










































64       Columbia Social Work Review, Volume V

Columbia School of Social Work Can Better Support Development 
of Effective Writing Skills

Editorial Board

 The Editorial Board of the Columbia Social Work Review 
holds a firm conviction that social workers must possess advanced 
written communication skills to serve individuals and communities and 
advance the field as a whole. To pair this conviction with action, the 
Board conducted a survey to explore student experiences with writing 
in graduate studies at Columbia School of Social Work (CSSW). The 
surveyed students agreed that effective writing skills are imperative for 
social work professionals, and they overwhelmingly wanted the school 
to do more to help them develop these skills. Although students highly 
valued writing, their enthusiasm did not always translate into perceptions 
of adequate writing instruction, exposure to diverse writing assignments, 
or adequate institutional support. As editors of a student-run journal, we 
believe in the value of cogent writing to our field, and we feel compelled 
to share this student perspective as a contribution to a meaningful 
discussion on writing at CSSW. This editorial uses student opinion from 
survey data to underscore the value of critical writing skills to the social 
work profession, and recommends ways that school supports can be 
enhanced to match student need. The goal of this editorial is to enrich the 
scholarly and professional nature of CSSW.

Why Write About Writing?

 The idea for this editorial emerged from a series of conversations 
between editors of the Review and members of the CSSW community. 
At a Review-sponsored event in the fall, students expressed a desire to 
challenge themselves through written assignments, and many placed a 
high value on writing in social work education and in the profession. 
Recognizing this was part of a larger issue, the Editorial Board wanted to 
engage in formative research to determine the writing skills that students 
learn, apply, and expect to utilize in their careers. Further, the Board 
hoped to assess the extent to which students receive adequate instruction 
and support in developing their writing skills during their time at CSSW.  



   Columbia Social Work Review, Volume V       65

Editorial Board

Last, we wanted to explore innovative changes to improve the student 
experience of writing at CSSW. 
 To do this, the Editorial Board of the Review designed a survey 
about specific written assignments, the development of writing skills at 
CSSW, the importance of writing in social work, the resources students 
have utilized, and the additional supports that might be helpful for 
students. Although the majority of questions were closed-ended, 
there were two open-ended questions for students to provide qualitative 
comments and offer new suggestions for changes to the CSSW 
experience. The Board used Google Forms to administer the 
survey, a copy of which is available on the Review’s website, 
http://cswr.columbia.edu.
 The Writing Center and the Office of Academic Affairs 
sponsored the survey, and the Office of Student Services approved 
the questionnaire. On behalf of the Review, the Writing Center sent 
an e-mail message with the survey link to the 997 currently enrolled 
Master of Science students, and the Board advertised the survey on 
social media. Participation was voluntary, and respondents were not 
compensated. Seventy (N=70) students completed the questionnaire, 
and the breakdown of students by program and method of practice is 
presented in Table 1. Demographic information (age, race, gender) was 
not gathered due to sensitivity concerns from CSSW departments. Of 
the 70 respondents, 10 reported that English was not their first language, 
50 said they were native English speakers, and 10 did not respond to 
this question; 8 international students took part in the survey. These 
percentages of non-native speakers and international students (17 
and 11 percent respectively) are roughly comparable with school-wide 
levels of 12-15 percent available on the CSSW website (see 
http://socialwork.columbia.edu/about-cssw-0, 2014). 

What the Survey Tells Us

 Although all current M.S. students received a link to the survey, 
the voluntary nature of the survey creates a respondent bias—students 
who completed the survey were probably more likely to have an interest 
in the topic of writing or be different from the student body in some 
other way. Therefore, statistical tests of significance were not conducted 
because the sample would not have satisfied all necessary assumptions. 
The following section discusses trends among responses. 



66       Columbia Social Work Review, Volume V

Developing Writing Skills at CSSW

Ta
bl

e 
1.

  N
um

be
rs

 o
f R

es
po

nd
en

ts
 b

y 
Pr

og
ra

m
 a

nd
 M

et
ho

d 
of

 P
ra

ct
ic

e

Pr
og

ra
m

A
dv

an
ce

d 
C

lin
ic

al
 

Pr
ac

tic
e 

(A
C

P)

A
dv

an
ce

d 
G

en
er

-
al

is
t P

ra
ct

ic
e 

an
d 

Pr
og

ra
m

m
in

g 
(A

G
PP

)
Po

lic
y 

Pr
ac

tic
e

So
ci

al
 E

nt
er

-
pr

is
e A

d-
m

in
is

tra
tio

n 
(S

EA
)

U
nd

ec
id

-
ed

To
ta

ls

2-
Ye

ar
 P

ro
gr

am
18

13
5

14
1

51

16
-M

on
th

2
—

—
—

—
2

A
dv

an
ce

d 
St

an
di

ng
2

3
2

1
—

8

D
ua

l D
eg

re
e

3
1

1
1

1
7

Ex
te

nd
ed

 P
ro

gr
am

1
—

1
—

—
2

R
ed

uc
ed

 R
es

id
en

cy
—

—
—

—
—

0

To
ta

ls
 

26
17

9
16

2
70



   Columbia Social Work Review, Volume V       67

Editorial Board

 CSSW’s student body believes that a diverse array of writing 
skills are necessary for professional social workers—the most convincing 
results from the survey. At least eight out of 10 respondents (82%) 
noted that it was “very important” to articulate a clear thesis and 
write persuasively, compile and analyze research, possess editing and 
proofreading skills, use professional language, use sensitive language, 
and write concisely and directly (Table 2). The only skill that students 
did not find as important as the above issues was writing in APA style. 
Despite the consensus on the importance of writing skills, fewer (62 
percent or more) agreed that coursework and field instruction have 
helped them adequately develop all of these skills (Table 3). 
 Although general, instructional, and written assignment 
satisfaction ratings were mixed, the survey results overwhelmingly 
suggest that students crave more feedback from instructors. Although 
70% of respondents reported feeling “satisfied or very satisfied” with 
CSSW’s contribution to the development of their writing skills, 53% 
of respondents rated the instruction for written tasks unfavorably (“fair 
or poor”). This suggests that students are able to develop their writing 
skills to a satisfactory level, even while they may not be satisfied with 
writing instruction. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of the responding students 
rated instructor feedback as “fair or poor,” suggesting that teachers can 
do more to help students grow from each assignment. Indeed, in the 
open-ended responses, one student stated her appreciation of instructor 
feedback: “I enjoy constructive criticism so I can grow as a writer. I want 
to read my professor’s interpretation of my writing, areas of strength, 
and areas of growth. The more feedback, the better.” Eighty-four percent 
(84%) of respondents said greater feedback on assignments would be 
“very helpful.” More research is needed to assess the extent to which 
students develop their skills through practice, peer interactions, or other 
supports, as opposed to faculty. It is also important to consider that 
although students enter our program with a certain writing ability from 
undergraduate studies and work experience, they often leave needing to 
write in a much different role and context. 
 Some student experiences differed across method of practice. 
Only 50% of Social Entrepreneurship Administration (SEA) students felt 
they had developed the ability to write clearly and persuasively, that is, to 
the standards required in their intended career path, compared to 68% of 
all respondents. This may reflect a greater focus on written work and 



68       Columbia Social Work Review, Volume V

Developing Writing Skills at CSSW

Ta
bl

e 
2.

  P
er

ce
iv

ed
 Im

po
rt

an
ce

 o
f C

er
ta

in
 W

ri
tin

g 
Sk

ill
s, 

Ex
pr

es
se

d 
in

 P
er

ce
nt

ag
es

Sk
ill

Ve
ry

 im
-

po
rta

nt
So

m
ew

ha
t 

im
po

rta
nt

A
 li

ttl
e 

im
po

rta
nt

N
ot

 a
t a

ll 
im

po
rta

nt
D

on
’t 

kn
ow

A
bi

lit
y 

to
 a

rti
cu

la
te

 a
 c

le
ar

 th
es

is
 

an
d 

w
rit

e 
pe

rs
ua

si
ve

ly
94

6
—

—
—

A
bi

lit
y 

to
 c

om
pi

le
 a

nd
 a

na
ly

ze
 

re
se

ar
ch

82
16

1
—

—

Ed
iti

ng
 o

r p
ro

of
re

ad
in

g 
sk

ill
s

88
10

1
—

—

U
si

ng
 p

ro
fe

ss
io

na
l l

an
gu

ag
e

93
7

—
—

—

U
si

ng
 se

ns
iti

ve
 la

ng
ua

ge
88

9
1

—
1

W
rit

in
g 

co
nc

is
el

y 
an

d 
di

re
ct

ly
99

1
—

—
—

W
rit

in
g 

in
 A

PA
 S

ty
le

37
30

19
4

—

N
ot

e.
  T

ex
t o

f t
he

 q
ue

st
io

n:
 “

H
ow

 im
po

rta
nt

 o
r u

ni
m

po
rta

nt
 d

o 
yo

u 
be

lie
ve

 it
 is

 fo
r g

ra
du

at
es

 o
f C

SS
W

 to
 

po
ss

es
s t

he
 fo

llo
w

in
g 

sk
ill

s?
”



   Columbia Social Work Review, Volume V       69

Editorial Board

Ta
bl

e 
3.

  E
xt

en
t t

o 
W

hi
ch

 C
ou

rs
ew

or
k 

an
d 

Fi
el

d 
In

st
ru

ct
io

n 
H

as
 D

ev
el

op
ed

 C
er

ta
in

 W
ri

tin
g 

Sk
ill

s, 
Ex

pr
es

se
d 

in
 P

er
ce

nt
ag

es

Sk
ill

St
ro

ng
ly

 
A

gr
ee

A
gr

ee
D

is
ag

re
e

St
ro

ng
ly

 
D

is
ag

re
e

D
on

’t 
kn

ow
A

bi
lit

y 
to

 a
rti

cu
la

te
 a

 c
le

ar
 th

es
is

 
an

d 
w

rit
e 

pe
rs

ua
si

ve
ly

21
47

24
7

1

A
bi

lit
y 

to
 c

om
pi

le
 a

nd
 a

na
ly

ze
 

re
se

ar
ch

18
56

21
3

3

Ed
iti

ng
 o

r p
ro

of
re

ad
in

g 
sk

ill
s

16
46

24
10

4

U
si

ng
 p

ro
fe

ss
io

na
l l

an
gu

ag
e

21
58

13
5

1

U
si

ng
 se

ns
iti

ve
 la

ng
ua

ge
25

57
9

6
3

W
rit

in
g 

co
nc

is
el

y 
an

d 
di

re
ct

ly
27

52
12

7
1

W
rit

in
g 

in
 A

PA
 S

ty
le

40
40

18
1

1

N
ot

e.
  T

ex
t o

f t
he

 q
ue

st
io

n:
 “

H
ow

 m
uc

h 
do

 y
ou

 a
gr

ee
 o

r d
is

ag
re

e 
w

ith
 th

e 
fo

llo
w

in
g 

st
at

em
en

t: 
‘C

SS
W

’s
 

co
ur

se
w

or
k 

an
d 

fie
ld

 in
st

ru
ct

io
n 

ha
ve

 h
el

pe
d 

m
e 

de
ve

lo
p 

th
e 

fo
llo

w
in

g 
sk

ill
s t

o 
th

e 
st

an
da

rd
s r

eq
ui

re
d 

in
 m

y 
in

te
nd

ed
 c

ar
ee

r p
at

h.
’”



70       Columbia Social Work Review, Volume V

Developing Writing Skills at CSSW

communication skills in typical SEA careers; coursework in this method 
of practice should therefore address this unique challenge. Advanced 
Clinical Practice (ACP) students rated instruction for written assignments 
less favorably than respondents overall: 69% of ACP students gave 
unfavorable ratings (“fair or poor”) to the instruction received for writing 
that they expect to be called on to do in the five years after graduating, 
compared to 53% overall. ACP’s emphasis on practical, clinical skills 
may account for these lower scores on instruction, as discussion of these 
assignments likely occupies less class time. Yet ACP students think these 
writing skills, like composing letters, are equally important to learn and 
develop. Thus, more attention might be paid to the role of writing in 
clinical practice. 
 A further disconnect exists between what students currently 
complete as part of their graduate studies and what students expect 
to do after graduation (Table 4). When asked about the frequency of 
completing certain writing tasks, respondents reported that they most 
commonly completed process recordings, academic papers, reflection 
papers, and progress notes/documentation. However, the writing tasks 
that people expect to execute after graduation include writing letters, 
progress notes/documentation, and program and proposal development 
pieces (see Figures 1-3). Although students’ expectations are opinion-
based assessment of future career tasks, we believe that a better mix of 
practical writing skills needs to be taught in the curriculum to prepare 
students for the diverse written tasks of our profession. For example, 
78% of respondents expect to write program proposal and development 
papers “sometimes or very often” after graduating, but only 38% of 
respondents work on these pieces with such frequency at CSSW (see 
Figure 4). Moreover, 54% of ACP students expect to write program and 
proposal development grants at least “sometimes” within five years of 
graduating, but 77% of these students currently write these kinds of 
papers “rarely or not at all.” In comparison, more than half of AGPP, 
Policy, and SEA students write these papers “sometimes or very often.” 
Furthermore, at least 31% of respondents reported that they were unable 
to assess the quality of instruction for how to write letters, program 
proposals, and opinion pieces. A more in-depth assessment should be 
done to see if students feel a strong need for more instruction around 
these tasks, and if these exercises would be beneficial for students.
 Survey results highlighted the contribution of the Writing Center 
to the CSSW academic community (Table 5). Of those who took 



   Columbia Social Work Review, Volume V       71

Editorial Board

Ta
bl

e 
4.

  C
om

pa
ra

tiv
e 

Fr
eq

ue
nc

y 
of

 P
re

se
nt

 a
nd

 E
xp

ec
te

d 
As

si
gn

m
en

t C
om

pl
et

io
n 

an
d 

In
st

ru
ct

io
n 

Q
ua

lit
y

A
ss

ig
nm

en
t

“C
ur

re
nt

ly
 C

om
-

pl
et

e”
 F

re
qu

en
cy

“E
xp

ec
t t

o 
C

om
-

pl
et

e”
 F

re
qu

en
cy

D
efi

ci
t (

cu
rr

en
t 

m
in

us
 e

xp
ec

ta
-

tio
ns

)a
Q

ua
lit

y 
of

 In
-

st
ru

ct
io

n

A
ca

de
m

ic
 P

ap
er

s
3.

54
2.

30
1.

25
2.

58
A

dv
oc

ac
y 

Pa
pe

r
2.

64
2.

67
-0

.0
3

2.
63

C
as

e 
St

ud
y/

 N
ar

ra
tiv

e
2.

59
2.

88
-0

.2
9

2.
35

Le
tte

r
2.

12
3.

58
-1

.4
6

2.
11

O
pi

ni
on

 P
ie

ce
2.

17
2.

73
-0

.5
6

2.
24

Po
lic

y 
B

rie
f/A

na
ly

si
s

2.
18

2.
85

-0
.6

7
2.

56
Pr

oc
es

s R
ec

or
di

ng
3.

74
1.

92
1.

82
2.

38
Pr

og
ra

m
 a

nd
 P

ro
po

sa
l D

ev
el

op
m

en
t

2.
06

3.
30

-1
.2

4
2.

36
Pr

og
re

ss
 N

ot
es

/D
oc

um
en

ta
tio

n
3.

16
3.

44
-0

.2
8

2.
34

R
efl

ec
tio

n 
Pa

pe
r

3.
22

1.
92

1.
30

2.
56

N
ot

e.
  T

hi
s t

ab
le

 c
on

ve
rte

d 
re

sp
on

se
s o

f f
re

qu
en

cy
 (1

=N
ev

er
, 2

=R
ar

el
y,

 3
=S

om
et

im
es

, 4
=V

er
y 

O
fte

n)
 a

nd
 q

ua
lit

y 
ra

tin
gs

 (1
=P

oo
r, 

2=
Fa

ir,
 3

=G
oo

d,
 4

=E
xc

el
le

nt
) t

o 
a 

4-
po

in
t s

co
re

.  

a  N
eg

at
iv

e 
nu

m
be

rs
 in

di
ca

te
 th

at
 st

ud
en

ts
 c

ur
re

nt
ly

 w
rit

e 
th

es
e 

as
si

gn
m

en
ts

 w
ith

 le
ss

 fr
eq

ue
nc

y 
th

an
 th

ey
 e

xp
ec

t t
o 

af
te

r g
ra

du
at

io
n.

 P
os

iti
ve

 n
um

be
rs

 in
di

ca
te

 th
at

 st
ud

en
ts

 c
ur

re
nt

ly
 w

rit
e 

th
es

e 
as

si
gn

m
en

ts
 m

or
e 

at
 C

SS
W

 th
an

 th
ey

 
ex

pe
ct

 to
 a

fte
r g

ra
du

at
io

n.



72       Columbia Social Work Review, Volume V

Developing Writing Skills at CSSW

Figure 1.  Student responses to the following two questions: “Since you enrolled 
at CSSW, how often have you had to write Academic Papers for CSSW course-
work or your social work field placement?” and “In the five years immediately 
after completing your studies at CSSW, how often would you expect to complete 
Academic Papers in your career?”

Figure 2.  Student responses to the following two questions: “Since you en-
rolled at CSSW, how often have you had to write Letters for CSSW coursework 
or your social work field placement?” and “In the five years immediately after 
completing your studies at CSSW, how often would you expect to complete 
Letters in your career?”

0

10

20

30

40

50

Perceived Current
Frequency

Expected Future
Frequency

N
um

be
r o

f R
es

po
nd

en
ts

Figure 1.  Comparative Frequency of Present 
and Expected Assignment Completion: 

Academic Papers

Very Often

Sometimes

Rarely

Never

Don't Know

0

10

20

30

40

50

Perceived Current
Frequency

Expected Future
Frequency

N
um

be
r o

f R
es

po
nd

en
ts

Figure 2.  Comparative Frequency of Present 
and Expected Assignment Completion: Letters

Very Often

Sometimes

Rarely

Never

Don't Know



   Columbia Social Work Review, Volume V       73

Editorial Board

Figure 3.  Student responses to the following two questions: “Since you enrolled 
at CSSW, how often have you had to write Reflection Papers for CSSW course-
work or your social work field placement?” and “In the five years immediately 
after completing your studies at CSSW, how often would you expect to complete 
Reflection Papers in your career?”

Figure 4.  Student responses to the following two questions: “Since you enrolled 
at CSSW, how often have you had to write Program Proposal and Development 
Papers for CSSW coursework or your social work field placement?” and “In the 
five years immediately after completing your studies at CSSW, how often would 
you expect to complete Program Proposal and Development Papers in your 
career?”

0

10

20

30

40

Perceived Current
Frequency

Expected Future
Frequency

N
um

be
r o

f R
es

po
nd

en
ts

Figure 3.  Comparative Frequency of Present 
and Expected Assignment Completion: 

Reflection Papers

Very Often

Sometimes

Rarely

Never

Don't Know

0
5

10
15
20
25
30
35

Perceived Current
Frequency

Expected Future
Frequency

N
um

be
r o

f R
es

po
nd

en
ts

Figure 4.  Comparative Frequency of Present 
and Expected Assignment Completion: 
Program Proposals and Development

Very Often

Sometimes

Rarely

Never

Don't Know



74       Columbia Social Work Review, Volume V

Developing Writing Skills at CSSW

advantage of one-on-one appointments, two out of three students 
reported that the sessions were “very helpful,” and only four individuals 
said that the sessions were “not at all helpful” (Table 6). Many students 
praised the Writing Center for contributing to their professional 
development: One believed that the Writing Center helps people “grow 
as students,” and there were calls for extended hours and more staff. It is 
clear that CSSW students have an invaluable resource at their disposal 
that provides an opportunity for students to become more confident 
social work writers and students.
 Respondents made a strong call to increase writing support 
for students (Table 7). Ninety-four percent (94%) of students surveyed 
agreed with the statement, “CSSW should do more to help students 
develop their written communication skills.” Eight out of ten students 
surveyed thought that an optional course—an elective on writing in 
the social work profession—could help students improve their writing 
skills. A majority of respondents (61%) thought that devoting more class 
time to developing writing skills would be helpful. Three out of four 
individuals surveyed said that completing different kinds of assignments 
as part of CSSW coursework would help improve their writing ability. 
To this end, the Editorial Board of the Review has begun to reach out to 
curriculum committees across methods of practice to promote written 
assignments that encourage students to produce thought-provoking 
content relevant to the profession. We support further efforts preparing 
students to be critical thinkers, writers, scholars, and practitioners among 
a new generation of social workers.

Recommendations

 The Review is eager to work with students, faculty, and 
administrators to make improvements to CSSW’s curriculum as it relates 
to written work. 
 Students showed strong support for an optional course on 
writing as part of graduate studies of social work (see Table 7). A 
course could be offered to focus on students’ writing skills, enhance 
understanding of different documents that social workers produce, 
provide detailed feedback on written work, and access peer support. In 
developing the curriculum, surveys could gauge student interest and 
town hall events could encourage students to provide their input. The 
course might address different types of written tasks in the field, and  



   Columbia Social Work Review, Volume V       75

Editorial Board

Ta
bl

e 
5.

  S
tu

de
nt

 U
se

 o
f W

ri
tin

g 
C

en
te

r

Se
rv

ic
e

Ve
ry

 o
fte

n
So

m
et

im
es

R
ar

el
y

N
ev

er
D

on
’t 

K
no

w

O
ne

-o
n-

on
e 

ap
po

in
tm

en
ts

14
13

15
26

1

W
rit

in
g 

C
en

te
r H

an
do

ut
s

14
21

17
17

—

W
rit

in
g 

C
en

te
r E

ve
nt

s
2

14
13

30
1

O
th

er
 W

rit
in

g 
C

en
te

r s
er

vi
ce

s
3

6
13

38
9

To
ta

ls
33

54
58

11
1

11

N
ot

e.
  T

ex
t o

f t
he

 q
ue

st
io

n:
 “

H
ow

 o
fte

n 
ha

ve
 y

ou
 u

se
d 

th
e 

fo
llo

w
in

g 
se

rv
ic

es
 a

t C
SS

W
’s

 W
rit

in
g 

C
en

te
r s

in
e 

yo
u 

en
ro

lle
d 

at
 C

SS
W

?”



76       Columbia Social Work Review, Volume V

Developing Writing Skills at CSSW

Ta
bl

e 
6.

  S
tu

de
nt

 R
at

in
gs

 o
f W

ri
tin

g 
C

en
te

r S
er

vi
ce

sa

Se
rv

ic
e

Ve
ry

 h
el

pf
ul

So
m

ew
ha

t 
he

lp
fu

l
A

 li
ttl

e 
 

he
lp

fu
l

N
ot

 a
t a

ll 
he

lp
fu

l
D

on
’t 

K
no

w

O
ne

-o
n-

on
e 

ap
po

in
tm

en
ts

27
5

5
4

—

W
rit

in
g 

C
en

te
r H

an
do

ut
s

20
16

7
1

2

W
rit

in
g 

C
en

te
r E

ve
nt

s
5

9
6

—
5

O
th

er
 W

rit
in

g 
C

en
te

r s
er

vi
ce

s
7

—
4

—
7

To
ta

ls
59

30
22

5
14

N
ot

e.
 T

ex
t o

f t
he

 q
ue

st
io

n:
 “

If
 y

ou
 h

av
e 

EV
ER

 u
se

d 
th

e 
W

rit
in

g 
C

en
te

r S
er

vi
ce

s, 
ho

w
 h

el
pf

ul
 o

r u
nh

el
pf

ul
 

di
d 

yo
u 

fin
d 

th
e 

se
rv

ic
es

 y
ou

 u
se

d?
”

a  “
N

ot
 a

pp
lic

ab
le

” 
(n

/a
) r

es
po

ns
es

 a
re

 e
xc

lu
de

d 
fr

om
 th

is
 ta

bl
e.

 



   Columbia Social Work Review, Volume V       77

Editorial Board

Ta
bl

e 
7.

  P
er

ce
iv

ed
 H

el
pf

ul
ne

ss
 o

f I
nn

ov
at

iv
e 

O
ffe

ri
ng

s o
r C

ha
ng

es
 a

t C
SS

W

O
ffe

rin
g/

C
ha

ng
e

Ve
ry

  
he

lp
fu

l
So

m
ew

ha
t 

he
lp

fu
l

A
 li

ttl
e 

he
lp

fu
l

N
ot

 a
t a

ll 
he

lp
fu

l
D

on
’t 

K
no

w

A
 re

qu
ire

d 
co

ur
se

 o
n 

w
rit

in
g 

in
 th

e 
so

ci
al

 w
or

k 
pr

of
es

si
on

16
21

15
10

5

A
n 

op
tio

na
l c

ou
rs

e 
on

 w
rit

in
g 

in
 th

e 
so

ci
al

 w
or

k 
pr

of
es

si
on

38
17

5
5

2

M
or

e 
cl

as
s t

im
e 

de
vo

te
d 

to
 d

ev
el

op
in

g 
w

rit
in

g 
sk

ill
s

27
14

16
8

2

D
iff

er
en

t a
ss

ig
nm

en
ts

 th
at

 b
et

te
r h

el
p 

st
ud

en
ts

 d
ev

el
op

 w
rit

in
g 

sk
ill

s
29

22
12

1
3

M
or

e 
fe

ed
ba

ck
 o

n 
as

si
gn

m
en

ts
 fr

om
 

in
st

ru
ct

or
s

56
9

2
0

0

N
ot

e.
  T

ex
t o

f t
he

 q
ue

st
io

n:
 “

H
ow

 h
el

pf
ul

 o
r u

nh
el

pf
ul

 d
o 

yo
u 

be
lie

ve
 th

e 
fo

llo
w

in
g 

po
te

nt
ia

l C
SS

W
 o

ffe
rin

gs
/

ch
an

ge
s m

ig
ht

 b
e 

at
 h

el
pi

ng
 st

ud
en

ts
 d

ev
el

op
 w

rit
te

n 
co

m
m

un
ic

at
io

n 
sk

ill
s?

”



78       Columbia Social Work Review, Volume V

Developing Writing Skills at CSSW

provide short assignments, such as writing a concise policy memo or a 
plan for the design and implementation of a new program. The course 
could be tailored to students’ needs by allowing for choice among 
assignments. Just as students learn direct practice skills through field 
placements, we can also learn writing through practical applications if 
we receive targeted support. A pilot course could be developed to gauge 
interest and effectiveness.
 Students crave detailed feedback on their written work. 
Given professors’ time constraints, students cannot expect every paper 
to be covered in red ink. But students deserve formal assessments 
of their writing, access to their professors, and class time devoted to 
analyzing written work. A common rubric template, adaptable across 
classes, could provide structured and streamlined feedback. Instructors 
could assess discrete and defined aspects of student writing, such as 
clarity of expression and thesis, persuasive and concise delivery of 
material, research analysis, and use of APA style. The administration 
might provide resources to faculty to encourage them to discuss writing 
skills before and after assignments are due, and foster student comfort in 
attending office hours to examine written work in more detail. 
 Students want to complete diverse writing tasks in 
preparation for their careers. Written assignments are physical, 
tangible products that demonstrate the same abilities that social workers 
possess and implement across practice methods: coherent statement of 
purpose, explanation and analysis of evidence-based interventions, and 
a coherent discussion of a topic’s importance. Students have an ample 
portfolio of academic papers, and would likely benefit from a wider 
variety of assignments, yet many social work jobs expect candidates to 
implement a more diverse array of professional writing abilities. Students 
could gain a great deal of writing experience from exposure to grant-
writing, policy memos, psychosocial assessments, program proposals, 
opinion pieces, evaluation reports, and case studies. 
 We need to incorporate an evaluation of writing into annual 
student evaluations if we are to seriously achieve a goal of improving 
the quality of students’ writing skills. Course evaluations could have a 
separate section on writing to hold instructors accountable for addressing 
the topic. Certain results across the school could be publicly available to 
better track, evaluate, and discuss progress around the development of 
writing skills. 



   Columbia Social Work Review, Volume V       79

Editorial Board

Conclusion

 The Review’s annual publication is a testament to the capabilities 
of our student body. The five articles in this publication that precede 
this editorial—and 11 previous editions of the Review—are concrete 
products from some of our finest students. In the process of writing this 
editorial, the Board has utilized a diverse skill set taught through course 
and fieldwork at Columbia University. We developed research questions, 
administered a survey and analyzed results, wrote and edited the text 
of the editorial, collaborated with community members, and devised 
original interventions to address a pressing concern in our community. 
The Board wants to see more students engage in work like this. Moving 
forward, we must ensure that discussions about writing take place 
throughout the graduate experience here at CSSW. Institutional supports 
must exist to mirror the value students place on writing in social work, so 
that all students may gain the opportunity to advance their skills, career, 
and service.


