6 Chapter 7 – Social Work in the Time of Covid: Exploring the Effects of the COVID 19 Pandemic on Student Success in an Online Social Work Program at Ohio State
Introduction
This chapter explores the following question: How has the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the trajectory of student success in an online social work program at Ohio State? We will attempt to answer this question in four main sections, the first of which being a focus on equity and access as cornerstones to social work education in general and at Ohio State. Then, we will lay out the history and student success trends of online education, while looking specifically at how the College of Social Work at Ohio State prioritizes student success and professional preparedness. Next, we will introduce a discussion on emergency remote teaching (ERT) and the changes to online education since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, again taking a look at the specific responses and planning put in place in the College of Social Work at Ohio State. In the final section, we’ll take a look ahead and examine what online student success and specific areas of social work, such as field work, might look like in the future as pandemic-adopted practices continue to become more permanent.
To understand the evolution of social work pedagogy and the transition to online learning, it can be helpful to contextualize it in the history of the field and at Ohio State. The history of social work at Ohio State began in 1875, when the first social work focused course was introduced from the Department of Political Economy and Civil Policy. The College of Social Work was formally founded and accredited in 1919 and the first degrees were awarded in 1923. The program at Ohio State is recognized as the oldest continuously accredited public social work program in the United States. The College continued to grow and develop over the next couple of decades and soon a relationship with educational technology began to emerge. Known as an early adopter, the College of Social Work introduced iPads to all of the faculty and staff in the spring 2012, with the goal to effectively integrate the technology into the curriculum. In 2014, the College published its first MOOC, which led to the online Masters of Social Work launched in 2017.
Social Work Pedagogy Online: It’s All About Access.
Perhaps more than any other discipline, the field of Social Work is entrenched in social justice and equity. A key tenement from the ethics statement of the National Association of Social Workers, NASW, states that “Social workers strive to ensure access to needed information, services, and resources; equality of opportunity; and meaningful participation in decision making for all people” (NSAW 2021). Instilling these values in the next generation of social workers is paramount to the instructional efforts of the Ohio State College of Social Work, where a focus on intertwining these values within coursework, and especially field work, is a main focus. Byron Roush, the College of Social Work’s Director of Educational Technology puts it succinctly; “Social workers like to say that field education is our signature pedagogy… Making sure there are social workers in underserved areas and communities throughout the state where it’s hard to attract people is a huge priority, so we look at finding people that who are there and training them”. Indeed, from an online educational standpoint Kurzman (2019), Afrouz (2021), and Crisp (2021) all show that the online delivery format for social work education “embeds social work values of equity, through increasing access for students across different geographical and social locations, identities, and requirements”.
Collaborating with community leaders in where they are located supports a Constructivist theory of course development which aligns with online course development best practices–being centered around a real world problem with assignments that are collaborative and interconnected (Okech 2014). Being able to critically engage with real world issues and with other likewise entrenched social work students therefore facilitates the necessity for social work education to engage students with practical experiences while adhering to social work ethics. As Richter (2019) points out, “the alignment with professional social work values and ethics enhances social work education, and because online access to education achieves social justice. Indeed, a critically engaged pedagogy produces critically aware social workers.”
This works in conjunction with another aspect of equity–the need to meet students where they are. Dr. Meshelemiah, the Associate Vice Provost for Diversity and Inclusion at The Ohio State University, reflected on the college’s mission regarding this;
“Ohio State should be accessible to the people of state of Ohio at minimum. Minimum! We have 88 counties and we should have students and employees in 88 counties accessing this university…for years we’ve had students say that they want to be in the program but are working full time, and addressing that is how we take the whole land grant institution charge seriously.”
Additionally, the need for credentials and continuing education credits informs the structure and affordability of the college’s offerings.
“It’s only accessible if it’s affordable. I’ve looked at a few of those credentials myself online, and some of them are thousands of dollars. Thousands of dollars! And that’s not affordable for the average person who wants a few more hours of education because there’s no financial aid involved. So the cost could be prohibitive for some people. And if it’s face to face [there’s] location accessibility, being on campus, the parking, the drive, if you are out of town, being, you know, in a city [finding] housing. I do think it’s a good trend, especially if we can do more of it online.”
This acknowledgement of where students and their potential clientele are located, coupled with a focus on best practices in online teaching informs the pedagogical approach of online course design at the College of Social Work. However, getting away from face-to-face content, or rather wholly synchronous content, is not something that serves every student. The admissions standards for both Online and In-Person degrees are the same, and students can switch seamlessly between them. Byron Roush summed up the approach.
“I don’t think that we ever look at technology as the solution to anything at social work. But I think what we get is faculty thinking, what do these students need? And staff at the college putting students first and as well as our community. Our students are going to be our community leaders in the future. So it’s looking at; are we preparing people for this?”
He goes on to explain that as the pandemic necessitated a fully online approach the college realized that even if a student is in an online program, most social work students really benefit from some sort of face to face contact, especially since most students are preparing to teach or work in a person-to-person way. The team took this feedback and implemented a new approach to address the need for more synchronous solutions with a behavioral health course. Changes like this helped identify certain weaknesses and opportunities in the program which this article will explore in the Future section.
Moving Online
Integrating technology into teaching has a long history. Scholars credit B.F. Skinner with creating the first designed learning experience in the 1950s and Fred Keller’s work in personalized learning in the 1960s as early influences on what would become online learning decades later (Lockee, 2021). These early models of online learning emphasized principles of intentional instructional design by applying psychological principles of human learning to create effective learning environments to effectively engage students and attain targeted learning outcomes. Many of these models were piloted through MOOCs, massive open online learning platforms, that eventually transitioned into the online learning environments seen today.
Starting around the mid-2010s, online education moved from a trend to the mainstream. In early 2020, approximately one-third of students in higher education were taking at least one online course (Seaman, Allen, & Seaman, 2018). When instructors began to move away from creating online courses equivalent to face to face courses, the benefits and affordances of online learning emerged. Flexibility is perhaps the most broadly seen benefit to online learning. Online classes allow many students to balance professional and personal commitments while gaining an education. Traditional barriers to higher education such as parenting and family responsibilities, working full or part-time, and commuting to campus, can be recalibrated with the flexibility of online learning. Research shows that online learning has the potential to be able to reach a broader range of students, than traditional face to face learning. Online learning has also shown to demonstrate higher degrees of self-motivation and time management. Learning to collaborate in virtual environments can foster leadership skills and improve virtual communication. All of these skills help to set students up for success in their online education and future employment opportunities (Miller, 2019).
Although they sound similar, educators and administrators can recognize the nuance between a successful online student and online student success. A successful online student is an individual thriving in their online program, on target to meet degree requirements, and land a promising job upon graduation. Online student success however, comes from assessing the personal, circumstantial, and course variables that lead to a positive learning experience. Many models exist for predicting student success that focus on factors such as readiness, engagement, retention and satisfaction. Kerr and Rynearson’s test of online learning success, (ToOLS) compiles strategies of successful online learners as a self-assessment geared towards readiness (Porter, 2015), while Kruger-Ross and Waters use a student’s situational awareness in context with their desire and ability to remove obstacles as a predictor of a student’s engagement and success in a course (Kruger-Ross & Waters, 2013). These measures of student success are used to understand student behavior as a means of evaluating the success and quality of online programs.
At the Ohio State University, the College of Social Work prioritizes student success. The Dean of the College, Tom Gregoire does not believe that online education should be transactional. They have built policy and program guidelines with students in mind. One notable policy is allowing students to convert to the fully online program at any point in their program. Byron Roush, Director of Educational Technology at the College said that they believe in giving students a choice and sense of agency in their programs. They also use student success as a measure of feedback and assessment. Dr. Meshelemiah shared that the College uses surveys of graduating students, community organizations, and employers to determine what students need to be successful social workers, then use that feedback to to carefully and intentionally design their curriculum.
Dean Tom Gregoire and Dr. Jacquelyn Meshelemiah expand upon the college’s philosophy behind the adoption of technology and how incentivizing and guiding faculty and staff is paramount to successful implementation:
Video Highlights:
- Changing from just showcasing cool technologies to engaging faculty with them
- Created an event around ipad distribution in 2012
- Focused on making people feel proud about their new efforts with technology
- Scaffolded Ed Tech learning with accessible trainings and seed grants
Video Highlights:
- Educating people around Ed Tech
- Incentivizing instructors to adopt novel technologies and simple solutions
- Matching ALX (Affordable Learning Exchange) grants
- Hiring support staff to supplement instructors’ course construction
Pandemic Effects and Emergency Remote Teaching
It is no exaggeration to say that the COVID-19 pandemic changed education as we know it. In March 2020, students and educators across the United States were forced to quickly adapt to online learning. For seasoned online learners and instructors, there was little interruption to the norm, but millions were required to acclimate to emergency remote teaching for more than a few semesters. The term emergency remote teaching represents an important distinction between the March 2020 pivot and established online courses and degree programs. Many universities established an institutional collection of best practices for online teaching, calling in the support of online learning programs and collaborating across the institution. Ohio State created Keep Teaching with videos and guidance to onboard instructors and equip them with strategies to align that online teaching pedagogy.
Thoughtfully designed online learning is substantially different from emergency remote teaching. The benefits of online education such as flexibility, emphasis on technology, and demonstrated self-motivation still apply, but emergency remote teaching (ERT) describes a temporary shift of the mode of instructional delivery during a time of significant crisis (Hodges, Moore, Lockee, Trust, and Bond 2020). There is a strong emphasis on temporary, in that the goal is to not create fully formed, robust online courses, but to quickly provide mediated access to institutional and instructional support to continue learning with minimal interruption. Through this perspective, educators can begin to untangle the differences in these modalities and understand the strengths and weaknesses of each.
A characteristic of ERT is the need for creative solutions in tackling instructional barriers brought on by the circumstances of the crisis (Hodges, Moore, Lockee, Trust, and Bond 2020). There is a learning curve for both students and instructors and familiarity with online learning increases throughout the semester. Traditional online programs can take weeks or months to plan, design, and develop, and the seemingly overnight transition to online learning is not an equal comparison to this process. As waves of the pandemic ceased and grew, there was a strong desire to return to normal, but as Moore, Trust, Lockee, Bond, & Hodges note, any approach to return to “normal” brings about questions of what is normalized, and for whom is it normalized (Moore, Trust, Lockee, Bond, & Hodges 2021). Students from historically marginalized groups and students with disabilities saw an increase in their self determined success and felt they could thrive in an environment further removed from microaggressions and inherently more accessible. There is a desire among students to retain the benefits and lessons of online learning into a blended environment as a whole (Moore, Trust, Lockee, Bond, & Hodges 2021).
Before the pandemic, the College of Social Work Master’s Program at Ohio State was already over 50% online (Roush 2022). Most of their courses already existed in an online format, and instructional designers and educational technologists in the College used the first two weeks of the transition to online learning to make sure students and instructors were set up for success. One area where students, even online students, were greatly impacted by the pandemic was in field placements. The College requires at least 1-2 semesters of field work for Masters students, with a minimum of 224 hours in the field (CSW Field Education Hours Policy 2015). Students who had been placed into hospitals or other locations deemed essential during the pandemic, were able to continue their field work as arranged. But for many students, the loss of a sense of community within field work was a challenge. To help bring back that sense of community and rebuild structure, the College created virtual community sessions where students engaged in field work could connect, ask questions, and share their experiences with peers and supervisors.
Dean Tom Gregoire expanded upon how the college set itself up for success with the move to fully remote teaching:
Video Highlights:
- Already had a fully online masters program, and online undergrad courses, to use as models for fully online transition
- Had 3.5 full time designers
- In January of 2020 (2 months before lockdown) started asking the instructional designers to look into what going fully online might be like
- College was fully ready to go online as soon as the order came to go into lockdown
- In 2019 had the instructional designers create trainings on best practices in online and hybrid course creation and management
- Incentivized faculty to participate in those trainings, well before Covid-19. This also familiarized faculty with the instuctional designers and trust was already established prior to lockdown
Looking Forward
Nearly two years removed from the initial pivot to emergency remote teaching, patterns and trends have emerged that forecast a possible future for online learning. Reports indicate that institutions which had invested in online learning before the pandemic seem to be bearing the pandemic well, and project a future that integrates online, hybrid, and face-to-face learning as part of a intentional learning ecosystem (Moore, Trust, Lockee, Bond, & Hodges 2021). These reports indicate that the reserve is also true. Universities that were slow to adapt or embrace online learning prior to the pandemic have suffered steeper enrollment declines and budget cuts than their peers. It seems these institutions have prioritized a return to pre-COVID learning, rather than embracing the changes necessitated by the pandemic.
Metrics of student success have also been changed by the pandemic. Joshua Kim, Director of Online Learning and Strategy at Dartmouth College describes the post COVID learning environment as one that critically integrates online learning as part of a successful student experience (BTAA 2021). The Big Ten Academic Alliance drafted a discussion paper titled “After the Pivot” that focuses on evaluating strategic decisions in online learning with lessons learned from the pivot to ERT. The paper identifies a student-centered learning model with an importance placed on student success through learning analytics and data mining as criteria for the success of online learning programs.
Historically, measures of student success have been closely tied to enrollment numbers and degree satisfaction. Metrics like engagement, sense of belonging, inclusion, and students’ connection to their degree have been used to measure success. The disruption of service between the on-campus social and academic networks as a result of the pandemic, paired with a progressively more digital world, has created an emphasis on learning analytics and data mining as ways to measure student success. The Big Ten Academic Alliance discussion paper also highlights a change in perspective from who is accepted, to who is graduating, and how institutions can drive workforce ready skills (BTAA 2021).
According to Carmen grade distribution, students receiving A- and A increased by .6%, however students receiving failing grades did increase by .1%, and students earning grater than a B- average decreased by .08%. Ultimately these changes reflect a minor change during a major disruption to instruction. Outside of grade distributions, a number of new changes have been implemented by the college to address new learning modalities and align with student satisfaction.
Byron Roush highlights some of the new changes being implemented to address new challenges in field work:
Video Highlights:
- Found that students conducting online fieldwork were missing a sense of community
- Created semi-structured groups where students could join a virtual session to talk about successes and challenges in their field placement and learn from experts and other students (something the college is going to continue doing as the university returns to in person)
- Created online resources for students to learn about online teaching methodologies, as most students were expecting to do person-person education and counseling
- Created a course on how to conduct Tele-behavioral health to address this need, and ensured that the hours in this course counted towards student’s required field hours
These changes in field work and addressing unique problems that face social workers in a hybrid/online environment also informed additional changes to curriculum approach:
Video Highlights:
- Keeping a flipped model
- Giving students a choice between synchronous and asynchronous classes
- Continuing to do virtual coaching sessions for field work
- Being more creative and flexible with field placements
As the College of Social Work moves forward into these new modalities, Dean Gregoire outlined some unique challenges that he would like to see addressed in the future:
Video Highlights:
- Finding ways for faculty and staff to engage organically and casually (looking for a “virtual watercooler” moment)
- Considering and allowing for the welfare of faculty and staff, finding ways to remove isolation
- Designating “zoom free days” and emphasizing that people should feel ok about turning their screens off
- Having faculty and staff not focus on hours or “9-5” and to focus on tasks.
Summary
Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the higher education landscape has shifted from emergency remote teaching (ERT) to a new normal of offering quality education online. The pandemic forced all institutions to think more critically about meeting students where they are in a rapidly changing world, which has included a re-thinking of traditional methods of teaching and student success measures. The College of Social Work at Ohio State is no exception. While perhaps ahead of the online education curve pre-pandemic, with 50% of the Master’s program already being offered remotely, the College was still forced to address challenges presented by COVID-19.
The most impactful issue came within field work, a cornerstone of student preparedness and success within the social work area. With students no longer having the same level of field access and community building opportunities, the College of Social Work initially shifted to online virtual community settings to continue peer-to-peer and peer-to-supervisor interactions. As the pandemic continued, it became increasingly clear that initial ERT work would guide permanent higher education changes. For social work education, this meant more of a focus on working with clients remotely. The College of Social Work added an online telebehavioral health course to ensure students are more prepared for increasingly diverse professional settings. Now, nearly two years after the onset of COVID-19, the College continues to implement diverse and multimodal teaching and learning strategies to ensure that students are fully ready to meet future clientele where they are.
Sources
Afrouz, R., & Crisp, B. R. (2021). Online Education in Social Work, Effectiveness, Benefits, and Challenges: A Scoping Review. Australian Social Work, 74(1), 55–67. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/10.1080/0312407X.2020.1808030
Berger, R., & Paul, M. S. (2021). Pedagogy vs. Technology: Challenges in Developing Online Courses in Social Work Education. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 41(3), 275–289.
Big Ten Academic Alliance. (2021). After the pivot: Strategic evolution of online education in the research university. https://ooe.iu.edu/doc/BTAA_AfterPivot.pdf
CSW. (2015). Office of Field Education Field Education Hours Policy. The Ohio State University College of Social Work.
Gregoire, T. (2022, April). Personal Interview.
Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause.
Kurzman, P. A. (2019). The Current Status of Social Work Online and Distance Education. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 39(4/5), 286–292. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/10.1080/08841233.2019.1660117
Kruger-Ross, M. J., & Waters, R. D. (2013). Predicting online learning success: Applying the situational theory of publics to the virtual classroom. Computers & Education, 61, 176–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.09.015
Lockee, B.B. Online education in the post-COVID era. Nat Electron, 4, 5–6 (2021).
Meshelemiah, J. (2022, April). Personal Interview.
Miller, K. (2019). The Benefits of Online Learning: 7 Advantages of Online Degrees. Northeastern University Graduate Programs.
Moore, S., Trust, T., Lockee, B., Bond, A., & Hodges, C. (2021). One year later…and counting: Reflections on emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause.
National Association of SocialWorkers [NASW]. (2021). Code of ethics. Washington, DC: National Association of Social Workers. Retrieved from https://www.socialworkers.org/About/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics/Code-of-Ethics-English
Okech, D., Barner, J., Segoshi, M., & Carney, M. (2014). MSW Student Experiences in Online vs. Face-to-Face Teaching Formats? Social Work Education, 33(1), 121–134. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/10.1080/02615479.2012.738661
Porter, M. (2015). Accountability, Quality, and Student Success in Online Education: A Literature Review of Empirical Studies. Florida International University Digital Commons.
Richter, R. A. (2019). Reflections of an Online Social Work Professor: Illuminating an Alternative Pedagogy. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 39(4/5), 344–360. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/10.1080/08841233.2019.1636925
Roush, B. (2022, April). Personal Interview.
Seaman, J.E., Allen, I.E., & Seaman, J. (2018). Grade increase: Tracking distance education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group.
