SOCW 6351: Social Policy, Welfare, and Change discussion
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
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: jsteen@mail.ucf.edu
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 material in social work courses. Further research regarding this model, therefore, is warranted.
When considering the use of a model in a social welfare policy course, educators should reflect on possible implications for the policy practice of
24 J. A. Steen
program graduates. Practitioners in the public policy field are responsible for a number of tasks. First, they must decide which policies to support and which to oppose. Just as one should not develop an intervention for a case before reviewing the literature regarding the problems found embedded in the case, the policy practitioner should not create, support, or oppose a policy proposal before analyzing the policy options (Flynn, 1992; Jansson, 2008). The pro/con paper found in the do phase of this model might assist in preparing students in this regard. Following the decision to support or oppose a policy proposal, the practitioner will be responsible for communi- cating arguments regarding the policy, understanding the viewpoints of both supporters and opponents, and crafting counter-arguments to those with different viewpoints than their own (Flynn, 1992; Jansson, 2008; Mickelson & Haynes, 2006). The review of policy debates in the show phase of the model can provide students with examples of advocates and analysts who complete these tasks through both poor and proficient means. Finally, nav- igating through the policy process requires one to be sharp and strategic (Mickelson & Haynes, 2006), which are characteristics of the intellect and demonstrated by logical thought.
While the goal of this model is to increase the critical thinking skills of social work program graduates, the model is meant to supplement an ethical framework rather than replace it. Some social work educators have argued against the delivery of social welfare policy courses that are “rooted in positivist paradigms that assume one can best comprehend, evaluate, and explain the world through objective observation” (Anderson, 2006, p. 3). In a description of positivist policy analysis, Anderson states, “value neutral- ity is essential in order not to distort reality, and the analyst is responsible for approaching the policy or program free of human bias and value judg- ments” (p. 9). While such “value neutrality” is an element that characterizes formal operational thought, it should be noted that value neutrality in the social welfare policy course is based more on the preference for a pol- icy than on the goal of the policy. While policy practitioners with a social work background should analyze policies with an objective eye, this does not mean that they should have an objective view of policy goals. Social workers always should work toward the protection of human rights and the realization of social justice. Of course, however, there may be reasonable debate regarding how to achieve these goals.
This discussion brings us to the consideration of the values, ethics, and emotions that characterize professional social work practice in both micro- and policy-related fields. The inclusion of material on logical thought is meant to assist the social work practitioner in increasing the well-being of clients and decreasing the harm caused by well-intentioned but unsuccessful policies and programs. In one of the few social work texts that address logical errors, the authors speak directly to students regarding the impact of emotion in decision-making:
Critical Thought in the Policy Course 25
Any argument that uses emotional appeals to get you to adopt a method without careful, analytical, critical, scientific, data-based thinking could result in decisions that harm rather than help clients. Learning how to avoid accepting an argument by being sucked into its emotional appeal is a vital step in learning to think critically. (Gibbs & Gambrill, 1999, p. 43)
Social workers are not able to successfully advocate for human rights and social justice when their arguments are flawed. Further, they do not ben- efit clients when the policies they propose are unsuccessful in addressing the problem or produce detrimental, unintended consequences. Indeed, it should be noted that human rights violations can more readily occur when logical errors are not identified and confronted. Discrimination, exploitation, and aggression often are justified based on distortions. Whether logical error is intentionally used for nefarious means or unknowingly used by the well- intentioned, the outcome can prevent the fulfillment of the goals that our ethical code is designed to support. In light of this relationship, logic and ethics can naturally coincide with one another.
CONCLUSION
As social work education enters the era of competency-based instruction, it is ever more important to identify methods that help students hone the critical thinking skills necessary for the appropriate application of competencies to cases. Whether students proceed into direct practice or policy practice, they may benefit from the policy course methods presented here. While the policy sequence is responsible for imparting knowledge regarding social welfare history and policy practice skills, it should also serve in meeting the broader goal of producing sharp-minded and analytically adept graduates for the social work profession.
REFERENCES
Adams, P. (2004). Classroom assessment and social welfare policy: Addressing challenges to teaching and learning. Journal of Social Work Education, 40, 121–142.
Alter, C., & Egan, M. (1997). Logic modeling: A tool for teaching critical thinking in social work practice. Journal of Social Work Education, 33, 85–102.
Amnesty International. (2007). 2001 Annual report for Iraq. Retrieved from http:/ /www.amnestyusa.org/annualreport.php?id=5BEA8CB86CD8F2A480256A 16004BE849&c=IRQ
Anderson, D. K. (2006). Mucking through the swamp: Changing the pedagogy of a social welfare policy course. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 26 , 1–17.
26 J. A. Steen
Anderson, D. K., & Harris, B. M. (2005). Teaching social welfare policy: A com- parison of two pedagogical approaches. Journal of Social Work Education, 41, 511–526.
Blair, J. A. (1995). The place of teaching informal fallacies in teaching reasoning skills or critical thinking. In H. V. Hansen and R. C. Pinto. (Eds.), Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings (pp. 328–338). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University.
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1984). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals - Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York, NY: David McKay Company. (Original work published 1956.)
Coleman, H., Rogers, G., & King, J. (2002). Using portfolios to stimulate critical thinking in social work education. Social Work Education, 21, 583–595.
Connolly, M., & Doolan, M. (2007). Responding to the deaths of children known to child protection agencies. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 30, 1–11.
Costin, L. B. (1983). Two sisters for social justice: A biography of Grace and Edith Abbott. Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Damer, T. E. (2001). Attacking faulty reasoning: A practical guide to fallacy-free arguments (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Edmonds, V. H. (1964). Logical error as a function of group consensus: An experimental study of the effect of erroneous group consensus upon logical judgments of graduate students. Social Forces, 43(1), 33–38.
Fearnside, W. W., & Holther, W. B. (1959). Fallacy: The counterfeit of argument. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Flynn, J. (1992). Social agency policy: Analysis and presentation for community practice (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: Nelson Hall.
Gambrill, E. (2006a). Critical thinking in clinical practice: Improving the quality of judgments and decisions (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
Gambrill, E. (2006b). Social work practice: A critical thinker’s guide (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University.
Gambrill, E. (2007). Views of evidence-based practice: Social workers’ code of ethics and accreditation standards as guides for choice. Journal of Social Work Education, 43, 447–462.
Gibbons, J., & Gray, M. (2004). Critical thinking as integral to social work practice. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 24(1/2), 19–38.
Gibbs, L., & Gambrill, E. (1999). Critical thinking for social workers: Exercises for the helping profession. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge.
Gourdine, R. M. (2007). Child only kinship care cases: The unintended conse- quences of TANF policies for families with health problems and disabilities. Journal of Health & Social Policy, 22(3/4), 45–64.
Gregory, M., & Holloway, M. (2005). The debate as a pedagogic tool in social policy for social work students. Social Work Education, 24, 617–637.
Hitchcock, D. (1995). Do the fallacies have a place in the teaching of reasoning skills or critical thinking? In H. V. Hansen and R. C. Pinto. (Eds.), Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings (pp. 319–327). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University.
Huff, M. T. (2000). A comparison study of live instruction versus interactive television for teaching MSW students. Research on Social Work Practice, 10, 400–416.
Critical Thought in the Policy Course 27
Hughes, K. (Director). (2007). Buying the war. [Television series episode]. In K. Hughes (Producer), Bill Moyers journal. Public Broadcasting Service.
Jansson, B. S. (2008). Becoming an effective policy advocate: From policy practice to social justice (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Jencks, C. (1992). Rethinking social policy: Race, poverty, and the underclass. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1988). Critical thinking through structured controversy. Educational Leadership, 45, 58–64.
Johnson, L. B. (1965). Commencement address at Howard University: “To ful- fill these rights.” Retrieved from http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives. hom/speeches.hom/650604.asp
Kaplan. (2006). GRE & GMAT exams writing workbook (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Kaplan.
Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of educa- tional objectives: The classification of educational goals—handbook II: Affective domain. New York, NY: David McKay Company.
Mickelson, J. S., & Haynes, K. S. (2006). Affecting change: Social workers in the political arena (6th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Moore, M. (Producer/Writer/Director). (2004). Fahrenheit 9/11 [Motion picture]. Santa Monica, CA: Lions Gates Films.
Moynihan, D. P. (1965). The Negro family: The case for national action. Retrieved from http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/webid-meynihan.htm
Mozingo, J. (2008, November 11). Proposition 8 supporters vent frustration over continued protests. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/ wireless/avantgo/la-me-prop811-2008nov11,0,3238928.story
Murray, C. (1984). Losing ground: American social policy, 1950–1980. New York, NY: Basic Books.
O’Connor, M. K., & Netting, F. E. (2008). Teaching policy analysis as research: Consideration and extension of options. Journal of Social Work Education, 44, 159–172.
Piaget, J. (2007). Judgment and reasoning in the child. USA: Braithwaite Press. Plath, D., English, B., Connors, L., & Beveridge, A. (1999). Evaluating the outcomes
of intensive critical thinking instruction for social wok students. Social Work Education, 18, 207–217.
Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1984). Implementation: How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland; or, why it’s amazing that federal programs work at all, this being a saga of the Economic Development Administration as told by two sympathetic observers who seek to build morals on a foundation of ruined hopes (3rd ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California.
Radelet, M. L., & Borg, M. J. (2000). The changing nature of death penalty debates. Annual Review of Sociology, 26 , 43–61.
Rocha, C., & Johnson, A. (1997). Teaching family policy through a policy practice framework. Journal of Social Work Education, 33, 433–444.
Scheyett, A. (2006). Danger and opportunity: Challenges in teaching evidence-based practice in the social work curriculum. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 26 (1/2), 19–29.
28 J. A. Steen
Scott, D. L. (2008). Service learning: The road from the classroom to community- based macro intervention. Journal of Policy Practice, 7 , 214–225.
Stout, D. (2006, August 31). Bush says Iraq War is part of a larger fight. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/31/ washington/31cnd-bush.html?scp=16&sq=bush%20iraq%20terrorism&st=cse
Tang, K., & Peters, H. (2008). Teaching critical social policy in Canada: Some personal reflections. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 28, 408–423.
Winslow, L. (Producer). (2009). NewsHour with Jim Lehrer [Television series]. Washington, DC: Public Broadcasting Service.