See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/230608336

Teaching Standards-Based Group Work Competencies to Social Work

Students: An Empirical Examination

Article  in  Research on Social Work Practice · June 2012

DOI: 10.1177/1049731512442249

CITATIONS READS

29 231

2 authors, including:

Sheila P. Vakharia
Drug Policy Alliance
9 PUBLICATIONS   104 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Systematic Review: Parent Focused Preventive Interventions Youth Substance use and Problem Behaviors View project

Standards in the Practice of Social Work with Groups View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sheila P. Vakharia on 23 May 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Research Article
Research on Social Work Practice
22(4) 380-388
Teaching Standards–Based Group Work ª The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Competencies to Social Work Students: DOI: 10.1177/1049731512442249
http://rsw.sagepub.com
An Empirical Examination

Mark J. Macgowan1 and Sheila P. Vakharia1

Abstract
Objectives: Accreditation standards and challenges in group work education require competency-based approaches in teaching
social work with groups. The Association for the Advancement of Social Work with Groups developed Standards for Social Work
Practice with Groups, which serve as foundation competencies for professional practice. However, there has been no empirical
publication about using them in teaching. This pilot study tested a microskills teaching approach to improve competency in the
Standards. Methods: The mixed-methods study used a preexperimental, pretest–posttest design involving 123 diverse baccalaure-
ate and master’s students in introductory group work courses. Student responses about the experience were also collected.
Results: There were significant, substantial increases in students’ perceived importance of and confidence in using the Standards.
Confidence gain scores were significantly associated with performance in role-plays. Comments about the assignments were
highly favorable and identified role-plays as contributing most to learning. Conclusions: The teaching approach advanced
Standards-based group work education.

Keywords
social work with groups, group work education, evaluation of teaching

A convergence of factors has created the need for competency-
based group work education. One has been the requirement by
the Council on Social Work Education’s (CSWE, 2008) Educa-
tional Policy and Accreditation Standards (EPAS), which
requires all social work programs to ensure that students
develop mastery of core competencies. CSWE defined compe-
tencies as ‘‘measurable practice behaviors that are comprised
of knowledge, values, and skills’’ (CSWE, 2008, p. 3). In
accordance with the EPAS, competency-based education is
grounded in a curriculum with measurable learning outcomes.
The demonstration and documented assessment of core compe-
tencies are part of the new accreditation requirements.
A second factor is the finding from studies suggesting that
many students and faculty have limited grasp of group work
concepts and skills. A national survey of MSW students exam-
ined the degree to which they learned group theory and practice
in foundation group work courses (Sweifach & LaPorte, 2009).
The study of 1,360 students reported that almost half of the
sample (47%) reported that ‘‘little to no time at all’’ (p. 307)
was spent on group work during the foundation year. When
asked a series of questions about particular group work skills,
almost two thirds of the respondents reported that they did not
think that they ‘‘possessed basic group work skills, such as
understanding how to select members, how to identify tasks
and goals for the group to accomplish, and how to assist group
members in problem solving’’ (p. 307). In addition, only 16%
of the students reported that they were able to use mutual aid
in groups. The authors concluded that ‘‘students are graduating
without basic skills for facilitating groups’’ (p. 311).
In another study, researchers surveyed 212 social work
faculty about their level of knowledge and competence in
teaching group work courses (Birnbaum & Wayne, 2000).
Almost all respondents (96%) reported that they were ‘‘knowl-
edgeable’’ or ‘‘very knowledgeable’’ about teaching group
work. However, more than a third of respondents did not iden-
tify which group concepts were covered in the foundation cur-
riculum. Of those who did respond, many briefly listed one or a
few concepts, with little detail. When asked for suggestions to
improve group work education, the most common suggestion
was for more developed teaching materials.
A recent study of first-year MSW students’ perceptions of
their field practicum experience suggested that many field
instructors have also not been well prepared to teach group
1
School of Social Work, Robert Stempel College of Public Health and Social
Work, Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA
Corresponding Author:
Mark J. Macgowan, School of Social Work, Robert Stempel College of Public
Health and Social Work, Florida International University, 11200 Sw 8th Street,
GL 485, Miami, FL 33199, USA
Email: macgowan@fiu.edu
Macgowan and Vakharia
work (LaPorte & Sweifach, 2011). As the profession’s signa-
ture pedagogy, the field experience is the ‘‘central form of
instruction and learning’’ (CSWE, 2008, p. 8), where students
apply the concepts and skills learned in the classroom. The sur-
vey of 1,360 MSW students reported that,
More than half of the respondents indicated that field instruc-
tors provided very little or no measurable information at all
about group work theory and practice. Furthermore, slightly
less than half of the respondents indicated that they were not
satisfied with what they learned in the field about groups, and
slightly more than half indicated that field instructors simply
did not help to prepare them for work with groups. (LaPorte
& Sweifach, 2011, p. 246)
The study also reported that students thought their field
experience was significantly better at helping them learn to
work with individuals than with groups, on many indicators.
For example, students reported that their field instructors were
significantly better in helping them develop individual rather
than group work practice skills. The researchers noted that
73% of the students were satisfied with what they learned from
their field instructors about working with individuals, but only
45% were satisfied about what they learned from their instruc-
tors about group work (LaPorte & Sweifach, 2011).
Collectively, these empirical findings reveal the ‘‘price of
neglect’’ in group work education, which has generally
declined over the years (Birnbaum & Auerbach, 1994; Simon
& Kilbane, 2011). Both students and faculty are in dire need
of new and effective approaches for learning, teaching, and
assessing group work competencies.
There are two essential ingredients needed to advance
competency-based group work education. The first is a set of
core group work competencies. There is a consensus-based
document that outlines foundation values, knowledge, and
skills for group work. The Association for the Advancement
of Social Work with Groups (AASWG)—social work’s only
organization dedicated to group work—developed Standards
for Social Work Practice with Groups (AASWG, 2006). The
Standards were developed by experts in group work education,
practice, and research and ‘‘represent the perspectives of the
[AASWG], on the value and knowledge and skill base essential
for professionally sound and effective social work practice with
groups and are intended to serve as a guide to social work prac-
tice with groups’’ (AASWG, 2006, p. 1). However, the Stan-
dards have not been widely used (Cohen & Olshever, 2010)
and nothing has been written on how they can be utilized in
teaching about social work with groups.
The second essential ingredient is a measure to assess the
attainment of competencies. Until recently, there has been no
reliable and valid assessment instrument to measure competen-
cies in social work with groups. Such an instrument could be
used as a benchmark in teaching group work and in evaluating
whether particular teaching strategies have contributed to
changes in learning relevant knowledge and skills. An inven-
tory based on the Standards for Social Work Practice with
381
Groups has recently been developed and empirically tested
(Macgowan, 2012), which is suitable for measuring changes
in learning about the Standards.
Using these two essential ingredients, this article describes
and tests a teaching approach to improve perceived importance
and confidence in the AASWG Standards. This article details how
the inventory based on the Standards has been used in a
measurement-based approach to increase the amount of impor-
tance students attribute to the Standards and their confidence
about using them in practice. Details about the teaching approach
and assignments are presented. In addition to quantitative data,
qualitative comments from students about the learning are pro-
vided, and suggestions for improving the experience are offered.
Methods
Sample
The sample consisted of 123 full-time students enrolled in six
BSW and MSW group work courses from fall 2009 until sum-
mer 2011. Table 1 describes the demographics of the sample.
Most of the sample was female and racially and ethnically
diverse, reflecting the large metropolitan area of the Southeast-
ern United States in which the school of social work was
located. The study had Institutional Review Board approval.
Measures
The primary instrument used in this study is a newly tested
inventory of perceived importance of and confidence in using
the AASWG Standards for Social Work Practice with Groups
(Macgowan, 2012). The 70-item inventory was developed exclu-
sively from the Standards. Example of items include: ‘‘Knows
how to select members for the group in relationship to principles
of group composition;’’ ‘‘Invites full participation of all mem-
bers;’’ and ‘‘Seeks to cultivate mutual aid’’ (cf. Macgowan,
2012 for complete inventory, or contact the first author). Respon-
dents rated each item in two domains; namely, how important the
item was for successful group work and how confident the respon-
dent thinks she or he could successfully demonstrate the skill.
Responses are scaled from 1 to 4, very unimportant to very impor-
tant and very unconfident to very confident, in the respective
domain. For each domain, items were totaled and a mean scale
score was derived. The inventory, consisting of both domains,
required approximately 15 min to complete.
Preliminary reliability and validity testing has been reported
on the instrument, which included the sample reported in this
study (Macgowan, 2012). As summarized in Table 2, the
inventory has excellent internal consistency and a low standard
error of measurement. Based strictly on the Standards, the
inventory had prima facie content validity. The inventory was
empirically tested for concurrent and construct–convergent
validity, and two forms of criterion validity, known groups and
predictive. Overall, the inventory has good validity (Table 2;
see Macgowan, 2012). Further testing of the inventory with the
sample involved in this study is reported in the findings section
below.
382 Research on Social Work Practice 22(4)

Table 1. Participant Demographics

Total Sample (N ¼ 123) MSW (n ¼ 78) BSW (n ¼ 45)

Variable Frequency (%)

Gender
Female 110 (89) 69 (89) 41 (91)
Male 13 (11) 9 (12) 4 (9)
Race/ethnicity
Hispanic/Latino 58 (48) 33 (43) 25 (56)
Black (non-Hispanic/Latino) 30 (25) 15 (20) 15 (33)
White (non-Hispanic/Latino) 27 (22) 24 (32) 3 (7)
Asian/Pacific Islander 4 (3) 4 (5) —
American Indian/Alaska Native 2 (2) — 2 (4)
Degree currently seeking
MSW 78 (63) — —
BSW 45 (37) — —
Mean age, years (SD) 29.3 (7.4) 30.7 (7.3) 28.6 (7.4)
Note. Not all individuals completed demographic variables.

Table 2. Summary of Reliability, Standard Error of Measurement, and Validity of the Inventory (Macgowan, 2012).

Reliability/Standard Error of Measurement/Validity Finding

Reliability (coefficient a)
Importance domain .98
Confidence domain .98
Standard error of measurement
Importance domain 3.46
Confidence domain 4.70
Validity
Concurrent (correlation of inventory domain mean score with single item validator mean score)
Importance domain mean score with validator (‘‘How r(420) ¼ .12, p ¼ .005
important is it to be a skilled group worker?’’)
Confidence domain mean score with validator (‘‘How r(420) ¼ .62, p < .001
confident are you about your group work skills?’’)
Construct–convergent (correlation of inventory domain mean score with mean score on similar measure, CGWSI-IC)
Importance domain r(65) ¼ .71, p < .001
Confidence domain r(66) ¼ .61, p < .001
Criterion—Known groups (significant difference t(82) ¼ 5.42, p < .001
expected between mean confidence scores of group
work experts vs. beginning BSW students)
Criterion—Predictive (correlation of confidence domain r(151) ¼ .16, p ¼ .03
mean score with subsequent performance in role-plays)
Note. CGWSI-IC ¼ Core Group Work Skills Inventory–Importance and Confidence (Wilson & Newmeyer, 2008). Adapted from ‘‘A standards-based inventory of
foundation competencies in social work with groups,’’ by Macgowan (2012), Research on Social Work Practice.

In the preliminary psychometric study (Macgowan, 2012),
inventory items were linked logically to the 10 core competen-
cies of Educational Policy 2.1 of the EPAS ‘‘Explicit Curricu-
lum’’ (CSWE, 2008). Inventory items were linked to all but one
area of the EPAS (not policy practice 2.1.8). According to the
EPAS, data from ongoing assessment are required to determine
whether competencies have been met. When used to measure
confidence and performance in role-plays, the inventory can
assess not only how well students know and perform the
AASWG Standards but also how well the group work course
meets Educational Policy 2.1.
In addition to the inventory, a 6-item measure was adminis-
tered at the end of the semester to elicit student feedback on the
various teaching methods used during the course. The first four
questions were closed-ended and asked students to rate the four
course assignments (i.e., leading the role-plays, participating in
role-plays, observing role-plays, and completing the paper)
with respect to how much each contributed to their knowledge
and skills in group work, using the following scale: 1 ¼ very little;
2 ¼ little; 3 ¼ much; 4 ¼ very much. The final two questions were
open-ended and asked ‘‘What did you like about the assign-
ments?’’ and ‘‘How would you improve the assignments?’’
Macgowan and Vakharia
Design and Teaching Approach
This pilot study used a mixed-methods approach to examine a
teaching method to improve student ratings of importance of
and confidence in using the AASWG group work Standards.
Both quantitative and qualitative methods were used, which
include self-ratings and observer ratings of performance in
role-plays. To determine the effects of the teaching approach
on outcomes, this study used a preexperimental, single-group,
pretest–posttest design. The pretest occurred at the beginning
of the semester and the posttest was administered at the last
class. Students completed the newly-tested inventory of the
AASWG Standards at the beginning and end of the semester
and completed the 6-item measure at the end of the semester
to rate which assignments and activities they thought most con-
tributed to their learning. Instructor ratings of student perfor-
mances in role-plays were also used as a measure of learning.
For the qualitative portion of the study, students offered com-
ments about the assignments and experience.
The teaching approach was delivered in single-semester,
three-credit, introductory group work courses offered at the
baccalaureate and masters levels. Students enrolled in the
courses after completing foundation courses in introductory
social work, social work practice, interviewing skills, social
policy, and human behavior and the social environment. The
primary text was a popular introductory group work text (Tose-
land & Rivas, 2009). Assessment of learning was done in three
ways: weekly quizzes based on the text, a writing assignment,
and in-class role-plays. The instructor who taught the course is
a White, Anglo/Latino male, tenured, with almost 20 years of
teaching experience across BSW, MSW, and doctoral courses.
An intensive teaching approach was developed to help stu-
dents learn the Standards. The approach was based on a micro-
skills model (also called microtraining and microcounseling,
Evans, Hearn, Uhlemann, & Ivey, 2004; Ivey, Ivey, & Zala-
quett, 2010; Ivey, Normington, Miller, Morrill, & Haase,
1968; Poorman, 2003), which was first developed for teaching
interviewing skills. Microskills have been defined as ‘‘the basic
skill components that together form the common communica-
tion behaviors critical to professional helping and to building
an effective helping relationship’’ (Poorman, 2003, p. 7). To
master the complexity of the skills, microportions of the inter-
view are identified, which are specific behaviors that the lear-
ner is to demonstrate (Evans, et al., 2004; Poorman, 2003). In
the application described in this article, single skills based on
the Standards using the inventory were learned by students and
then demonstrated through role-plays. Although there is a
record of empirical studies of skills-based, microcounseling
approaches in teaching group work in other disciplines (Smaby,
Maddux, Torres-Rivera, & Zimmick, 1999; Toth & Stockton,
1996), there is little empirical research in social work of teach-
ing methods to build foundation skills in group work.
The purpose of the assignment was to increase students’ per-
ceived knowledge and confidence in doing the AASWG Prac-
tice Standards. The assignment involved two main phases: (a)
assessment and (b) knowledge and skills building. In the first
383
phase, students undertook a self-assessment during the first
class of the semester using the inventory. Items rated lowest
on the importance and confidence scales (i.e., very unimportant
or unimportant and very unconfident or unconfident) were
identified and targeted for building knowledge and skills dur-
ing the semester.
Knowledge and skills building was the focus for the remain-
der of the semester, during which the students completed the
writing assignment and engaged in role-plays. The writing
assignment was intended to assist with knowledge develop-
ment and demonstration, while the role-plays were intended
to facilitate skills development and demonstration.
For knowledge development, students selected two items
from the Standards that they rated low in ‘‘importance.’’ The
aim of this assignment was to increase the students’ under-
standing and appreciation of the significance of those items
in the Standards. For each item, students completed a paper that
consisted of two parts. For the first part, students sought the
group work literature and described why the item was indeed
important for effective group work. The second part required
that students describe how the item would be applied in prac-
tice with a real group. The following is an example of a stu-
dent’s assignment related to knowledge development (Hones,
2009) which is based on item number 3 of the inventory, ‘‘Cre-
ates a group environment that offers an opportunity to live and
practice the democratic principles of equality and autonomy.
This value is presented to the group whenever appropriate and
reinforced when members articulate it.’’
‘‘Importance of this item. A core value of the AASWG’s
Standards for Social Work Practice with Groups is to
respect people and their autonomy. Equality and auton-
omy are demonstrated by treating people with respect and
dignity and valuing their diversity. Group members are
diverse based on their culture, ethnicity, gender, sexual
orientation, physical and mental abilities, and age. Nei-
ther the member, nor the worker, nor the agency has more
privileges than the other. Group workers help the group
‘‘appreciate the contributions of the other members so
that everyone’s ideas are heard and considered’’ (Tose-
land & Rivas, 2009, pp. 459–460). Another core value
of the Standards is to create a socially just society. As a
democratic society has to ensure its members’ basic
human needs are met, group workers are required to do
the same. A group is the opportunity for members to live
and practice autonomy and equality (Toseland & Rivas,
2009, p. 460).
‘‘Equality example in practice. I facilitate a group for adoles-
cents from ages 13 to 17 who have parents who are incar-
cerated. The purpose of the group is to help them achieve
coping skills to deal with being a teen of an incarcerated
parent. The group consists of youth with different culture
backgrounds and ages. I facilitated the treasure hunt
activity with the teens. Treasure hunt requires members
to find out facts about each other (Toseland & Rivas,
384
2009, p. 191). I did a variation of the game in which one
teen interviewed another in the presence of the other
group members. Specific interview questions included age,
ethnicity, race, school, and a responsibility they had within
their family. The members were to remember the answers.
After everyone took turns, each member identified one
thing they had learned about a particular member. Then I
had the group members identify similarities and differences.
They were able to identify on their own that they were of dif-
ferent races, ages, or ethnicities but their similarities were
that they were children of inmates and helped in the caregiv-
ing activities of their younger siblings.
‘‘Autonomy example in practice. In the same group, I helped
members develop group rules. I asked the members to
define the term ‘rules.’ I explained the reason for group
rules. Then I had the members decide if they felt they
needed group rules. The group decided they needed rules.
I let them make the rules. The teens came together to
decide who would write the rules and determined that a
vote would be made on each rule to ensure everyone was
in agreement.’’
For skills building and to develop confidence in carrying out
the items in the Standards, students performed three role-
plays in class using other students as group members. During
the semester, students worked in groups and consulted with the
instructor to help build various skills in the role-plays. Each
student was assigned a date in the semester to demonstrate the
skills in a role-play before the class, and the student’s perfor-
mance was evaluated. The instructor rated how clearly each
item was demonstrated using the following scale: 1 ¼ very
unclearly, 2 ¼ unclearly; 3 ¼ clearly; and 4 ¼ very clearly
(contact the first author for a copy of the rating sheet). Students
were required to receive a minimum rating of ‘‘3’’ (demon-
strated clearly) to pass the assignment.
This intensive teaching approach was intended to foster
gains in learning about the Standards during the semester. The
study sought to test two main hypotheses. First, regardless of
level (BSW or MSW), students were expected to demonstrate
significant gains in their self-ratings of importance of, and con-
fidence in doing, the AASWG Standards from pretest to postt-
est. Second, it was expected that student ratings of confidence
would correlate with actual performance on the role-plays; that
is, students with the highest gains in confidence from pretest to
posttest would also have the highest observer performance rat-
ings on their role-plays on those items. This second analysis
involved a subsample of students in the study whose perfor-
mance in the role-plays were rated, further described below.
At the end of semester, students completed the 6-item instru-
ment to record feedback about the assignments and what they
thought best contributed to their learning about group work.
Data Analysis
For the first main hypothesis, statistically significant differ-
ences between pretest and posttest Importance and Confidence
Research on Social Work Practice 22(4)
scores were determined using paired t tests. There were six
tests, which involved the entire sample and by student status
(BSW and MSW). The probability value was set at p < .05. Sta-
tistical power, the probability that the statistical test will iden-
tify the teaching’s effect if it really existed, was examined for
the t tests. Power for a dependent t test was calculated based on
the set alpha level, the smallest sample size in the analyses
(BSW students, n ¼ 45), and a medium effect size. The test
indicated a power level of .91, exceeding the convention of
.80 (Cohen, 1998). Thus, the planned analyses seemed ade-
quately powered.
To test the second main hypothesis, bivariate correlations
(Pearson) were used. Although all classes included role-
plays, not all had ratings recorded that were available for this
study. Thus, a subsample (n ¼ 66) was included in analyses.
It was expected that instructor ratings of role-plays would be
significantly related to mean pretest to posttest confidence gain
scores. To obtain mean change scores, pretest scores were sub-
tracted from posttest ratings. The instructor was not aware of
student ratings of confidence when rating the role-plays.
For significant differences, estimates of effect sizes were
determined by calculating Cohen’s (1988) d statistic using the
pooled mean divided by the standard deviation for pared t tests,
or using r2 divided by 1 minus r2 for bivariate correlations (Lip-
sey & Wilson, 2001). Statistical data analysis was done using
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 19.
Findings
Pretest and Posttest Ratings of Importance of and
Confidence in the AASWG Standards
Mean pretest and posttest scores on the 70-item inventory are
reported in Table 3. Overall, students rated the importance of
the items higher (M ¼ 3.72) than their confidence in demon-
strating those items (M ¼ 2.90). In all cases, there were statis-
tically significant improvements in pretest and posttest scores
on students’ ratings of perceived importance of the standards
and, particularly, in their confidence in knowing how to carry
them out in practice. The Cohen’s d effect sizes (Table 3) indi-
cate approximately medium effects for Importance (.50) and
large effects for Confidence (>.80).
Changes in Self-Ratings of Confidence and Performance
on Role-Plays
It was expected that observer ratings of role-plays would be
significantly and positively related to mean pretest to posttest
confidence gain scores. There was a significant relationship
between instructor ratings of student performance and student
mean gain scores in confidence, r(66) ¼ .33, p ¼ .003, d ¼ .71.
Student Perceptions of the Learning Experience
Two sources provided data concerning the learning experience
for students. First, students were asked to anonymously provide
feedback about which assignment or class activity most
Macgowan and Vakharia
Table 3. Pretest and Posttest Results on Importance of and Confidence in the Standards
Variable Pretest M (SD) Posttest M (SD)
Importance of standards
Entire sample (n ¼ 123) 3.72 (.33) 3.86 (.19)
BSW students (n ¼ 45) 3.72 (.28) 3.83 (.20)
MSW students (n ¼ 78) 3.71 (.36) 3.87 (.19)
Confidence in standards
Entire sample (n ¼ 123) 2.90 (.56) 3.51 (.32)
BSW students (n ¼ 45) 2.75 (.56) 3.49 (.29)
MSW students (n ¼ 78) 2.98 (.55) 3.53 (.33)
Note. CI ¼ Confidence interval [lower limit, upper limit]. Effect size, Cohen’s d. SD ¼ Standard Deviation. t Tests are two-tailed.
contributed to their knowledge of and skills in group work.
Table 4 identifies which assignment or activity they thought
most contributed to learning. Clearly, students reported that
leading the role-plays most contributed to building both their
knowledge and skills in group work, followed by observing and
participating in the role-plays. Participants thought that com-
pleting the paper contributed the least to learning about the
Standards.
Two qualitative questions asked students to comment about
the assignments. When asked what they liked most about the
assignments, students offered only positive comments. The
majority of MSW students said they found the role-playing to
be the most helpful activity in the class. Many commented that
the interactive experience of participating in the role-plays was
a highly effective way to learn various clinical skills and to
understand aspects of group development: ‘‘Role plays were
great! I had lots of fun while learning, practicing, and getting
feedback;’’ ‘‘Acting out actual skills helped with understanding
them better as opposed to observing them or writing them out;’’
‘‘I enjoyed the role plays as it allowed me to grasp the theory
and practice skills associated with group work.’’
MSW students appreciated the multiple perspectives of
being a group leader, group member as well as an observer
of other students’ role-plays. Students noted, ‘‘The assignment
provided an opportunity for me to experience both sides of the
group experience—the leader as well as the group member;’’
‘‘I liked the role plays I conducted and I enjoyed other class-
mates role plays as well. Overall, an excellent learning
experience.’’
Some students acknowledged that they were initially anx-
ious or unsure about participating in the scenarios in front of
the class, but that they ultimately found it to be a beneficial
exercise: ‘‘I liked the role plays—helped me to get more com-
fortable with public speaking skills and group work skills;’’
‘‘As much as I thought I would not have liked doing the role
plays, I learned more from doing and researching for the role
plays than writing the papers.’’
385
Mean Difference (SD) [95% CI] Statistic, ES
.14 (.31) t(122) ¼ 5.05,
[.20, .09] p < .001, d ¼ .45
.11 (.23) t(44) ¼ 3.31,
[.18, .04] p ¼ .002, d ¼ .47
.16 (.35) t(77) ¼ 4.00,
[.24, .08] p < .001, d ¼ .46
.62 (.60) t(122) ¼ 11.44,
[.72, .51] p < .001, d ¼ 1.03
.74 (.59) t(44) ¼ 8.32,
[.92, .56] p < .001, d ¼ 1.25
.55 (.59) t(77) ¼ 8.16,
[.68, .41] p < .001, d ¼ .93
The research and preparation required for the role-plays was
also a positive learning experience. Masters students noted, ‘‘I
liked that we were exposed to new material and had to apply
theory to the skills. It was nice to make the connections from
identifying a theory, applying it in the role play and utilize
developing skills;’’ ‘‘I found LEADING the role plays to be
very helpful, especially doing the research for them and receiv-
ing your feedback.’’
Students also found the diversity of instructional methods
and assignments helpful in conveying the subject matter: ‘‘I
am a learner that likes doing things in order to gain a better
understanding. I liked the role plays a lot. I think they really
helped me in learning how to run a group. The paper helped
me to become a critical thinker.’’
For some MSW students, the role-play assignment helped
them learn and practice new skills that could be immediately
applied into their field placements: ‘‘It was helpful to me and
I believe my skills in group work have improved greatly. The
role plays were especially helpful and gave me ideas for run-
ning my own groups in my practicum.’’ For a few others, the
classroom role-play was the only opportunity to practice group
skills because there was no opportunity in their field place-
ments: ‘‘I really enjoyed the role plays especially since I didn’t
have a group during practicum to practice and implement the
skills I have learned.’’ ‘‘I feel that conducting the role plays
contributed my group work skills; however I was disappointed
as I did not have the opportunity to use them in my placement.’’
The BSW students shared similar comments. Students
shared that participating in role-plays made them feel more
skilled, despite their initial reluctance to participate: ‘‘The role
plays made me think a lot about how to effectively practice
group work skills. In addition, while I was nervous before I pre-
sented, I think that having to practice in front of others has
made me more confident in the long run;’’ ‘‘I was able to build
on my confidence as a group leader and overcome to some
degree the fear and pressure that comes with it. Learning from
my mistakes and the mistake of my classmates was helpful.’’
386
Table 4. Student Responses About What Contributed Most to Their Learning and How Much of the Learning Was Incorporated in Their Field
Practicum
Question/Course Element All
To what degree did leading the role-plays contribute to building your:
Knowledge of group work? 3.69 (.51)
Skills in group work? 3.60 (.57)
To what degree did observing the role-plays contribute to building your:
Knowledge of group work? 3.48 (.64)
Skills in group work? 3.36 (.65)
How much did participating in the role- 3.38 (.73)
play as a group member help you
learn the particular skill presented?
To what degree did completing the paper contribute to building your:
Knowledge of group work? 3.28 (.77)
Skills in group work? 3.09 (.83)
How much did you incorporate the 3.07 (.90)
Standards into your group work in
your field placement?
Note. SD ¼ Standard deviation. Responses were recorded using the following scale: 1 ¼ very little; 2 ¼ little; 3 ¼ much; 4 ¼ very much.
Baccalaureate students shared that the role-plays were a fun
and different way to learn: ‘‘It made the words come alive and
an image that will stick like glue. I may not remember what I
read in the class but I’ll remember the role plays;’’ ‘‘I had never
role played in a group setting, so it was interesting to me and
fun. The role plays were very creative way in getting us to think
about how to perform in a group setting.’’
In answer to the second question, ‘‘How would you improve
the assignments?’’ both groups almost unanimously stated that
more role-play opportunities could have been beneficial and
helpful.
Discussion and Applications for Social Work
Practice
This article described the application of a teaching method to
increase student knowledge and perceived confidence in the
AASWG Standards for Social Work with Groups using a
measurement-based approach. It is the first article to report
both the application of the Standards in teaching about group
work and the use of an inventory as a foundational tool for
teaching about social work with groups.
There were significant and substantial improvements over
time in students’ appreciation of, and confidence in using, the
Standards. The effect sizes showed substantial changes in
learning, with higher effects on confidence. Changes in confi-
dence among the full sample were large (d ¼ 1.03), particularly
among baccalaureate students (d ¼ 1.25), and are within the
range of those reported in studies measuring self-efficacy in
social work education (Holden, Barker, Rosenberg, &
Onghena, 2008). More importantly, students with the highest
growth in their confidence about performing the Standards had
correspondingly high observed ratings on the role-plays. The
Research on Social Work Practice 22(4)
M (SD)
MSW BSW
3.64 (.53) 3.80 (.46)
3.56 (.59) 3.66 (.53)
3.42 (.70) 3.59 (.50)
3.28 (.68) 3.50 (.55)
3.29 (.80) 3.55 (.55)
3.20 (.78) 3.43 (.73)
2.93 (.84) 3.39 (.72)
3.06 (.89) 3.10 (.99)
improvements in confidence corresponded with actual practice
behaviors.
Changes in student ratings of importance of the Standards,
although significant and moderate in effect sizes, were of mar-
ginal substantive significance. At the pretest, students rated
each item, on average, high in ‘‘importance’’ (e.g., 3.72 of
4.00; Table 3). The significant positive changes to a higher
level of ‘‘importance’’ (e.g., 3.86 of 4.00), although desirable,
may not be worth the respondent burden in completing items in
that domain. The psychometric study of the inventory, which
involved a larger sample (N ¼ 426), reported similar high rat-
ings of importance (mean of 3.68; Macgowan, 2012). Thus,
subsequent studies may exclude the importance domain. On the
other hand, pretest scores in confidence were below ‘‘confi-
dent’’ and the resulting substantial increases brought scores
higher into the ‘‘confident’’ range, which is a meaningful dif-
ference over time.
Given the inventory has been logically linked to the core
competencies of educational policy 2.1 of the EPAS (Macgo-
wan, 2012), gains in group work competencies were also likely
accompanied by improvements in the EPAS competencies. For
accreditation purposes, these data can help determine whether
the group work course helped students demonstrate compe-
tency in the core areas of the EPAS.
Students reported that all assignments were beneficial in
contributing to their learning about group work but that the
role-plays had the largest impact. Specifically, they reported
that being a group worker contributed most to learning, fol-
lowed by being a group member and, finally, being an observer.
These participatory and interactive learning experiences were
perceived as more valuable than completing the paper. Some
students reported that they should be given the opportunity to
demonstrate all competencies as role-plays only, rather than
role-plays combined with a written assignment. Students
Macgowan and Vakharia
highly valued the role-play experiences. Giving students the
option of participating in role-plays may yield greater learning
gains than written assignments alone.
The inventory utilized in the study can be used to advance
practice in group work settings. Supervisors can use the inven-
tory to measure staff confidence in leading groups and their
knowledge of group skills. Inventory responses can assist
supervisors to pinpoint staff training needs and to set goals
for the staff’s professional development. Identifying staff
members who need additional support can help supervisors
to provide more focused clinical supervision to enhance
skills. Increased confidence and awareness of standards-
based group work skills increases the potential that social
workers are engaged in ethical and evidence-based group
work (Macgowan, 2008).
Although there was no further data in this study about
performance in the field practicum, students reported that
they used the skills ‘‘much’’ in their placements (Table 4).
The inventory has great potential for linking group work
courses with the field practicum experience. Inventory
responses can be relayed to field instructors who can pro-
vide students with additional opportunities to build and
enhance group work skills in parallel to the classroom. This
linkage would help ensure that students are receiving ade-
quate opportunities to learn and develop skills both inside
and outside of the classroom. This partnership can help
strengthen group work education in the field practicum,
which has had some notable deficiencies (LaPorte & Swei-
fach, 2011).
Although this pilot study has substantial strengths, there are
methodological and conceptual limitations, and recommen-
dations for strengthening, testing, and extending the mea-
surement and teaching approaches. The study documented
positive changes in perceived confidence about the Stan-
dards, with demonstrations of competence in role-plays. A
limitation is that the data were based on the ratings of a sin-
gle observer in the classroom. It would be beneficial to use
the ratings of multiple observers and in other settings, such
as in the field placement and beyond graduation.
Although the preexperimental design was suitable for this
stage of research, the next study should use a stronger design.
No causal inferences can be made about what contributed to
improvements in learning, as there were many uncontrolled
elements including history, maturation, and testing which may
have contributed to the significant changes from pretest to
posttest (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002). A stronger
grouped design in which students are randomly assigned to
comparison or control groups, or a single-subject design that
includes a withdrawal period are needed to determine if the
teaching approach described in this article significantly contri-
butes to improvements over others. In designing more rigorous
grouped studies, future studies could test different teaching
approaches to determine if more generalized approaches to
teaching about the Standards are also associated with improved
learning. A comparative effectiveness research design would
include randomly assigning learners into two sections of the
387
same course and offer different teaching methods. It would also
be instructive to learn if students who have been taught directly
about the Standards are regarded as more competent by their
field supervisors than their counterparts who have not.
This article presented a novel approach to developing
knowledge and confidence about the AASWG Standards for
Social Work Practice with Groups. Using a promising new
instrument to measure performance on the Standards, both
quantitative results and qualitative reports from students
clearly indicated students benefited from the teaching
approach. Importantly, student improvement in confidence was
correlated with practice behaviors observed in role-plays. The
inventory’s items have been linked to the EPAS Standards and
thus may be used as markers of student development of not
only social work competencies but also competencies in social
work with groups. Although there were limitations to the
approach and with the preexperimental research design used
in the study, this article described a teaching method and instru-
ment that may be readily implemented and useful for
competency-based learning.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
References
AASWG. (2006). Standards for social work practice with groups (2nd
ed.). Retrieved October 19, 2011, from http://www.aaswg.org/
files/AASWG_Standards_for_Social_Work_Practice_with_
Groups.pdf
Birnbaum, M. L., & Auerbach, C. (1994). Group work in graduate
social work education: The price of neglect. Journal of Social
Work Education, 30, 325–335.
Birnbaum, M. L., & Wayne, J. (2000). Group work in foundation gen-
eralist education: The necessity for curriculum change. Journal of
Social Work Education, 36, 347–356.
Cohen, C. S., & Olshever, A. (2010). Overview of the survey on the
AASWG standards for social work practice. Retrieved October
20, 2011, from http://www.aaswg.org/node/377
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral
sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
CSWE. (2008). Educational policy and accreditation standards
(EPAS). Alexandria, VA: Author.
Evans, D. E., Hearn, M. T., Uhlemann, M. R., & Ivey, A. E. (2004).
Essential interviewing: A programmed approach to effective com-
munication (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Holden, G., Barker, K., Rosenberg, G., & Onghena, P. (2008). The
evaluation self-efficacy scale for assessing progress toward CSWE
accreditation-related objectives: A replication. Research on Social
Work Practice, 18, 42–46. doi:10.1177/1049731507303954
Hones, I. (2009). AASWG practice standards. Unpublished manu-
script, Florida International University, Miami.
388
Ivey, A. E., Ivey, M. B., & Zalaquett, C. P. (2010). Intentional
interviewing and counseling: Facilitating client development in a
multicultural society (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Ivey, A. E., Normington, C. J., Miller, C. D., Morrill, W. H., & Haase,
R. F. (1968). Microcounseling and attending behavior: An
approach to prepracticum counselor training. Journal of Counsel-
ing Psychology, 15, 1–12. doi:10.1037/h0026129
LaPorte, H. H., & Sweifach, J. (2011). MSW foundation students in
the field: Reflections on the nature and quality of group work
assignments and supervision. Journal of Teaching in Social Work,
31, 239–249. doi:10.1080/08841233.2011.580240
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Macgowan, M. J. (2012). A standards-based inventory of foundation
competencies in social work with groups. Research on Social Work
Practice. doi: 10.1177/1049731512443288
Poorman, P. B. (2003). Microskills and theoretical foundations for
professional helpers. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental
and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference.
Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
View publication stats
Research on Social Work Practice 22(4)
Simon, S., & Kilbane, T. (2011). The current state of group work edu-
cation: Are things getting any better? (Paper presented at the 33 rd
International Symposium on Social Work with Groups, Association
for the Advancement of Social with Groups, Long Beach, CA).
Smaby, M. H., Maddux, C. D., Torres-Rivera, E., & Zimmick, R.
(1999). A study of the effects of a skills-based versus a conven-
tional group counseling training program. Journal for Specialists
in Group Work, 24, 152–163.
Sweifach, J., & LaPorte, H. H. (2009). Group work in foundation gen-
eralist classes: Perceptions of students about the nature and quality
of their experience. Social Work With Groups, 32, 303–314. doi:
10.1080/01609510903045897
Toseland, R. W., & Rivas, R. F. (2009). An introduction to group work
practice (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.
Toth, P. L., & Stockton, R. (1996). A skills-based approach to teach-
ing group counseling interventions. Journal for Specialists in
Group Work, 21, 101–109.
Wilson, F. R., & Newmeyer, M. D. (2008). A standards-based inven-
tory for assessing perceived importance of and confidence in using
ASGW’s core group work skills. The Journal for Specialists in
Group Work, 33(3), 270–289.