Fluent Essays

SOCW 6351: Social Policy, Welfare, and Change Discussion 2: Micro vs. Macro Practice The foundation of the social work profession is rooted in two levels of social assessment and reform. One is the individual, or micro, approach, which examines the needs of the individual living in poverty and explores how trained social work professionals could assist the individual in overcoming barriers to economic self-sufficiency. The other approach, which occurs simultaneously, is a macro, or larger environment, approach. This approach identifies and influences changes in the larger systems (education, economic, etc.) to improve self-sufficiency. The social work profession incorporates both approaches and trains professionals to intervene effectively at both levels of practice. For this Discussion, review this week’s resources. Then, reflect on the dichotomy between micro and macro practice. Next, think about how micro practice has come to dominate the social work profession. By 08/01/2021 Postan explanation of “the dichotomy between micro and macro” practice. Then, describe how micro practice has come to dominate the social work profession. Responsiveness to Directions 8.1 (27%) - 9 (30%) Discussion posting fully addresses all instruction prompts, including responding to the required number of peer posts. Discussion Posting Content 8.1 (27%) - 9 (30%) Discussion posting demonstrates an excellent understanding of all of the concepts and key points presented in the text(s) and Learning Resources. Posting provides significant detail including multiple relevant examples, evidence from the readings and other scholarly sources, and discerning ideas. Peer Feedback and Interaction 6.75 (22.5%) - 7.5 (25%) The feedback postings and responses to questions are excellent and fully contribute to the quality of interaction by offering constructive critique, suggestions, in-depth questions, additional resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes. Writing 4.05 (13.5%) - 4.5 (15%) Postings are well organized, use scholarly tone, contain original writing and proper paraphrasing, follow APA style, contain very few or no writing and/or spelling errors, and are fully consistent with graduate level writing style. Required Readings Popple, P. R., & Leighninger, L. (2019). The policy-based profession: An introduction to social welfare policy analysis for social workers. (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Chapter      1, “The Policy-Based Profession” (pp. 3-18) LINK TO EVERYTHING  EXPECT THE BOOK CHAPTER 1 https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1bLoMbrj033pMNEXZcp9WXcWshc76hvcF?usp=sharing LINK ABOVE  Steen, J. A. (2012). Critical thought within the social welfare policy course. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 32(1), 14–28. LINK ABOVE MSW Field Experience - Field Placement  Program Transcript MSW Field Experience - Field Placement © 2019 Laureate Education, Inc. 1 MSW Field Experience - Field Placement Program Transcript NARRATOR: At Walden University, our faculty is as dedicated to your success as you are. These videos offer a preview of what's next in your program. DONNA MCELVEEN: Hello, I'm Dr. Donna McElveen with the MSW program, connecting today with you about field experience. At this point, many of you have completed Skills Lab I and may be working on securing your field placement. If you haven't completed Skills Lab I, this is a good time for you to connect with your advisor about when you should enroll. If you've already identified an agency and you're working with your coordinator to finalize things, great. You're entering the next important phase of your educational journey in the MSW program. For those of you still working on your agency search, I want to remind you of resources that are available to assist you. We have a list of the agencies we've partnered with in the past and we also have downloadable instructions for completing a search of your community. You can find these resources on our field website under the locating and agency tab. We realize it can be stressful thinking about completing your field experience, but you've come this far and we know you're prepared to begin the journey. I want to introduce one of your peers, Lahella. She wants to share with you her experience with locating an agency, Skills Lab, and provide a few tips and suggestions for success. LAHELLA JONES: My name is Lahella Jones. I am a master of social work student at Walden University and my current concentration is military. My current field placement is called Making a Difference, Inc. It is a nonprofit counseling agency here in Enid, Oklahoma. Right now, Making a Difference is in the first stages of creating a youth center, Enid's very first youth center that's geared towards middle school children and, eventually, high school students. It's really great to be able to be a part of the business planning and helping develop the strategic planning for it, getting the information for the grants together. Skills Lab prepared me for field placement mostly because I haven't been in the field of social work. I was in the military for 10 years. And then when I got out of the military, I became a stay-at-home mom. I had zero clue as to what that looked like. So to be able to meet people, number one, who have been in the field. So I met a few of the ladies who had bachelor's degrees in social work and I learned a lot from them. To speak with professors who have been in the field for so many years, it was very eye-opening to me to hear the different experiences that social workers can be placed in so many different areas, which is one of the reasons that I love social work. It's because you can walk into basically any job and be able to apply it to what we're MSW Field Experience - Field Placement © 2019 Laureate Education, Inc. 2 learning, one way or another. You're working with people and, in some capacity, you're helping populations in some capacity. So that was really great for me to carry that into my current field placement. If I could give any advice about when you start to look for your field placement site, I would say do it as early as you possibly can. We know that it's coming. We know that it's something that we need to do to complete our degree. So the sooner you start, the better off you'll be. Well, thank you so much for having me. I feel very grateful to be here and being able to discuss my experience with you. And I hope that everything that I said is helpful to future students coming through the process. DONNA MCELVEEN: Thank you, Lahella. I really appreciate you sharing how networking and starting the process early are so important. It sounds like your field experience has taught you a lot about the social work profession. Along with Lahella's advice, I want to provide you a few things you can do now to continue preparing for field experience. First, if you're currently working with your field coordinator to secure your placement, stay in touch with them. If you're still considering where you want to intern, go to our field website and utilize resources there under locating an agency. If you haven't attended Skills Lab, connect with your academic advisor about how to enroll. And last, if you need help with any part of this process, please reach out to our field team. We're here to help you. It's been great connecting today and hearing Lahella share her experiences and tips. I hope this has been a helpful reminder about staying active in the field placement process. I look forward to your progress in the program. [MUSIC PLAYING] Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wtsw20 Journal of Teaching in Social Work ISSN: 0884-1233 (Print) 1540-7349 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wtsw20 Critical Thought within the Social Welfare Policy Course Julie A. Steen To cite this article: Julie A. Steen (2012) Critical Thought within the Social Welfare Policy Course, Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 32:1, 14-28, DOI: 10.1080/08841233.2012.639261 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2012.639261 Published online: 03 Feb 2012. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 5982 View related articles https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wtsw20 https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wtsw20 https://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/08841233.2012.639261 https://doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2012.639261 https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=wtsw20&show=instructions https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=wtsw20&show=instructions https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/08841233.2012.639261 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/08841233.2012.639261 Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 32:14–28, 2012 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0884-1233 print/1540-7349 online DOI: 10.1080/08841233.2012.639261 Critical Thought within the Social Welfare Policy Course JULIE A. STEEN School of Social Work, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, USA Critical thought is a necessary element for proficient practice in social work at both the micro and macro levels. For this rea- son, social work educators must seek to integrate critical thought in BSW and MSW curricula. This article provides a method for achieving this integration in the social welfare policy course. The method includes the four following phases: instruction regarding logical errors, presentation of logical errors in contemporary polit- ical debate, demonstration of critical thought in policy position analysis, and self-assessment of one’s own logic. The implications of this method for practice in a values-based context are discussed. KEYWORDS critical thinking, formal operational thought, social welfare policy, social work education The ideal social work practitioner has been described by some as having a warm heart and a sharp mind (Gibbs & Gambrill, 1999). Social work students may be more likely to enter the practice world possessing a sharp mind if they are encouraged to engage in formal operational thought during their undergraduate and graduate studies. Formal operational thought, the final stage of Piaget’s (2007) cognitive model, traditionally has been conceptual- ized in terms of one’s ability to solve mathematical problems, but it also can be considered as a foundation for critical thought. Since university-level edu- cation is designed to strengthen the critical thinking skills of students, BSW and MSW programs share this responsibility. Though policy courses in the social work curriculum can serve as a venue for this endeavor, little literature is available for those seeking instructional methods and resources. In order to add to the social work literature on this topic, the following method Address correspondence to Julie A. Steen, School of Social Work, University of Central Florida, P. O. Box 163358, Orlando, FL 32816, USA. E-mail: [email protected] 14 Critical Thought in the Policy Course 15 for advancing critical thought is offered for those teaching the social wel- fare policy course. This method is presented in the context of the literature regarding educational objectives and past efforts to meet these objectives. BLOOM’S TAXONOMY OF EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES Bloom’s (1956/1984) seminal taxonomy provides a framework for conceptu- alizing various levels of educational objectives in the cognitive domain. This model spans six levels, ranging from the most concrete to the most abstract tasks expected of students. The first of these levels is labeled knowledge and encompasses knowledge of terminology, facts, trends, classifications, crite- ria, methodology, themes, and theories. Policy courses often engage social work students on this level, expecting them to recall policy terms, historical facts, historical trends, classifications of historical eras, criteria for assess- ing the ethics of policies, methods for analyzing the content and impact of policies, themes present across social welfare policy history, and the- ories regarding policy development (Adams, 2004). Generally, these tasks require memorization, which is a basic element of intellectual capacity. Comprehension is the second level found in Bloom’s model. Policy students are occasionally expected to demonstrate this by summarizing the main thoughts within a prominent policy speech, such as President Johnson’s (1965) commencement address titled To Fulfill These Rights, or a prominent policy document, such as Moynihan’s (1965) report titled The Negro Family. The next level is labeled application. While social work students often are expected to apply a particular theory or model to a case or policy, the appli- cation level requires students to demonstrate the ability to choose the theory or model that is most appropriate to the situation. This element occasionally is found in course content regarding policy analysis, when students select an analytic framework that best matches a particular context (e.g., type of policy and stage of policy; O’Connor & Netting, 2008). The last three levels of Bloom’s (1956/1984) model require higher-order thinking. The fourth is termed analysis, which includes the ability to recognize unstated assumptions, . . . [distinguish] facts from hypotheses, . . . distinguish factual from normative statements, . . . distin- guish a conclusion from statements which support it,. . . . recognize what particulars are relevant to the validation of a judgment, . . . distinguish cause-and-effect relationships from other sequential relationships, . . . analyze the relations of statements in an argument, . . . distinguish rel- evant from irrelevant statements, . . . [and] detect logical fallacies in arguments. (Bloom, 1956/1984, pp. 146–147) This fourth level of analysis often is neglected in the policy course, though promising models for integrating this level can be found in the work of 16 J. A. Steen O’Connor and Netting (2008). They focus on how to go beyond the applica- tion of policy analysis frameworks through a critical review of the underlying philosophical paradigms and assumptions of policy analysis frameworks. Bloom’s fifth level is termed synthesis. On this level, students are expected to build on lower-order tasks of comprehension, application, and analysis through their creation of a new argument or plan. Though the clearest exam- ple of this task can be found in research proposals required of social work students in research classes, this type of expectation is sometimes seen in policy courses when students are required to study a problem and develop a policy proposal that would address the problem (Anderson & Harris, 2005; Rocha & Johnson, 1997; Scott, 2008). The final level is labeled evaluation. Here the student is expected to assess a product and judge its overall worth. In part, this task builds on the fourth level, as students must analyze the product in order to assess its worth. Formal operational thought is best evidenced in the fourth and sixth levels of Bloom’s (1956/1984) taxonomy. As stated by Bloom, the identifica- tion and critique of logical errors are central in these two levels. A number of these errors are worth review here, since they frequently are found in pol- icy debates. Some logical errors result from the reliance on insufficient data. These fallacies include the hasty generalization and the unrepresentative generalization, which sometimes are used in arguments for particular poli- cies (Kaplan, 2006). For example, some may argue for extensive changes in child protection system response to children at all levels of risk based on a generalization from the most extreme cases involving child abuse- related fatalities (Connolly & Doolan, 2007). Another type of error may be present in causal statements (Kaplan, 2006). Policy advocates may claim that a policy has a particular impact based simply on the fact that the impact occurred after the policy was enacted. While this time-order of events may support the possibility of the impact, it is not sufficient to fully accept the conclusion. An example of this type of argument can be found in debates regarding the impact of the Great Society. Murray (1984) attributed the rise in out-of-wedlock births to the welfare policies of the Great Society; how- ever, Jencks (1992) counter-argued that the out-of-wedlock birth increase was seen in all communities, including middle-class and wealthy commu- nities unaffected by welfare rules. In essence, Jencks asserts that this trend was a product of cultural change rather than generous welfare rules. Another type of error involves the future impact of a proposed policy (Kaplan, 2006). This fallacy is called the “slippery slope argument” and is seen in debates regarding gay marriage. Some opponents of gay marriage argue that gov- ernmental recognition of gay marriage eventually will result in legalization of unions between humans and animals (Mozingo, 2008). Errors also arise when one critiques an argument based on the characteristics of the person advancing the argument rather than the person’s statements (Fearnside & Holther, 1959). Known as the ad hominem fallacy, this error can be seen in the famous Congressional debate regarding the infant and maternal health Critical Thought in the Policy Course 17 policy known as the Sheppard-Towner Act. Senator James Reed attempted to defeat the Act by critiquing the marital status and childrearing experience of the early leaders of the Children’s Bureau, arguing that they were not qualified to create and implement this type of policy. He intoned into the Congressional Record the names of all Children’s Bureau staff who were unmarried, giving special emphasis to the title “Miss” affixed to each. “It seems to be the established doctrine of the bureau that the only people capable of caring for babies and mothers of babies are ladies who have never had babies,” he said. (Costin, 1983. p. 141–142) As demonstrated by these examples, policy debates are excellent venues for assessing arguments, counter-arguments, and their logical foundations. PAST EFFORTS TO STRENGTHEN CRITICAL THOUGHT While Bloom (1956/1984) outlines objectives for educators in the critical thinking realm and Kaplan (2006) outlines the logical errors that underlie poor critical thinking, we can return to the work of Piaget (2007) for a suggestion of how to reach these objectives and reduce these errors. He states, In a word, formal thought presupposes two factors, one social (the pos- sibility of placing oneself at every point of view and of abandoning one’s own), the other, which is connected with the psychology of belief (the possibility of assuming alongside of empirical reality a purely possible world which shall be the province of logical deduction). (Piaget, 2007, p. 71) To enhance the critical thinking skills of social work students, methods that address these two factors must be developed. Methods for encouraging critical thought in social work education recently have been introduced by Gambrill (2006a). Embedded in her pub- lications regarding evidence-based practice is one of the two factors Piaget (2007) describes as being central to formal operational thought. She encour- ages social work students to loosen their hold on their own views and question themselves by asking “Could I be wrong?” (Gambrill, 2007, p. 449). Her focus extends beyond the student, seeking to have students question not only their own viewpoints but the viewpoints within “human service propa- ganda” (Gambrill, 2007, p. 448). To this end, she has produced several books that can be assigned as required reading in practice and field practicum 18 J. A. Steen courses (Gambrill, 2006a, 2006b; Gibbs & Gambrill, 1999). These texts pro- vide clear examples of logical errors in social work practice, class exercises to encourage the identification of errors, and suggestions for improved prac- tice based on sound reasoning. While Gambrill provides a strong foundation for the integration of critical thought in the practice sequence of social work curricula, little literature exists regarding methods for promoting critical thought in social welfare policy courses. The following method is presented with the aim of elevating the critical thinking skills of social work students specifically in the social welfare policy course. METHOD FOR INTEGRATING CRITICAL THOUGHT IN THE POLICY COURSE The following method includes four phases for integrating critical thought into social welfare policy course lectures, exercises, and assignments. The first three phases arise from traditional concepts of teaching, which include tell, show, and do. The tell phase involves lectures that introduce students to logical errors and assignments that assess the student’s knowledge and com- prehension of the logical error material. The show phase moves students through the application and analysis levels of Bloom’s (1956/1984) model by showing them examples of logical error in policy debate and asking them to identify the errors. In the third phase, students are required to demon- strate mastery of the fourth, fifth, and sixth levels of Bloom’s taxonomy by analyzing and evaluating arguments for and against a policy that they select. The final phase consists of self-reflection. Here students are required to reflect upon their own learning curve in terms of critical thought and iden- tify the situations where they must guard against their own false conclusions or pressure to adopt other’s false conclusions. This last phase relates to the second domain of interest, called the affective domain, in which the stu- dent’s attitudes (rather than intellectual abilities) are the subject of concern (Krathwohl, Bloom, & Masia, 1964). A full description of each of these four phases can be found in Table 1. The Tell Phase In this first phase, students are introduced to the topic of critical thought. This introduction can be accomplished through lecture. A number of ele- ments are important to include. First, the relevance of the material should be emphasized, with an attention to the applicability of critical thinking skills in social work. Second, the lecture should include a description of various logical errors, such as inductive, causal, and ad hominem fallacies. Material for this introduction can be found in a number of texts (Damer, Critical Thought in the Policy Course 19 TABLE 1 Method for Integrating Critical Thought in the Social Welfare Policy Course Phase Activities Domain and level Tell Introduce students to the topic of logical errors through lecture material. Test students on recollection and comprehension of material. Cognitive - Knowledge (1st)a Cognitive - Comprehension (2nd)a Show Show students examples of logical errors in political dialogue (e.g., presidential speeches, presidential debates, political news shows, and policy documentaries). Involve students in the identification and discussion of errors in the material. Cognitive - Application (3rd)a Cognitive - Analysis (4th)a Do Require students to analyze and evaluate the arguments for and against a policy of the students’ choosing. Cognitive - Analysis (4th)a Cognitive - Synthesis (5th)a Cognitive - Evaluation (6th)a Reflect Require students to reflect on their own capacity to avoid errors and resist pressures to accept faulty logic from others. Affective - Valuing (3rd)b aBased on Bloom’s (1956/1984) model. bBased on Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia’s (1964) model. 2001; Fearnside & Holther, 1959; Gibbs & Gambrill, 1999; Kaplan, 2006). Chapter 4 of the Kaplan text can be particularly useful as a required reading, since it includes descriptions of these errors, tips for structuring essays, and exercises that involve the critique of arguments. In this phase of the process, assignments are most appropriately based on the first and second levels of Bloom’s (1956/1984) cognitive model. Quizzes or exams can be used to assess the degree to which students are able to recall the types of logical errors and their characteristics. Specifically, these assignments focus on the students’ “knowledge of ter- minology” (Bloom, 1956/1984, p. 64) and “knowledge of principles and generalizations” (Bloom, p. 75). Further, students can be asked to demon- strate comprehension of lecture and reading material regarding logical errors through short essays in which they “determine the larger and more general ideas contained in [the material]” (Bloom, p. 93). The Show Phase In the show phase, students are provided with examples of logical error in the public policy field. There are many sources from which to draw this material. A good introduction to political debate can be gained from viewing political news shows. A comparison of the debate between political party representatives on a cable news outlet versus the debate between experts on the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer (Winslow, 2009) can demonstrate the difference between clear, precise argumentation and haphazard verbal 20 J. A. Steen clashes. In particular, the ad hominem fallacy can be seen in some episodes from cable news outlets. Students also can benefit from reviewing arguments for and against the war in Iraq. The dialogue regarding the war contained several logical errors on both sides. President Bush was known for his use of the error labeled the false dilemma. He occasionally presented the war in Iraq as the only valid option for combating terrorism. In essence, he argued that we can fight terrorists here in the homeland or we can fight them in Iraq, despite the reality that there were other options when seeking this goal (Stout, 2006). On the other side of the stage were opponents of the war who also used logical error to advance their stance. A good source for this exam- ple can be found in Michael Moore’s (2004) film Fahrenheit 9/11. In this work, Moore idealizes Iraq, presenting images of Iraqi children riding Ferris wheels. This presentation can lead some viewers to a hasty generalization regarding the situation in Iraq, which was far from ideal, as noted by human rights advocates (Amnesty International, 2007). This section of material can be supplemented by the PBS documentary titled Buying the War (Hughes, 2007). In this work, the journalist Bill Moyers tracks the months leading up to the war, in which voices of logic and reason were swept aside in a nationalistic fervor. This last source is particularly useful for demonstrating the pressure to embrace popular opinion even when it is based on poor logic. In this phase, students go beyond Bloom’s (1956/1984) initial intel- lectual levels by demonstrating the ability to apply and analyze. In-class discussions regarding logical errors in clips of political talk shows and doc- umentaries provide opportunities for students to “apply the abstraction in a practical way” (Bloom, 1956/1984, p. 125). Students also may progress to the analysis phase during these in-class discussions. The class, for example, may be asked to analyze the messages from politicians, political analysts, and documentary filmmakers found in the clip. Specifically, they can be directed to break down the material into its constituent parts, . . . identify or classify the elements of the communication, . . . make explicit the relationships among the elements, . . . determine their connections and interac- tions . . . [and recognize] the organizational principles, the arrangement and structure, which hold together the communication as a whole. (Bloom, 1956/1984, p. 145) In other words, they are asked to identify the main statements made or inferred regarding the policy, the assumptions that underlie these statements, the relationships between various statements in the clip, and the primary purpose of the communication from the speaker’s or producer’s viewpoint. Critical Thought in the Policy Course 21 The Do Phase In the do phase, students demonstrate their ability to analyze and evaluate arguments for and against a particular policy. In this section of the course, students gather information regarding the perspectives of both those sup- porting and those opposing their chosen policy. They then must analyze the arguments embedded in these perspectives. This critique should first focus on the logic upon which the argument is based. The analysis then moves into the evaluative mode. There are several possible conclusions the student may draw at this point: The argument is flawed by poor logic; the argu- ment is logical but is based on an assumption that needs to be tested; or the argument is logical, but its relation to reality needs to be assessed. If the first conclusion is made, the student should fully describe how and why the argument is illogical. If one of the latter two conclusions is made, the student is required to search for evidence that clearly supports or counters the argument and its assumptions. In this circumstance, a summary of this evidence and the overall value of the argument should be presented. In the final product, students must fully describe and assess all major points of view surrounding the policy. In this process, students come to several important realizations. First, the search for arguments frequently yields moral statements that cannot be deemed illogical and cannot be proven or disproven. For example, the most common pleas found in abortion and death penalty policies are moral ones. These are impossible to refute. Through this assignment, students acknowledge this reality and come to understand the role that these positions can play in superseding rational arguments regarding the policy. For example, moral arguments exist on both sides of death penalty policy. Supporters believe that the death penalty is a just sentence for a violent crime. To deny the death penalty is to deny justice in the supporters’ moral framework. Opponents believe that the death penalty involves the taking of life, which is a fault in the opponents’ moral framework. While a student may find research that supports or refutes statements regarding the effect of the death sentence on crime deterrence and cost comparisons between the death penalty and life in prison (Radelet & Borg, 2000), the student must acknowledge that these arguments cannot overcome moral convictions regarding the policy. Another set of important realizations arise from the analysis of impacts. In the early stages of study, students often take policies on face value, believ- ing that the philosophy behind the policy will be perfectly implemented and achieved. In reality, some policies fail to be enacted at all. Those that are implemented often have mixed results. Very few policies exist that ben- efit everyone and harm no one. The concept of unintended consequences pushes students to address these complexities: the difference between inten- tion and impact and the difference in impact across and within population 22 J. A. Steen groups (Gourdine, 2007; Pressman & Wildavsky, 1984). These complexities are very important in the evaluation phase, as students grapple with the realization that no policy is perfect. This assignment can be administered in two formats. While some may require the assignment to be submitted as a paper, others recommend a debate format (Gregory & Holloway, 2005; Johnson & Johnson, 1988; Tang & Peters, 2008). In the structured controversy model advanced by Johnson and Johnson (1988), students proceed through a number of steps that begin with analysis and end with evaluation. Students are required to not only defend a particular policy position but come to a final conclusion based on their own arguments and the arguments of their opponents. Instructors may find it useful to include both formats in the course, which would require students to demonstrate their critical thinking skills in both verbal and written form. Of course, each format has advantages and disadvantages with respect to the logistics of structuring and grading the assignment, as evidenced by the evaluation of Gregory and Holloway (2005). During this phase, students work on the final three levels of Bloom’s (1956/1984) cognitive model. The assignment requires the mastery of anal- ysis. As students analyze arguments, they practice breaking situations down into their components, identifying relationships among the components, and discerning the overall function of the whole. In addition to this, students must enter into a synthesis phase. Through the review of literature regard- ing policy arguments, they “must draw upon elements from many sources and put these together into a structure or pattern not clearly there before” (Bloom, 1956/1984, p. 162). Following this synthesis, students are required to demonstrate mastery of the evaluation level, which “involves the use of criteria as well as standards for appraising the extent to which particulars are accurate, effective, economical, or satisfying” (Bloom, 1956/1984, p. 185). The “Self-reflection” Phase In the final phase, students reflect on their ability to exercise sound logic and resist pressure to adopt logical errors. Students are required to write a self-assessment paper that summarizes these elements. This assignment is supplemented by reviewing an article by Edmonds (1964). This read- ing presents an experiment in which graduate students were influenced by group consensus to agree to an erroneous conclusion. The author assessed the factors that made adoption of erroneous conclusions more likely. Students are asked to reflect on the ways they are similar to and different from the students in the study. The PBS documentary described in the show phase, Buying the War, provides additional preparation for this assignment (Hughes, 2007). At this point, students should be reminded of such earlier material and encouraged to reflect on the major implications that logical errors have for society. Through this experience, students can Critical Thought in the Policy Course 23 come to understand the value of the skills they have demonstrated in past phases, the ease with which these skills can be overturned by political and personal pressures, and the personal weaknesses they must address in order to further develop their skill. While the earlier phases are aimed at the cognitive domain, this last phase involves the affective domain. Social work educators would like stu- dents to demonstrate improvement in their critical thinking abilities, but it is also important to increase the value of formal operational thought. A skill that is developed but not appreciated by the student is one that risks being discarded during the student’s future practice and the student’s future supervision of other social workers. This last portion of the model is meant to foster a respect for one’s own critical thinking abilities. This goal can be found in the affective domain of educational objectives. Krathwohl et al. (1964) specify values as the third level of the affective domain and divide this level into progressive steps of “acceptance of a value” (p. 140), “preference for a value” (p. 145), and commitment to a value. DISCUSSION While this manuscript presents a model that can be used to integrate critical thinking skills in social welfare policy courses, it should be noted that the literature includes a variety of opinions regarding the benefits of educat- ing students on logical fallacies. Some assert that a focus on logical errors produces an unbalanced view of material. Hitchcock (1995) presents critical thinking as a process that involves identification of both error and worth. He argues that the inclusion of material regarding logical fallacies overempha- sizes error and thereby deemphasizes worth. Further, he argues that critical thinking goes far beyond the basics of understanding errors. Conversely, Blair (1995) contends that material on logical errors can be successfully inte- grated into courses as long as the treatment of the material is comprehensive and avoids over-simplification. While social work educators claim that crit- ical thinking is integral to competent assessment and intervention (Alter & Egan, 1997; Coleman, Rogers, & King, 2002; Gibbons & Gray, 2004; Scheyett, 2006), attention to logical errors often is missing in their articles. An excep- tion to this general trend can be found in the works of Huff (2000), Gibbs and Gambrill (1999), and Plath, English, Connors, and Beveridge (1999), all of whom recommend the inclusion of logical errors in social work course instruction. Beyond the successful results identified by Huff (2000) in an American MSW program and by Plath and colleagues (1999) in an Australian BSW program, there is little research in social work education that has tested the effects of logical error … SOCW 6351: Social Policy, Welfare, and Change Discussion 2: Micro vs. Macro Practice The foundation of the social work profession is rooted in two levels of social assessment and reform. One is the individual, or micro, approach, which examines the needs of the individual living in poverty and explores how trained social work professionals could assist the individual in overcoming barriers to economic self-sufficiency. The other approach, which occurs simultaneously, is a macro, or larger environment, approach. This approach identifies and influences changes in the larger systems (education, economic, etc.) to improve self-sufficiency. The social work profession incorporates both approaches and trains professionals to intervene effectively at both levels of practice. For this Discussion, review this week’s resources. Then, reflect on the dichotomy between micro and macro practice. Next, think about how micro practice has come to dominate the social work profession. By 08/01/2021 Postan explanation of “the dichotomy between micro and macro” practice. Then, describe how micro practice has come to dominate the social work profession. Responsiveness to Directions 8.1 (27%) - 9 (30%) Discussion posting fully addresses all instruction prompts, including responding to the required number of peer posts. Discussion Posting Content 8.1 (27%) - 9 (30%) Discussion posting demonstrates an excellent understanding of all of the concepts and key points presented in the text(s) and Learning Resources. Posting provides significant detail including multiple relevant examples, evidence from the readings and other scholarly sources, and discerning ideas. Peer Feedback and Interaction 6.75 (22.5%) - 7.5 (25%) The feedback postings and responses to questions are excellent and fully contribute to the quality of interaction by offering constructive critique, suggestions, in-depth questions, additional resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes. Writing 4.05 (13.5%) - 4.5 (15%) Postings are well organized, use scholarly tone, contain original writing and proper paraphrasing, follow APA style, contain very few or no writing and/or spelling errors, and are fully consistent with graduate level writing style. Required Readings Popple, P. R., & Leighninger, L. (2019). The policy-based profession: An introduction to social welfare policy analysis for social workers. (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. · Chapter 1, “The Policy-Based Profession” (pp. 3-18) LINK TO EVERYTHING EXPECT THE BOOK CHAPTER 1 https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1bLoMbrj033pMNEXZcp9WXcWshc76hvcF?usp=sharing LINK ABOVE Steen, J. A. (2012). Critical thought within the social welfare policy course. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 32(1), 14–28. LINK ABOVE MSW Field Experience - Field Placement  Program Transcript