PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Riggs, Mimi]On: 27 May 2011Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 938106657]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Social Work EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713447070

Non-traditional Student Retention: Exploring Perceptions of Support in aSocial Work Graduate ProgramW. J. Casstevensa; Cheryl Waitesb; Nehal Outlawa

a North Carolina State University, USA b Wayne State University, USA

First published on: 10 March 2011

To cite this Article Casstevens, W. J. , Waites, Cheryl and Outlaw, Nehal(2011) 'Non-traditional Student Retention:Exploring Perceptions of Support in a Social Work Graduate Program', Social Work Education,, First published on: 10March 2011 (iFirst)To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/02615479.2011.556188URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2011.556188

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Non-traditional Student Retention:Exploring Perceptions of Support in aSocial Work Graduate ProgramW. J. Casstevens, Cheryl Waites & Nehal Outlaw

This study examines non-traditional student perceptions of social support in the context of

a group intervention offered by a graduate program at a predominantly white universityin the southern United States of America. The goal of the group intervention was to

enhance perceptions of social support, as measured by a standardized instrumentadministered pre and post the group intervention. Data analysis showed no significant

differences in pre–post changes in perceptions of social support between intervention andcomparison groups. A follow-up survey questionnaire administered to group intervention

participants provided feedback that shed light on these unanticipated results: it isrecommended that future interventions for improving non-traditional student retentionfocus on supporting the development of social support networks among incoming and first-

year graduate students.

Keywords: Evaluation; Stress; Students; Higher Education; Diversity

Student retention is a concern on university campuses worldwide (Benseman et al.,

2006; Glogowska et al., 2007), and the retention of non-traditional students in the

United States of America (USA) has become increasingly relevant as the percentage of

students over age 25 in higher education has increased. Non-traditional students are

adult students, including single parents, and those seeking higher education in

preparation for a second career (Ramsey and Thompson, 1994). Used broadly, the

term can refer to students from any social grouping that is under-represented in higher

education (Bowie and Hancock, 2000; Benseman et al., 2006). Social work’s emphasis

ISSN 0261-5479 print/1470-1227 online q 2011 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/02615479.2011.556188

Correspondence to: Dr W. J. Casstevens, Department of Social Work, North Carolina State University, Campus Box 7639,

10 Current Drive, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA. Email: wjcasste@ncsu.edu

W. J. Casstevens & Nehal Outlaw, North Carolina State University, USA; Cheryl Waites, Wayne State University, USA.

Social Work Education2011, iFirst Article, pp. 1–13

Downloaded By: [Riggs, Mimi] At: 14:47 27 May 2011

on social justice and non-discrimination, and the ongoing need for social workers

from diverse backgrounds, make non-traditional student retention, in its broadestsense, a critical issue in social work education (Bracy and Cunningham, 1995; CSWE,

2001; NASW NEWS, 2001).This study took place in a graduate social work program at which all MSW

students at the time of the study were non-traditional students. Their non-traditionalstatus was due to program entrance requirements that included two years’ experience

in the field. The program, located in a large land-grant and predominately whiteinstitution in the South, was committed to diversity. Land-grant universitiesoriginated in the late 1800s, when the federal government granted land to the states in

order for them to establish institutions of higher education that emphasized teachingand research, and extended these services into the community. At the time of this

study, the total university student body of over 30,000 was 75% white, non-Hispanic,and 25% from diverse backgrounds. The graduate social work program had a higher

percentage of students from diverse backgrounds than the percentage present in thetotal student body, with graduate cohorts averaging 33% of students from diverse

backgrounds and 68% white, non-Hispanic (percentages do not total 100 due torounding). The graduate admission cohorts involved in this study had a mean age of

30 years old. Thus in the context of this study, the term non-traditional studentsrefers to mature students, 33% of whom came from diverse backgrounds. Concernabout graduate student attrition, as well as the disproportionate loss of African

American students, led the social work department to explore graduate studentrequests for additional supports in the program. With graduate student and graduate

faculty input, the department selected a student support group as an initialintervention strategy. This article reviews retention strategies and factors related to

retention of diverse and non-traditional students in the literature, in order to clarifythe rationale for the selected intervention. It then outlines the support group

intervention itself, and presents the results from the support group evaluation andfollow-up survey. The support group was evaluated using a standardized measure ofchange in perception of social support, to address the research question: does non-

traditional student perception of social support increase post intervention, relative toperception of social support in a comparison group that did not receive the

intervention? Implications and conclusions for non-traditional student retentionconclude the article.

Retention Strategies for Diverse and Non-traditional Students

Student retention is a crucial issue and research has generally focused on retainingstudents from diverse backgrounds. Although the number of African American

students entering higher education in the USA has increased, proportionately fewerAfrican American students continue to finish degree programs than do white students(Berger, 1992; D’Augelli and Hershberger, 1993; Perna, 2007). Retention efforts in

professional programs have primarily involved: (a) formal mentoring (Ramsey andThompson, 1994; McAllister et al., 2009); and (b) educational experiences that include

2 W. J. Casstevens et al.

Downloaded By: [Riggs, Mimi] At: 14:47 27 May 2011

emphasis shifts in curricula, pedagogy, and faculty development (Bracy and

Cunningham, 1995).Recruiting and retaining diverse faculty members at predominately white

institutions has also been recommended as a means of obtaining and supporting adiverse student body (Bowie and Hancock, 2000; Daniel, 2007). Faculty members

from diverse backgrounds are often called on to mentor students from diversebackgrounds, an added responsibility that can create a barrier to faculty advancement

since it takes time away from the research required for promotion and tenure. Kobrak(1992) called for socially concerned white faculty to commit to mentoring andsupporting students from diverse backgrounds and to actively participate in retention

efforts.The MSW program’s faculty, one-third of which was African American and two-

thirds of which was white non-Hispanic, had already incorporated a strong graduateadvising program to facilitate mentoring: new students were assigned to a faculty

advisor whom they met at program orientation, prior to the first semester ofcoursework. At a minimum thereafter, students met face-to-face with advisors once

per semester: (a) for academic advising prior to registering for courses; and (b) todevelop and nurture a supportive rapport that would encourage students to pro-

actively bring any difficulties to the advisor’s attention so that these might be promptlyaddressed.

The department itself actively encouraged faculty development on diversity issues

and pedagogy by inviting outside presentations at faculty meetings and retreats, andreferring faculty to extensive teaching and diversity related resources available from

the university at no charge. In addition, the MSW curriculum was developed with aspecific focus on social justice. Further, the program’s graduate admissions process

included an affirmative action component at the departmental level. As noted above,students were non-traditional students, i.e. adult students with post-baccalaureate

work experience, and this may have contributed to the program consistently getting adiverse pool of applicants to consider for admission. Departmental affirmative actionconsisted of the MSW admissions committee considering applicants from culturally

diverse backgrounds individually, in order to maximize the diversity of incominggraduate cohorts. When MSW students asked the department to sponsor a support

group, this appeared a viable extension of retention efforts already in place.

Factors Associated with Diverse and Non-traditional Student Retention

Factors associated with retention of non-traditional students, students from diverse

backgrounds, and first generation college students include competing responsibilitiesamong family, work and school, single parenthood, and the resources (academic and

financial) available at the institution (Berger, 1992). The factors contributing to non-retention of students from diverse backgrounds in MSW programs include ‘failure toadjust, academic problems, and social isolation’ (Bowie and Hancock, 2000, p. 434).

Issues of non-traditional and diverse student retention are particularly germane forsocial work programs, because of Council on Social Work Education (the sole national

Social Work Education 3

Downloaded By: [Riggs, Mimi] At: 14:47 27 May 2011

accrediting body for social work programs in the USA) emphasis on diversity and

non-discrimination (CSWE, 2001; NASW NEWS, 2001). The factors that Bowie andHancock (2000) report contributing to non-retention are factors generally associated

in the literature with student stress, and this same literature points to the need formaking stress management programs available to students (e.g. Dziegielewski et al.,

2004). Other potential barriers to the retention of a diverse student body inpredominately white institutions include problems of racism, inequitable treatment,

and discrimination (D’Augelli and Hershberger, 1993; Bracy and Cunningham, 1995;Daniel, 2007).

Social work students experience exceptionally high levels of psychological distress

(Tobin and Carson, 1994). Factors shown to buffer or moderate stress and burnoutinclude positive coping strategies, social network support, and temperament (Jacobs

and Dodd, 2003; DeLongis and Holtzman, 2005). Attempts to reduce student stress inuniversity settings include stress management programs and ‘one-shot’ stress and/or

time management workshops (e.g. Heaman, 1995; Dziegielewski et al., 2004). Supportacross multiple dimensions, including social support, is a recognized protective factor

in the context of student retention, and this exploratory study examines whetherattending a support group for graduate students increased perceptions of social

support among participating students in an MSW program at a predominately whiteinstitution. This study is the first attempt the authors are aware of to implement andevaluate a multi-faceted group intervention with social work students intended to

develop and/or enhance both student social supports and coping strategies, such asstress and time management skills.

Method

The university Institutional Review Board approved the study, with appropriate

safeguards for student confidentiality. Informed consent documents wereattached to the instrument (see below) that was offered to all students in the

program at the start of the academic year. A research assistant coded thesedocuments, as well as subsequent group attendance data and pre–post instruments,

to ensure student confidentiality and to match pre–post responses with groupattendance or non-attendance for those students who gave informed consent

documents. Students who did not give informed consent were not included in thestudy (see below). To better protect student confidentiality within the student body,and to encourage group attendance, demographic data were not tracked. This

limited the depth of the data analysis, in that data from students of diversebackgrounds and from white, non-Hispanic students could not be analyzed

separately for comparison purposes.

The Group Intervention

A free, confidential and professionally led support group was offered to MSWstudents. The goal of the group, from the social work department’s perspective, was to

4 W. J. Casstevens et al.

Downloaded By: [Riggs, Mimi] At: 14:47 27 May 2011

increase perceived social support and stress management skills in order to improve

graduate student retention. The group provided a university-sponsored venue wherestudents could seek and obtain peer support through socializing, networking and

problem-solving; in addition, students could take the opportunity to develop stressmanagement strategies with input and support from a licensed clinical social worker

experienced in group work, who was not a graduate faculty member of the MSWprogram.

The MSW Student Support Group began during the fall semester as a processgroup, where group members would discuss their needs or concerns and the group

leader would provide support and interventions as needed. Even though there was nota ‘planned’ activity, there was a structure. The group began with general group rules,

such as being respectful and maintaining confidentiality, then moved on to an ice-

breaker. Once discussion started, a theme-related activity was initiated by the groupleader as needed. The group would end by identifying a goal for each individual as a

closure activity. Themes and activities included the following: developing a life-balance wheel as a visual tool; going on a ‘mini mental vacation’; identifying energy

drainers; and stress management and time management techniques.For the life-balance wheel exercise, the participants were given a poster board and

asked to draw a giant circle which was divided into segments that included differentparts of life, such as: Financial, Leisure, Physical Environment, Family, Friends,

Romance, Health, Fitness, Personal Growth, and School. On a scale of 0–10 (0 beingcompletely unfulfilled and 10 being completely fulfilled), they were asked to color in

the degree of fulfillment for each activity. This was a vivid visualization of how‘balanced’ or ‘unbalanced’ each participant’s life was. Participants as a group then

discussed how to find more balance and fulfillment in their lives. The goal was forparticipants to review the wheel later and to continue working on balancing and

fulfilling their lives.The ‘mini mental vacation’ was a creative visualization exercise, where the group

leader asked participants to describe a place they felt safe, happy and satisfied. Thiscould be a real place, or one that was fantasy. Participants were asked to use all of their

senses to describe this place. This would be a place they could go to in their mindsanytime they were overstressed, even if it was for just a few minutes, to take that ‘mini

mental vacation’. The identification of participants’ energy drainers helpedparticipants to see what could be decreased in their lives to help manage stress.

Group members were always encouraged to utilize each other for support duringgroup sessions as well as outside of group. Because of low attendance at these groups,

in some instances the actual process that took place more closely resembled individualtherapy than group work.

Due to student time constraints and scheduling issues that arose during the fallsemester, it was decided to offer the groups during student field seminars (see below)

as a more structured and one-time only event during the second semester, instead ofweekly. Since these were one-time only events, field seminar instructors were asked to

follow up with students about group topic/focus preferences. Instructors did so, andreported that students had requested time management and stress management

Social Work Education 5

Downloaded By: [Riggs, Mimi] At: 14:47 27 May 2011

techniques. This one-time only group followed a similar structure to the process

groups. During the discussion portion, each group member was asked to discuss onestress and/or time management technique that had worked for them. In addition,

several handouts regarding time and stress management strategies were distributedand discussed. Group members were once again encouraged to continue utilizing each

other for support outside of the group.For the one-time only groups, each participant was given a time management

handout. During this exercise participants entered on the handout the amount of hoursspent on the following activities: classes, studying, sleeping, exercise, work/internship,family commitments, personal care, meal prep/eating/clean up, transportation,

relaxing, socializing, and ‘other’. Time management strategies were discussedsubsequently, and included: developing blocks of study time; prioritizing assignments;

alternative study places free from distractions; reviewing study techniques; ‘to do’ lists;and using a daily or weekly planner. A stress management sheet was also handed out

and discussed. This handout covered stress management strategies. These strategiesincluded items such as maintaining physical health, social support, and self care, and

using music, a positive attitude, and laughter. As always, group members wereencouraged to continue utilizing each other for support outside of the group.

Group Scheduling and Participation

The intervention initially consisted of a weekly group led by a licensed clinical social

worker of Asian Indian background and located in the Student Center on campus. TheStudent Center location was chosen to reinforce confidentiality for participants.

Despite previous student requests for such a group, initial weekly attendance wasextremely low, consisting of one, two, or (in all but two instances during the fall

semester) zero students. Attempts were made to increase group attendance by: (a)changing location from the Student Center to a graduate classroom building; and (b)

adjusting group timing to coordinate closely with the graduate course schedule. Afterthese shifts during the second semester, one group had three attendees; the second

(and last) weekly group had one attendee. Student feedback was solicited via an emailsent to the MSW student email listserv; responses from several students indicated thatthe additional time outlay to attend a group was not feasible even with location and

scheduling changes.As noted above, the weekly group format was discontinued early in the second

semester and the group was instead offered during each of the graduate field seminarsas a structured, one-time only event. The field placement experience, a required part of

any social work program, at this MSW program included a required monthly fieldseminar on campus. The field seminar provided a venue for students to both share

field experiences, and benefit from professional, invited speakers’ practice expertise.The latter aspect of the field seminar made the inclusion of the structured one-timegroup event practical. Field seminar instructors exited the classroom during the group.

This scheduling shift led to attendance and participation that did not take time awayfrom students’ other commitments.

6 W. J. Casstevens et al.

Downloaded By: [Riggs, Mimi] At: 14:47 27 May 2011

Only MSW students who were enrolled in field placements participated in the

structured group event. This included full-time first and second year studentsand second and third year part-time students, all of whom were in field. It

excluded part-time, first year students who were not yet scheduled to be in field. Thetwo first-year field seminar instructors chose to combine seminars, so three groups

took place. The combined seminars made up one group of 14 students; the other twogroups consisted of 10 and nine students each. Of the 39 MSW students enrolled in

field, a total of 32 students attended the structured group event. The absent studentswere included in the comparison group, which otherwise consisted of those part-timefirst year students not yet in field (see below). According to the LCSW group leader,

student engagement and response during each group event was enthusiastic andpositive.

Evaluation: The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support

In order to address the research question of whether student perception of socialsupport increased post intervention, relative to perception of social support in a

comparison group that did not receive the intervention, a standardized measure ofsocial support was used. This was Zimet, Dahlem, Zimet, and Farley’s Multi-

dimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS; Corcoran and Fischer, 2000).The MSPSS was used with permission of Dr Gregory Zimet (personalcorrespondence, 2007) and is a Likert scale instrument with a global score, and

three subscales which measure perceived support received from significant others,family members, and friends. The MSPSS has good internal consistency and good

construct validity for both its global and subscale constructs (Corcoran and Fischer,2000; Clara et al., 2003). It is widely used as a measure of social support, and

standardized for use with students with a mean age of 26.5 years from diversebackgrounds (Corcoran and Fischer, 2000). The mean age of the study sample was 30

years old.The MSPSS was administered to MSW students at three points during the

academic year: (a) the fall semester, prior to the first process group; (b) after the lastprocess group early in the second semester, but prior to the first group eventembedded in a field seminar; and (c) late in the second semester, after the last group

event embedded in a field seminar. Responses were voluntary, and completedinstruments were coded to preserve confidentiality while allowing for computation of

pre–post difference scores for respondents who completed instruments at points (a)and (b), and respondents who completed instruments at points (b) and (c). Since

responses were voluntary, a student could have completed the MSPSS at zero, one,two, or three points during the year. Data from students who completed either the

first and second, the second and third, or the first, second and third, instrumentscould be used for analysis (see below). The MSPSS was distributed to all MSWstudents as an in-class hand-out attached to an informed consent form, and

administered by a non-social work student responsible for collecting and coding allinstruments.

Social Work Education 7

Downloaded By: [Riggs, Mimi] At: 14:47 27 May 2011

Sampling Frame

This project utilized the MSW student body (n ¼ 62) as its sampling frame. Due to

program entrance requirements, all students were mature students with at least twoyears of post-baccalaureate work experience prior to admission. As noted above, 39students were enrolled in field placements and seminars during the second semester.

Of the students in field, 67% were white non-Hispanic, and 33% were from ethnicallydiverse backgrounds; as was noted above, of the total MSW student population 68%

were white non-Hispanic, and 33% were from diverse backgrounds (percentages donot total 100 due to rounding). Students were predominately female. In sum, 33% of

these non-traditional students came from culturally diverse backgrounds.Assignment to intervention or comparison group was determined by student

attendance or non-attendance of at least one group. For analysis purposes, in addition,students needed to have completed both pre and post MSPSS instruments so that pre–post differences could be computed. The decision to include attendees of a single

group meeting in the intervention group was based upon Dziegielewski et al.’s (2004)report of change following a single 45-minute seminar on stress that was presented by

a licensed clinical social worker. The pre–post design was quasi-experimental, and thenumber of process group attendees (n ¼ 5, see below) was insufficient for meaningful

analysis.Forty-three of the 62 MSW students completed both pre and post instruments

during the second semester, a response rate of 69%. Sixty-one of the 62 students gaveinformed consent and completed at least one MSPSS instrument over the course of the

academic year, implying that the MSW students were motivated to contribute data forresearch purposes.

MSPSS Data Analysis

Repeated measures analyses of variance were conducted using SAS software to

determine the effect of attending the structured group event. It was anticipated thatpositive change would be greater for the intervention group than for the comparison

group over MSPSS scale scores for graduate student respondents, all of whom werenon-traditional students.

Findings

During the initial weekly support groups, five students participated, and two of these

students attended two groups. Statistical analysis of the MSPSS data was notattempted, due to the small sample size. During the structured group events embedded

in second semester field seminars, however, 32 students participated. Students whoattended a structured group event and who completed both pre and post MSPSSinstruments in the second semester comprised the intervention group (n ¼ 25);

students who did not attend a structured group event and who completed both preand post MSPSS instruments in the second semester comprised the comparison group

8 W. J. Casstevens et al.

Downloaded By: [Riggs, Mimi] At: 14:47 27 May 2011

(n ¼ 18). Because of confidentiality constraints, data on students from culturally

diverse backgrounds could not be distinguished from that of the other non-traditionalstudent participants.

No significant differences were found between the intervention and comparisongroup for any of the three subscales or for the global score of the MSPSS using level ofsignificance alpha ¼ 0.05 (see Table 1). This remained the case when the two outliers

were dropped from the intervention group (for n ¼ 23). In sum, perception of socialsupport ratings of intervention group participants did not increase relative to those in

the comparison group.All study participants were non-traditional students, and the above findings were

unexpected, based on the literature. Due to confidentiality constraints, as well as thenumbers of paired pre–post MSPSS responses, results across ethnic groupings could

not be meaningfully compared. Based on informed consent data, once these formswere separated from the completed instruments, eight students (35%) of the

intervention group (n ¼ 23) were from diverse backgrounds. While this isproportional to the percentage of students from diverse backgrounds in field seminar(33%), the actual number involved is too low for analysis of variance, even if

Institutional Review Board approved research protocols had permitted the associationof individual instrument responses and ethnicity.

Follow-up Survey Questionnaire

The results of MSPSS data analysis were unexpected, in that the intervention had nomeasureable impact on perceived social support. This led to the development of a follow-

up survey questionnaire that focused on student reactions to the structured groupembedded in the field seminars. The follow-up survey took place in the fall semester of

the academic year that followed the spring semester intervention. The total MSW studentpopulation for this academic year was: 53% white non-Hispanic, 40% African American,

and 8% other racial or ethnic groups (percentage total exceeds 100 due to rounding).The questionnaire consisted of two yes/no questions, and eight open-ended questions.

Open-ended questions asked for students’ perceptions of the group leader, and howstudents found the group affected their: (a) perceptions of support from the graduateprogram; (b) perceptions of support from peers in the program; (c) MSW peer

networking and/or friendship development; (d) time management behaviors; and(e) ability to cope with stress, and/or stress management behaviors. In addition,

Table 1 Pre–Post MSPSS Differences: ANOVA Results at the Level of SignificanceAlpha ¼ 0.05.

Measure F ratio p value

Significant other subscale 0.20 0.6549Family subscale 1.01 0.3204Friends subscale 1.05 0.3107Total score 0.19 0.6620

Social Work Education 9

Downloaded By: [Riggs, Mimi] At: 14:47 27 May 2011

students were asked about their reasons for a yes/no recommendation to repeat or not

repeat the group, and if the group was helpful (the second yes/no question) how it washelpful. This voluntary questionnaire was administered anonymously via Survey-

Monkey, and was sent to the email addresses of students who had been in field seminarduring the semester that the group took place, including students who had

subsequently graduated. Due to the small sample size and confidentiality constraints,responses from students of diverse backgrounds cannot be distinguished from the

other non-traditional student responses. Survey responses are discussed below.

Time—A Critical Issue

As earlier listserv feedback had suggested, it was clear that time was a critical issue for

these non-traditional students: although students had suggested that the social workdepartment offer the group, for the most part students did not attend until the groupwas embedded in an already existing course structure, i.e. the field seminar. The group

leader reported that the few students attending the initial process groups were activelyengaged, and that this level of engagement continued in the structured groups during

the field seminars. In the follow-up questionnaire regarding the structured groupsduring the field seminars one student commented:

There was so much stress in the MSW program. For those of us with full-time jobs,juggling the program, internship, employment, and family responsibility can beoverwhelming at times. Having an LCSW to come into Seminar . . . and talk withthe class about OUR needs was a breath of fresh air. I would highly recommend thisbe continued.

Cohort Response Differences

Seventeen students responded to the follow-up questionnaire about the structuredgroup events, and responses to the open-ended questions were mixed. On the one

hand, students stated:

I felt as though it showed us students that the faculty is tapping into all networks tosupport and teach us.

I think that we support each other very strongly, and that this experience just madethat support even more available.

It was very instrumental; through this group I heard a lot of my peer’s struggles andchallenges and made me closer to them.

On the other hand, students remarked:

My peers within the program is what has kept me afloat during times of extremefrustration. The group experience really didn’t add to my perception. My peersupport in the MSW program has been my lifeline!

I don’t think this one-time group experience affected the peernetworking/friendship development. That had already been forged.

10 W. J. Casstevens et al.

Downloaded By: [Riggs, Mimi] At: 14:47 27 May 2011

To be honest, this group came at the end of my internship experience. I was past thestressful times and actually quite carefree when I attended the group. I suggesthaving the group earlier during the field experience, maybe the first year?

Based on these varied responses, it seems likely that the second year students hadalready developed both supportive peer networks and effective stress management

skills, and may have found the group unnecessary and/or redundant. First yearstudents, by contrast, may have found the opportunity for networking, peer support,

and skill development both constructive and timely. As previously noted, data fromstudents of diverse backgrounds and white, non-Hispanic students are reported

together due to study confidentiality constraints. Responses may have differed betweenthese groups, and this is something future research can and should address.

Advertising the Support Group

The group was well-advertised, through flyers in student mailboxes, regularly repeated

email notices, and announcements by professors in MSW classes. Even so, one studentremarked about the structured groups on the follow-up questionnaire that:

I didn’t understand that the session was created by the department in order tosupport us. I thought it was just like any other speaker that we had in field class.

Apparently, faculty and program communication efforts did not reach all MSW

students, despite repeated attempts and the use of a variety of communication media.

Implications and Conclusions

It is of interest that although students requested the support group, and participated indiscussions of how to make it more user-friendly once implemented, attendance did

not increase until the group was embedded in a pre-existing course structure, i.e. thefield seminars. This was true despite the fact that students had originally requested the

support group and continued to express ongoing interest in it, both in person verbally,and via emailed correspondence. The lack of attendance at the initial group offerings,

therefore, surprised investigators.It is also interesting that no measurable change in perception of social support was

found for students who did attend the group embedded in the field seminar. This may

have been an artifact of the MSPSS instrument, as scoring may have been affected bysocial response bias. Zimet et al. (1990) report that MSPSS subscale results suggested

‘that there is a tendency for this instrument to pull for socially desirable responses’ (p.616). This tendency may have led to high initial scores that then made it difficult or

impossible to detect any small to moderate changes that might otherwise haveoccurred. It is also possible that non-traditional students who are able to successfully

complete a year in graduate school succeed in doing so at least in part because of astrong perception of support across several domains.

The finding of no measurable change in perception of social support could be due at

least in part to the aggregate computation of first and second year student responses.Based on responses to the follow-up survey questionnaire, the reaction of first and

Social Work Education 11

Downloaded By: [Riggs, Mimi] At: 14:47 27 May 2011

second year graduate students may actually have differed. Because of confidentiality

constraints, this could not be more closely examined.Due to sample size, this study was unable to directly address issues related to

diversity, and future research needs to further explore the responses of diverse groupsof students to various interventions. Retention factors may vary between cohorts, and

between students from culturally diverse backgrounds and their white, non-Hispanicpeers. In addition, the needs of first and second year graduate students should be

explored separately, as these needs may well be different.Statistical results are limited by sample size and non-random assignment to group.

This being said, the following suggestion for non-traditional student retention efforts

can be made. Departments or programs may want to focus non-traditional studentretention efforts on coordinating structured groups within classroom settings to

encourage the development of supportive peer relationships early in programs. If suchgroups take place during class-time in the first semester of graduate work, they could

provide a ‘jump start’ to peer network building, something that survey feedbackindicated was of critical importance to students during their graduate program.

In full-time programs that offer a field seminar, positioning these groups within thefield seminar can occur with minimal disruption of already existing course structures.

In part-time programs where students do not enter field during their first year, orin programs which do not offer a field seminar, the logistics of coordinating suchgroups may be more complex. Based on the researchers’ experience, groups need to be

embedded in a pre-existing course structure to be well attended. Including astructured one-shot group experience in either a human behavior or a foundation

practice class might be a feasible alternative to positioning the group in a field seminar.Survey feedback also implied that communication among program faculty, staff,

administrators and graduate students was not always optimal, even when deliberateefforts were made to communicate. Creating formal pathways for communication,

such as structured advising/mentoring procedures, may be helpful here; it is alsoimportant to avoid assuming graduate students either know about, or understand,university and program resources, procedures, or protocols. Finally, something to

explore further through both program development (e.g. outreach to families duringprogram orientations) and future research is the role of student support networks

consisting of family members and significant others.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank North Carolina State University for Faculty Researchand Professional Development funding, Dr Jason A. Osborne for assistance with the

SAS analysis, and Research Assistants Marianne Latz, MSW and Kathryn Logan, MSW.

References

Benseman, J., Coxon, E., Anderson, H. & Anae, M. (2006) ‘Retaining non-traditional students:lessons learnt from Pasifika students in New Zealand’, Higher Education Research &Development, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 147–162.

12 W. J. Casstevens et al.

Downloaded By: [Riggs, Mimi] At: 14:47 27 May 2011

Berger, R. (1992) ‘Student retention: a critical issue in the academic careers of minority baccalaureatesocial workers’, Journal of Social Work Education, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 85–97.

Bowie, S. L. & Hancock, H. (2000) ‘African Americans and graduate social work education: a study ofcareer choice influences and strategies to reverse enrollment decline’, Journal of Social WorkEducation, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 429–448.

Bracy, W. D. & Cunningham, M. (1995) ‘Factors contributing to the retention of minority students:implications for incorporating diversity’, The Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work, vol. 1, no. 1,pp. 85–95.

Clara, I. P., Cox, B. J., Enns, M. W., Murray, L. T. & Torgrudc, L. J. (2003) ‘Confirmatory factoranalysis of the multidimensional scale of perceived social support in clinically distressed andstudent samples’, Journal of Personality Assessment, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 265–270.

Corcoran, K. J. & Fischer, J. (2000) Measures for Clinical Practice: A Sourcebook. Vol. 2: Adults, 3rdedn. The Free Press, New York.

Council on Social Work Education, Inc. (CSWE) (2001) CSWE Educational Policy and AccreditationStandards: Revised June 2003 and October 2004 [online]. Available at: http://www.cswe.org/NRjNR/rdonlyres/, accessed 7 March 2007.

Daniel, C. A. (2007) ‘Outsiders-within: critical race theory, graduate education and barriers toprofessionalization’, Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 25–42.

D’Augelli, A. R. & Hershberger, S. L. (1993) ‘African American undergraduates on a predominatelywhite campus: academic factors, social networks, and campus climate’, The Journal of NegroEducation, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 67–81.

DeLongis, A. & Holtzman, S. (2005) ‘Coping in context: the role of stress, social support, andpersonality in coping’, Journal of Personality, vol. 73, no. 6, pp. 1–24.

Dziegielewski, S. F., Turnage, B. & Roest-Marti, S. (2004) ‘Addressing stress with social workstudents: a controlled evaluation’, Journal of Social Work Education, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 105–119.

Glogowska, M., Young, P. & Lockyer, L. (2007) ‘Should I go or should I stay?: a study of factorsinfluencing students’ decisions on early leaving’, Active Learning in Higher Education, vol. 8,no. 1, pp. 63–77.

Heaman, D. (1995) ‘The quieting response (QR): a modality for reduction of psychophysiologicstress in nursing students’, Journal of Nursing Education, vol. 34, pp. 5–10.

Jacobs, S. R. & Dodd, D. K. (2003) ‘Student burnout as a function of personality, social support, andworkload’, Journal of College Student Development, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 291–303.

Kobrak, P. (1992) ‘Black student retention in predominately White regional universities: the politicsof faculty involvement’, The Journal of Negro Education, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 509–530.

McAllister, C. A., Harold, R. D., Ahmedani, B. K. & Cramer, E. P. (2009) ‘Targeted mentoring:evaluation of a program’, Journal of Social Work Education, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 89–104.

NASW NEWS (2001) CSWE Standard Reviewed [online]. Available at: http://www.naswdc.org/pubs/news/2001/05/cswe.htm, accessed 7 March 2007.

Perna, L. W. (2007) ‘The sources of racial–ethnic group differences in college enrollment: a criticalexamination’, New Directions for Institutional Research, vol. 2007, no. 133, pp. 51–66.

Ramsey, D. E. & Thompson, J. C. (1994) ‘Mentoring: a professional commitment’, Journal of NationalBlack Nurses’ Association, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 68–76.

Tobin, P. J. & Carson, J. (1994) ‘Stress and the student social worker’, Social Work & Social SciencesReview, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 246–255.

Zimet, G. D., Powell, S. S., Farley, G. K., Werkman, S. & Berkoff, K. A. (1990) ‘Psychometriccharacteristics of the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support’, Journal ofPersonality Assessment, vol. 55, no. 3 & 4, pp. 610–617.

Social Work Education 13

Downloaded By: [Riggs, Mimi] At: 14:47 27 May 2011