3-page critique of the peer-reviewed research study? In your Assignment, be sure to identify and evaluate the following, as described in the template: Title and Authors L

Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 34:235–247, 2014 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0884-1233 print/1540-7349 online DOI: 10.1080/08841233.2014.908337

Graduate Social Work Education and Cognitive Complexity: Does Prior

Experience Really Matter?

CHRIS SIMMONS Department of Social Work, University of Mississippi, University, Mississippi, USA

This study examined the extent to which age, education, and practice experience among social work graduate students (N = 184) predicted cognitive complexity, an essential aspect of criti- cal thinking. In the regression analysis, education accounted for more of the variance associated with cognitive complexity than age and practice experience. When age and direct practice experience were controlled for, education accounted for 6% of the variance in cognitive complexity. Results suggest that education experience may play a more important role in social work student cognitive complexity than age or practice experience. Implications for social work education and assessing student cognitive development are discussed.

KEYWORDS Perry Scheme, cognitive complexity, graduate social work education, critical thinking skills, Council on Social Work Education, Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards, age, education, experience

Social work education begins in a formal learning environment, whereas students’ thinking and classroom behaviors often are predictive of thinking and behaviors in field and beyond. Students, for example, who are con- crete and inflexible in the way they approach learning often approach their work with clients similarly. They tend to have problems with facilitative qualities, like empathy and nonjudgmental attitudes (Brendel, Kolbert, & Foster, 2002). Intellectually flexible students, on the other hand, are able to deal with ambiguity and uncertainty and may be better suited for social

Address correspondence to Chris Simmons, Department of Social Work, University of Mississippi, University, MS 38677-1848, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

235

236 C. Simmons

work, which calls for complex problem-solving capabilities (cf. Stoltenberg & Delworth, 1987).

The Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards specify “social workers distinguish, appraise, and integrate multiple sources of knowledge” (CSWE, 2008, EP 2.1.3). These crit- ical thinking expectations represent higher order cognitive skills involved in analyzing and making sense of complex issues, which may be exam- ined according to one aspect of the cognitive structure in critical thinking: cognitive complexity. Cognitive complexity is broadly defined as the abil- ity to understand, analyze, and integrate multiple, and at times competing, perspectives (Streufert & Swezey, 1986). Social workers who have mastered cognitive complexity, therefore, possess the ability to analyze complex client issues, make multiple distinctions, and examine the relationships among those distinctions.

The context for this study of cognitive complexity is the theory of adult epistemological development (i.e., adult cognitive development), which explains how individuals understand and make meaning of the world. Perry’s (1970) theory of adult epistemological development—adapted from Piaget’s (1967) work on cognitive development—argues that as students develop cognitive complexity skills, they move from an absolutist worldview to a pluralistic one (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997; Perry, 1970, 1999). Perry’s model, in turn, laid the groundwork for other epistemological development theories (Baxter Magolda, 1992; Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986; King & Kitchener, 1994). Epistemological theories, in general, hold that as students interact with their environment, they respond to information by assimilating the information into existing schemas or accommodating existing schemas with new information, creating new cognitive structures. Cognitive structures determine how students organize and evaluate incoming information and how they attend to specific details and inconsistencies (Sakai & Nasserbakht, 1997). They are “formal properties of the assumptions and expectancies a person holds at a given time in regard to the nature and origins of knowledge and values” (Perry, 1999, p. 47).

Although Perry’s scheme consists of nine positions, the first five posi- tions (basic dualism, full dualism, early multiplicity, late multiplicity, and contextual relativism) describe epistemological development. Students in basic/full dualism (POS/1, POS/2) are learning how to learn. They believe that there are either right answers or wrong answers to problems and author- ities have the right answers. Hence, the authority’s task is to give them the right answers. Multiplicity represents a shift from relying solely on authorities for answers. Students in early/late multiplicity (POS/3, POS/4) are learn- ing to think analytically and independently. They believe, however, that all answers are valid when the “truth” is unknown—even unsupported answers. Students in contextual relativism (POS/5) learn that knowledge is defined by its context and is based on evidence and supportive arguments. This position

Graduate Social Work Education 237

represents a fundamental shift in thinking. Movement within or between stages is accomplished by an innate inclination toward autonomy and the student’s interaction with a diversity of opinions (Perry, 1970, 1999). Perry believed that students could operate from more than one position at a given time, because they may have more to learn before transitioning to another position. Although students occupy several positions, they may hold a domi- nant position from which they will form most of their ideas about the external world.

This study is important to social work because cognitive complexity has been positively linked to several essential facilitative qualities, such as high psychological functioning (Brendel, et al., 2002), confidence and focus on counseling effectiveness (Birk & Mahalik, 1996), empathic understanding (Lyons & Hazler, 2002), and complex descriptions of client characteristics (Borders, 1989). In general, people who possess high cognitive complexity are flexible, are open to new information, use effective communication, and deploy creative problem-solving strategies (Streufert & Swezey, 1986).

The CSWE outlined social work practice behaviors that require complex cognitive skills; however, in the social work education literature, there has been limited inquiry into social worker complexity. At the very least, social work education research should add to the knowledge base and under- standing of student cognitive complexity. A general understanding of student development might assist instructors in providing the best environment for students—“preparing them for the ambiguities and complexities of social work practice” (Gibbons & Gray, 2004, p. 22).

The purpose of this research was to explore cognitive complexity among social work graduate students. In light of the findings from previous research in the counseling fields, it was important to understand the role of cognitive complexity among social work students. Experience variables (i.e., age, prac- tice experience, education experience) have received much attention in the counseling literature. Therefore, the purpose here was extended to examine the extent to which education, age, and practice experience predict cognitive complexity among social work students.

In early studies, education and other types of experiences, at times, were used interchangeably in the literature; however, it has always been important to differentiate between the two. Although studies provided mixed results with respect to experience and cognitive complexity, they have rarely been examined specifically in the context of social work education. Using the sample of graduate students in social work, this research attempts to answer the following questions:

1. To what extent does age (when education experience and direct practice experience are controlled) predict cognitive complexity?

2. To what extent does education experience (when age and direct practice experience are statistically controlled) predict cognitive complexity?

238 C. Simmons

3. To what extent does direct practice experience (when education experi- ence and age are statistically controlled) predict cognitive complexity?

RELEVANT LITERATURE

Using epistemological developmental theory as a framework, several studies examined the relationship between experience and cognitive complexity. These studies addressed age, education experience, and practice experience.

Granello (2002) looked at the effects of age, experience, and edu- cation on counseling students’ cognitive complexity at different levels of their training. The results indicated that students made more gains in cog- nitive complexity from the middle to the end of their training (while in field) than they made from the beginning to the middle of their training. This was found across age levels. The study also somewhat addressed the confounding impact of education on experience by asking participants to report human services experience obtained before entering graduate school. It was concluded that human services experience was not related to cog- nitive complexity. Hood and Deopere (2002) examined the role of age in adult cognitive development among adults from a group of community mem- bers and college students while statistically controlling for educational level. The university participants were either freshmen or sophomores enrolled in an introductory psychology course. The community sample included 10% adults who had not graduated from high school, 34% who had graduated from high school but did not attend college, 19% with some college, and 37% who were college graduates. Their ages ranged from 18 to 87 years, with a mean age of 36 years. Results suggested that age and participation in community or church activities were negatively related to cognitive devel- opment; however, intelligence and education were positively related. Less dualistic thinking and more relativistic thinking were positively related to educational attainment. They also found that dualistic thinking increased with age, even after controlling for intelligence and education. The find- ings suggested that formal education is an important variable in developing cognitive complexity. However, the Perry position of commitment remained unclear from the results of this study. Perhaps objective measures, such as the Scale of Intellectual Development (Erwin, 1981), do not adequately measure commitment. One important issue worth noting was the authors’ definition of experience. They operationalized experience as life experience in general rather than experience in a specific area. Life experience alone may not be enough to bring about cognitive development. Other research addressed the issue of general experience versus domain specific experience.

In a recent study, Taylor and Cheung (2010) conducted a mixed meth- ods exploratory study to examine the extent to which learning strategies influenced cognitive development of graduate social work students over a

Graduate Social Work Education 239

5-year period. They found that the use of learning strategies increased cogni- tive complexity; however, they found no significant differences with respect to age or general or related work experience. Nursing students and practicing nurses were tested to determine whether experience was predictive of cogni- tive complexity (Rapps, Riegel, & Glaser, 2001). Rapps and colleagues (2001) tested whether knowledge base, critical thinking skills, critical thinking dis- positions, and experience were predictive of adult cognitive development in nurses using Perry’s scheme of intellectual and ethical development, specifically dualism, relativism, and commitment. They defined experience as experience gained after nursing school—domain specific experience. Knowledge base was not a significant predictor of cognitive complexity. Critical thinking predicted cognitive complexity at each position of the Perry Scheme, and experience was related to higher cognitive complexity. A recent study confirmed the proposition that domain specific experience is related to cognitive complexity (Granello, 2010). While controlling for education expe- rience, Granello (2010) examined whether years of experience would predict cognitive complexity among practitioners. She found that practitioners with more years in the counseling profession had higher cognitive complexity.

THE PRESENT RESEARCH

This study was based on two theoretical assumptions: (a) formal education is needed to bring about cognitive complexity (Perry, 1970), and (b) expe- rience involving actual clients might account for an increase in cognitive complexity among a group of helping professionals (Blocher, 1983). The assumptions were tested by examining education experience, direct prac- tice experience, and cognitive complexity among graduate students in social work. Because of mixed results of previous studies, age could not be ruled out. It was important to explore cognitive complexity here because there has been limited research focused on experience and cognitive complexity of social work students.

METHOD

This study involved the online administration of an adult cognitive complex- ity scale and a demographic survey. A group of 201 master’s and doctoral students in social work responded to a research invitation.

Instruments

A one-page, researcher-developed demographic questionnaire contained the following items: students’ age; gender; ethnicity; education experience

240 C. Simmons

(highest degree earned); and current program, direct practice experience (practicum, internship or practice setting). Direct practice experience was operationally defined as the total number of years of direct practice (calcu- lated as the total number of work experiences in the human services field with actual clients).

The Learning Environment Preferences (LEP) is an objective measure of Perry’s scheme of cognitive development (Moore, 1990a). The LEP is a 65- item instrument divided into five domains: (a) view of learning, (b) view of the role of the instructor, (c) view of the role of students/peers, (d) view of the classroom atmosphere and activities, and (e) view of evaluation proce- dures. The instrument was modified to reflect the experiences of social work students by adding “To learn social work” to original stems. For example, the first stem, “My ideal learning environment would,” was changed to “To learn social work, my ideal learning environment would.” Although the instrument is still a general measure of cognitive complexity, the additions to the stems made students focus on their social work training.

The LEP involves two steps. In the first step, participants respond to Likert-type statements. In the second step, participants rank the three most important items in each domain. Because the item-by-item responses are used for item-response analysis and not required to obtain a general score of overall cognitive development, students in this study were asked to perform the second step of rating the items, because we were interested in students’ overall cognitive complexity level. According to Moore (1990a), the rankings yield a cognitive complexity score—a single numerical score along a con- tinuous scale of cognitive development from 200 to 500 that corresponds to the Perry positions and the transitions between the positions (Table 1). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the LEP were reported as .72 to .84, and test–retest reliability was .89 (Moore, 1990a). Criterion, concurrent, and construct validity were found to be acceptable (Moore, 1989). Significant cog- nitive complexity criterion group differences were shown across educational levels.

TABLE 1 CCI Score Ranges and Relative Perry Positions

CCI score ranges Perry positions

200–240 POS/2 – Full Dualism 241–284 Transition 2/3 285–328 POS/3 – Early Multiplicity 329–372 Transition 3/4 373–416 POS/4 – Late Multiplicity 417–460 Transition 4/5 461–500 POS/5 – Contextual Relativism

Note. CCI score ranges do not include Perry Positions 1, 6, 7, 8 and 9. CCI = Cognitive Complexity Index.

Graduate Social Work Education 241

Procedures

Upon approval from the university Institutional Review Board, the sample was solicited via e-mail through the Association of Baccalaureate Program Directors electronic mailing list. The e-mail contained an explanation of the study, a recruitment request for MSW students and doctoral students in social work, and a link to the survey. Inclusion of both master’s-level students and doctoral-level students allowed substantial variability in terms of age, educa- tion, and practice experience. Respondents following the link were directed to an informed consent script. After reading the informed consent script, students eligible and wanting to volunteer for the study were instructed to continue to the survey. Ineligible students, or students who did not want to participate in the study, were asked to exit the page. All procedures com- plied with the university’s Institutional Review Board. After the data were collected, each completed survey was entered into a statistical spreadsheet with a unique identifier. The total cognitive complexity scores were com- puted using a scoring spreadsheet provided by the instrument’s author, who used a nonprobability sampling method. The cognitive complexity scores were entered into a statistical spreadsheet and matched to the demographic portion of the survey for analyses.

Of the 201 individuals responding to the research invitation, 190 (94%) respondents completed the survey. The average time spent completing the surveys ranged from 20 to 30 min. Six of the 190 surveys (3%) were dis- carded because students’ scores were flagged as invalid by the scoring matrix when they endorsed three or more improbable answers. Therefore, 184 sur- veys were used in the analysis. Zero-order correlations were calculated to determine the direction and strength of the relationship among cognitive complexity, age, educational experience, and direct practice experience. A multiple regression was performed to identify the contribution of each independent variable to the variance in cognitive complexity.

Sample

Participants were from all four regions in the United States. Of the par- ticipants, 14.1% were from Midwestern states, 2.7% were from Northeastern states, 45.7% were from Southern states, and 37.5% were from Western states. The age of the participants ranged from 22 years to 64 years (M = 33, SD = 10). The direct practice experience of participants ranged from no experi- ence to 28 years (M = 4.38, SD = 4.90). Participants were mostly White (76 %). Racial/ethnic minority students consisted of African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and other (24%). They were mostly female (92%). The highest degrees held by participants were bachelor’s (75%) and master’s (25%). They were either in MSW programs (79%) or in social work doctoral programs (21%). Thirty percent of the participants reported that they had enrolled in their prospective MSW programs in advance standing status.

242 C. Simmons

RESULTS

The majority in the sample (80%) were in transition between Early Multiplicity and Late Multiplicity (POS3/4) or firmly in Late Multiplicity (POS/4). This was consistent with previous findings (Eriksen & McAuliffe, 2006; Granello, 2002; Moore, 1990b). The mean cognitive complexity score for the sample was 378.68 (SD = 34.85) or POS/4. White students (M = 380.67, SD = 34.21) were at POS/4, and racial/ethnic minority students (M = 372.36, SD = 36.52) were transitioning between POS/3 and POS/4. Both male (M = 386.14, SD = 29.14) and female (M = 378.07, SD = 35.29) students were at POS/4. Students with a master’s degree (M = 396.98, SD = 37.38) and students enrolled in a doctoral social work program (M = 400.58, SD = 38.79) were in POS/4, and students with a bachelor’s degree (M = 372.59, SD = 31.84) and students enrolled in an MSW program (M = 372.98, SD = 31.48) were in transition between POS/3 and POS/4

Pearson product-moment correlations were calculated to determine the direction and relative strength of the relationship among variables (Table 2). In this sample, a positive relationship between age and direct practice expe- rience, age and education experience, and education experience and direct practice experience was expected. Each independent variable was positively related to cognitive complexity, and education experience had the strongest relationship with cognitive complexity among the variables.

The distribution for the criterion variable cognitive complexity was examined to assess for normality assumption. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to test the assumption of normality. The results of the test showed that cognitive complexity scores did not significantly depart from normal- ity (p = .259). Visual inspection of the histogram distribution confirmed the results of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (M = 1.16, SD = 0.99).

In the regression model, temporal logic was used to enter variables into the model. Age was entered first. Age accounted for 4% of the variance (β = .206, t = 2.84, p < .01). When direct practice experience and education were controlled, age made an insignificant contribution to the model (β = .069, t = .866, p = .387). Direct practice experience was entered second. Direct practice experience accounted for 2% of the variance associated with

TABLE 2 Zero Order Correlations Between Model Variables

1 2 3 4

1. Cognitive complexity — 2. Age .21∗ — 3. Direct practice experience .22∗ .43∗ — 4. Education experience .30∗ .32∗ .22∗ —

Note. N = 184. ∗p < .05, one-tailed.

Graduate Social Work Education 243

TABLE 3 Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Cognitive Complexity

Variable B SE (B) β �R2 F change

Step 1 .04∗ 8.07∗

Age .70 .25 .21∗

Step 2 .02∗ 3.97∗

Age .47 .27 .14 Direct practice experience 1.13 .57 .16∗

Step 3 .06∗ 11.70∗

Age .24 .27 .07 Direct practice experience .95 .55 .13 Education experience 20.33 5.94 .25∗

Note. N = 184. Adjusted R2 = .04. ∗p < .05, one-tailed.

cognitive complexity (β = .158, t = 2.00, p < .05). When age and education experience were controlled, direct practice made an insignificant contribu- tion to the model (β = .134, t = 1.72, p = .087). Education experience was entered into the regression solution last. Education experience accounted for 6% of the variance associated with cognitive complexity, when controlling for age and direct practice experience (β = .253, t = 3.42, p < .01). The model accounted for 11% of the variance in cognitive complexity (Table 3).

DISCUSSION

This study examined the relationship between age, education, direct practice experience, and cognitive complexity among a sample of master’s and doc- toral social work students. In this study, increasing age was related to higher cognitive complexity, suggesting that older students were more complex than were younger students. When the effects of direct practice experience and education experience were removed, however, age was an insignificant predictor of cognitive complexity. This was inconsistent previous research that found cognitive complexity decreased with age when education was controlled (Hood & Deopere, 2002). In the previous research, most of the older participants were from a community sample and were not currently attending college. All of the participants in the current study were attending college. It is also important to note that the age range in this study was 22 to 64 years as opposed to 18 to 87 years as in the previous study.

Blocher (1983) and Fong, Borders, Ethington, and Pitts (1997) noted the importance of student work experience with actual clients as a mecha- nism for cognitive development. This assumption was tested by examining direct practice experience. Results indicated that direct practice experience was positively related to cognitive complexity. Students with more practice experience were more cognitively complex than students with less practice

244 C. Simmons

experience—even when age was controlled. However, when the effects of education experience were removed, direct practice experience was no longer a significant predictor of cognitive complexity. One study found that practice experience was related to cognitive complexity while controlling for the effects of education (Granello, 2010). The study examined the prac- tice experience of counselors after formal training. One way to interpret this inconsistency is that experience after formal training might be a better pre- dictor of cognitive complexity than providing direct services to individuals, groups, families, or communities before formal training.

Education experience, as expected, was a significant predictor of cog- nitive complexity. Other studies have found a similar relationship between education and cognitive complexity (Granello, 2002, 2010; Hood & Deopere, 2002). The findings may be taken as partial support for Perry’s (1970, 1999) original theory. In Perry’s original study, students reached contextual rela- tivism (POS/5) at roughly their senior year; however, very few studies have replicated his early findings. One criticism of his theory is that it is based on White, middle-class men from a prestigious university. It was therefore speculated that Perry’s stages, when applied to non–Ivy League students, may have some applicability beyond undergraduate education. On average, master’s-level students in the current study were in transition between early and late multiplicity. Students who were at POS/5 were doctoral students, and there were only two such students. Although it is unknown whether they were at the end of their programs, conceptually students typically do not reach relativistic thinking before they are at the end of their course study or beyond graduate school (Skovholt & Ronnestad, 1992). Because only two doctoral students were at this stage, it suggests that the majority of the doctoral students had not yet made that shift in thinking.

Several limitations of this study must be noted. The study was corre- lational; therefore, no causal inferences can be made from the results. The data were gathered from a relatively homogeneous population of gradu- ate students in social work. Because a nonrandom sample was used, it was unknown whether respondents were different from nonrespondents. In addi- tion, there was a lack of demographic variability in the sample. Most of the sample consisted of European Americans and female participants. Although this might be a reflection of social work fields in general, it limited the researcher’s ability to examine issues of gender and ethnicity.

Nevertheless, the results of this study have several implications for social work education. First, given the emphasis that CWSE has placed on the implicit and explicit curriculum, social work educators may benefit from developing a broader understanding of student cognitive complexity in order to promote student cognitive development. Social work programs are now required to demonstrate that students are developing higher order cognitive skills; therefore, it is imperative that educators provide the best learning environments to encourage and support such student development.

Graduate Social Work Education 245

Cognitive complexity measures may provide an alternative method of assessing student development, which may ultimately indicate whether we are preparing students for the complexities of professional social work practice.

Social work graduate programs might also place more emphasis on edu- cation experience and be less concerned about admitting students who lack life experience (which may be connected to age) or practice experience. There has been much speculation among social work educators that stu- dents who lack life or work experience before entering their prospective programs are less well prepared for social work practice—especially with respect to advanced-standing students. This and prior research, however, do not support this hypothesis. In a recent study, only 17% of programs surveyed reported that advanced-standing students had insufficient life and work experience, which they believed influenced professional maturation (Bremner & Zastrow, 2008). Although more research is needed with respect predictors of cognitive complexity, this research supports the view that cog- nitive maturity can be achieved through education. Once the students are formally trained in a particular domain, they are then able to make significant developmental gains from their work or their experiences.

The results of the study warrant additional examination of experience- related variables and their relationship to cognitive complexity. Quality of experiences may be an area for future research. John Dewey (1938) stated that experience alone might not be an adequate measure of development. Accor

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.