the online MSW programs. If CSWE accredits the School or department, then its online program is automatically accredited. The CSWE accreditation standards emphasize the importance of each MSW’s “implicit curriculum” which are described as “The culture of human interchange; the spirit of inquiry; the support for difference and diversity; and the values and priorities in the educational environment, including the field setting, inform the student’s learning and development.” The CSWE standard goes on to state that “the implicit curriculum is as important as the explicit curriculum in shaping the professional character and competence of the program’s graduates.”
It is apparent that this aspect of MSW education is significantly impaired in online programs, yet CSWE does not address this in enforcing its own accreditation standards. Similarly, CSWE diversity standards can hardly be addressed in programs where students and faculty have little or no in-person contact.
Acknowledging that some educational content can be conveyed effectively with online technology, we need to insist on realistic and strong standards for social work accreditation and licensing that recognize a limited role for online courses. The American Psychological Association and American Bar Association already have such guidelines in their own accreditation requirements. The “online education” issue does not need to be an all or nothing dichotomy.
The American Board of Examiners in Clinical Social Work, State clinical societies, CSWA, the (new) Coalition for Excellence in Social Work Education, SJS and all other interested individuals & groups need to immediately assist state boards and CSWE to develop new standards that reflect these challenges.
SUGGESTED NEW STANDARDS FOR ONLINE MSW PROGRAMS:
1. That 75% of all academic content in MSW programs be delivered in face-to-face, in-person classroom settings, including all required courses in social work practice and intervention.
2. That all MSW programs address issues of diversity in face-to-face, in-person classroom settings.
3. That all field internships transpire in community agencies and institutions where students can interact face-to-face and in-person with clients, relevant social networks, colleagues and community members. Client contact via videoconferencing should comprise no more than 25% of direct practice internship experience.
4. That all field internship supervision be conducted in-person and face-to-face with qualified supervisors who are personally familiar with the agency and community.
5. That field internships settings located more than 50 miles from the home campus of the department or school be visited in-person by faculty of the department or school.
6. That, reflecting the importance of transparency in the “implicit curriculum”, all corporate personnel affiliated with the program who are involved with direct contact with applicants or students in admissions, student support, and supervision be forthrightly identified as such.
7. That all programs clearly disclose to the public, via transcripts and other sources, which aspects of their education and training utilize distance or electronically mediated delivery formats.
8. That there is full disclosure of each program’s relationships with corporate partners involved in the educational activities of the program. This will enable students and concerned parties to monitor compliance with Section 1.06 of the NASW Code of Ethics that states that “social workers should be alert to and avoid conflicts of interest”.
EDUCATIONAL LIMITATIONS OF ONLINE MSW PROGRAMS: (from CSWA Report)
“The relational skills and integrative knowledge essential in social work practice are difficult, if not impossible, to convey in distance education formats where there is little or no in-person dialogue between faculty and students. Social work is an essentially relational enterprise; social work education should entail this same relational quality to achieve consistency and quality.”
From the accreditation standards of the CSWE:
“The implicit curriculum is manifested through policies that are fair and transparent in substance and implementation, the qualifications of the faculty, and the adequacy of resources. The culture of human interchange; the spirit of inquiry; the support for difference and diversity; and the values and priorities in the educational environment, including the field setting, inform the student’s learning and development. The implicit curriculum is as important as the explicit curriculum in shaping the professional character and competence of the program’s graduates (bold added). Heightened awareness of the importance of the implicit curriculum promotes an educational culture that is congruent with the values of the profession.”
And the CSWE accreditation standards on diversity:
“The program’s commitment to diversity—including age, class, color, culture, disability, ethnicity, gender, gender identity and expression, immigration status, political ideology, race, religion, sex, and sexual orientation—is reflected in its learning environment (institutional setting; selection of field education settings and their clientele; composition of program advisory or field committees; educational and social resources; resource allocation; program leadership; speaker series, seminars, and special programs; support groups; research and other initiatives; and the demographic make-up of its faculty, staff, and student body).”
(From the CSWA report):
“ Exposure to diversity is not achieved when students and faculty see only remote visual images of each other on a computer screen; genuine exposure to diversity entails in-person interactions, dialogues, and the formation of meaningful relationships.”
“The lack of integration between CSWE’s standards and educational policies in a world where faculty and field instructors may never meet in-person; where students may never meet in-person; where students and faculty may never meet in-person, is not the world that CSWE handed over to schools of social work to effectively educate social work students.”
ETHICAL ISSUES IN ONLINE MSW EDUCATION: (from CSWA Report)
“The NASW Code of Ethics states explicitly, “Social workers recognize the central importance of human relationships.” Sherry Turkle, a Professor of the Social Studies of Science and Technology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who has studied the impact of technology on relationships, has noted: “Human relationships are rich and they’re messy and they’re demanding. And we clean them up with technology….. We short-change ourselves. And over time, we seem to forget this, or we seem to stop caring.” (Turkle, 2011).”
“In social work, as much as any other field of professional study, the nuances of human relationships are essential, involving non-verbal, verbal, vocal, and contextual cues, which are highly limited in text-based communications and substantially diminished in real-time video interaction. In an online class, relationships between students are nearly impossible for faculty to discern and faculty modeling and socialization is greatly impaired.”
“When students are taught in-person, instructors can see and react to their facial expressions and such subtle nonverbal cues as whether eyes are focused on the instructor or looking away, hands are raised to contribute a point during an animated discussion, or whether facial expressions of quiet student convey engagement, confusion or irritation. Classroom discussions can continue in the hallway, cafeteria or offices with faculty or fellow students.”
“Social work educators know that classroom discussions provide regular, ongoing opportunities to observe students’ conduct and comportment; occasionally instructors note questionable behaviors in class—such as making inappropriate comments, eye rolling, leaving the classroom for extended periods of time, engaging in sidebar chats, and passing notes—that warrant attention. At times, social work educators who meet regularly as faculty members need to have confidential discussions among themselves to review student progress and develop plans to address and remediate concerns about troubling student conduct. Instruction offered exclusively online greatly reduces opportunities to observe, monitor, and address such “red flag” behaviors. This compromises social work educators’ ability to fulfill their ethically prescribed gate-keeping function.”
——-
The NASW Code of Ethics highlights integrity as one of the six core values of the profession and states, “Social workers behave in a trustworthy manner.” According to the Statement of Ethical Principles adopted by the International Federation of Social Workers, “social workers should act with integrity” (statement 5.3). Further, the Clinical Social Work Association Ethics Code states that “clinical social workers maintain high standards in all of their professional roles, and value professional . . . integrity” (section I) and “public statements, announcements of services, and promotional activities of clinical social workers serve the purpose of providing sufficient information to aid consumers in making informed judgments and choices. Clinical social workers state accurately, objectively, and without misrepresentation their professional qualifications . . .” (section VIII).
“The personnel and websites of some online MSW programs claim their official transcripts are indistinguishable from transcripts from their university’s on-campus MSW program. This raises complex ethical questions about the extent to which online programs have an ethical duty to be transparent and forthright about how students earned their degrees (whether in face-to-face programs or online programs) so that potential employers and others can consider this information as they see fit. This is especially important given published studies citing employers’ lack of confidence in degrees earned online (see and http://chronicle.com/items/biz/pdf/Employers%20Survey.pdf and http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring121/columbaro121.html). All programs offering online MSW degrees and social workers with such degree should disclose this information to the public, honoring social work’s ethical standards for transparency.”
Section 1.06 of the NASW Code of Ethics state that “social workers should be alert to and avoid conflicts of interest that interfere with the exercise of professional discretion and impartial judgment” and “should not take unfair advantage of any professional relationship or exploit others to further their personal, religious, political, or business interests”. While this language is primarily directed to worker-client relationships, the opening section of the Code of Ethics says the Code “is relevant to all social workers… regardless of their professional functions (and) the settings in which they work…” As such, in an increasingly entrepreneurial academic environment, the aggressive marketing practices of some online MSW programs must be carefully scrutinized.
“These aggressive marketing practices largely emerge from the corporate partners of the social work schools and departments, not from the educational institutions themselves. 2U Corporation, the partner of the University of Southern California’s “virtual” MSW program, explicitly seeks “admissions counselors” on its website who have “an energetic and strategic approach to inside sales”, “a proven track record of successful inside sales” and “1+ years sales experience”. Deltak, the corporate partner for Boston University, states that they want their “program managers”, the “first point of contact for prospective students”, to meet “specific student recruitment goals”. Similarly, Pearson Embanet, the partner of the University of New England wants “enrollment advisors” to have “Two to three years sales experience (in an outbound calling environment preferred)”.”
“Some online social work education programs are rapidly expanding and the economic motives of many colleges and universities in expanding online offerings has been discussed at length. This has particularly been true in for-profit online programs. While, with the exception of a new, as yet unaccredited MSW program at Walden University beginning in Fall, 2013, the existing online MSW programs are all at “non-profit” traditional educational institutions. The largest (online MSW) programs all have partnerships with for-profit corporations which do much of the marketing and student recruitment for these programs. These partnerships raise important questions concerning conflict of interest and informed consent. CSWA could not find information about whether marketing corporations are being used to recruit MSW students for residence programs but found the use of such corporations to be a common practice in recruiting students for online programs. If this marketing practice exists for residence MSW programs, we would have the same concerns that we are expressing about this kind of recruiting for online MSW programs for the following reason: recruiters for educational programs have a conflict of interest, i.e., they have a vested monetary interest in getting as many students as possible to attend a given program. These recruiters are therefore not focused on making sure that potential students have complete information on the risks and benefits of enrolling in a given program and/or pursuing a career in social work.”
***************************************************************************
__._,_.__
Sources:
Our authors want to hear from you! Click to leave a comment
Related Posts
While I recognize the concern about aggressive market strategies for online MSW programs, I take issue with the assertions that Mr. Stephenson makes about the lack of effectiveness of online education. Aside from one cited study about employers’ perceptions of online degrees, there is NO DATA presented in this article. It is pure opinion. For example, the quote from the CSWA’s report: “Exposure to diversity is not achieved when students and faculty see only remote visual images of each other on a computer screen; genuine exposure to diversity entails in-person interactions, dialogues, and the formation of meaningful relationships.” Where is the evidence that this is true? As I tell my own students, your opinions are valid but they are not worth much if you don’t support them with fact. Until I see some evidence that, for example, “75% of all academic content in MSW programs” delivered in-person, rather than through online media, is produces more effective or successful social work students, I will assume that that this article and the committees’ suggested new standards are motivated more by technophobia than knowledge.
Rebecca, I agree. There are many core courses that can be taken online and via camera if needed. There are conference software systems that allow many of the features that he claims are missing in the classroom milieu including hand-raising for questions, emoticons, etc. He seems to not have experience with these systems and features.
Simple fact is, the times they are a changin’ and the author needs to catch up. It’s a well structured argument on the surface but it also reveals his lack of knowledge.
As a disabled person, it’s difficult for me to get around. The opportunity to get an advaced degree online is really important. Being able to take the courses online opens that up to me. In fact that is why I read the article. I don’t mind doing as much face-to-face needed.
The Council on Social Work Education and the Indiana University School of Social Work are hosting a conference on online social work education, April 15-17 2015, in Indianapolis. We are planning a debate on distance education and practice as an event. In addition, one of our five tracks is on online practice and teaching. http://swde.iu.edu
Dr. Bob Vernon, Director
MSW Direct
The idea that further research might justify online MSW education is an endorsement of the status quo of online educ.
This research will be (and currently is) done by online faculty and will be as unbiased as infamous research conducted by private psycho-pharm companies.
Certainly research can address many important questions. Just imagine however, the cost and practical problems in designing an impartial study that compared outcomes of a traditional MSW degree program with a MSW online program.
Would students be randomly assigned to each condition? What would the outcome criteria be? How would these criteria be decided? By professional consensus? If we accept that informed consent is needed in such research, how could we ethically pursue this question in our research?
Many “bright lines” in social work and related fields are not supported by empirical research. For example, why shouldn’t the MSW be one year, or three? Why shouldn’t advanced licensure require five years of post MSW practice, or six months? Why shouldn’t medical school take three years, or five? These in the end are all issues decided by consensus of opinion in our professional community.
The aspects of social work education that many of us advocate are difficult to quantify and presents a very big challenge for unbiased empirical research to study effectively. And, regrettably, while we debate whether the research is valid, mere opinion, etc., the online
private profit corporate-school of social work online complex/juggernaut continues, full tilt, to significantly devalue all MSW degrees.
The objective and standards advocated in my brief article is to promote excellence in graduate social work education by recognizing that the bedrock principles of social work education and practice—- relationship skills with clients and communities and the importance of the “person-in-environment”—must be primarily taught in face-to-face, in-person interaction between students, faculty members, clients and colleagues in field internship agencies and clinics.
Please read the full CSWA Report on Distance Learning:
Go to : clinicalsocialworkassociation.org
****************************************************
As a currently enrolled MSW student with USC’s “virtual” program, I can attest that the quality of education received via webcam is basically the same as face to face. We attend live interactive classes at specific times each week with our professor and classmates. Some professors also teach at USC’s on-ground MSW program, and the content is the same. In fact, I would even say that our education is further solidified by required online work, live in-class lectures and quality internships.
I agree with Rebecca that Mr. Stephenson is writing based on opinion. Mr. Stephenson, please do thorough research before making negative opinions about something you have likely not experienced. My classmates and I work very hard for this degree, and as a military spouse I do not have the luxury of guaranteed residence for an entire length of an on-ground program. I am grateful for the quality of education I receive in very small virtual classrooms at USC.
I can’t speak to the other online MSW Programs, but I do not feel USC is watering down the profession nor is it lacking in upholding to the ideals outlined within the NASW Code.Forum based learning seems to be the main focus of the concerns highlighted above. I believe USC’s MSW Program should be the benchmark of which online learning should strive to reach.
As Devon Osborne said eloquently. “Simple fact is, the times they are a changin’ and the author needs to catch up. It’s a well structured argument on the surface but it also reveals his lack of knowledge.” Although I question even the structure since no actual evidence is provided for the allegation that online social work programs are inferior to in person training.
I have been around long enough to remember when:
Two year full time MSW programs were the only way to train social workers. Advanced standing or part time programs were considered inferior. Nonsense.
One could not work and have their field placement in the same agency. Again, nonsense.
Having sessions with clients over the phone was inferior to face to face. No evidence to support that contention.
There will always be naysayers who are convinced that unless a new generation does thinks exactly the way they were taught the profession is doomed. But these naysayers are not leaders of a profession but anchors dragging a profession down.
Are there concerns related to online training of social workers? Perhaps. But present some actual evidence that can be examined.
The above article leaves much to be desired and would receive a passing grade at one of the schools he denigrates.