Understanding and Applying Cognitive Development Theory E-Book

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Bildung
• Serie: J-B SS Single Issue Student Services
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 217

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2011

Beschreibung

Creating learning environments and learning experiences forstudents is one of the primary purposes of student services.Student services professionals need to have a solid understandingof the cognitive development of college students in order to designactivities that will enhance that development. This issue of NewDirections for Student Services reviews five theories of thecognitive development of college students and explores theapplications of those theories for student affairs practice. Thetheories shed light on gender-related patterns of knowing andreasoning; interpersonal, cultural, and emotional influences oncognitive development; and people's methods of approaching complexissues and defending what they believe. This is the 88th issue of the quarterly journals New Directions forStudent Services.

Leseprobe

Contents

Authors’ Notes

Chapter 1: Perry’s Intellectual Scheme

Terms and Concepts

Perry’s Nine Positions of Cognitive Development

Saliency and Use of Perry’s Theory Today

Conclusion

Chapter 2: Women’s Ways of Knowing

The Five Epistemological Perspectives

Implications for Student Affairs Professionals

Conclusion

Chapter 3: Baxter Magolda’s Epistemological Reflection Model

The Study

Patterns of Knowing

Application of the Model to Student Affairs

Conclusion

Chapter 4: King and Kitchener’s Reflective Judgment Model

The Theory

Importance of the Model

The Seven Stages of Reflective Judgment

Developing Reflective Judgment

Implications for Student Affairs Educators

Chapter 5: Interpersonal, Cultural, and Emotional Influences on Cognitive Development

Interpersonal Influences on Cognitive Development

Cultural Influences on Cognitive Development

Emotional Influences on Cognitive Development

Conclusion

Chapter 6: Kegan’s Orders of Consciousness

The Subject-Object Distinction

Kegan’s Five Orders of Consciousness

Creating Bridges to More Complex Orders

Chapter 7: Synthesis, Assessment, and Application

Points of Intersection and Divergence

Further Comparison and Kegan’s Theory

The Role of Gender

Culture and Cognitive Development

Intentional Informal Assessment

Application

Conclusion

References

Index

Understanding and Applying Cognitive Development Theory

Patrick G. Love, Victoria L. Guthrie (aus.)

New Directions for Student Services, no. 88

John H. Schuh, Editor-in-Chief

Elizabeth J. Whitt, Associate Editor

Copyright © 1999 by Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers, 350 Sansome Street, San Francisco, CA, 94104-1342.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher.

Microfilm copies of issues and articles are available in 16mm and 35mm, as well as microfiche in 105mm, through University Microfilms Inc., 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106-1346.

ISSN 0164-7970 ISBN 0-7879-4870-5

New Directions for Student Services is part of The Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series and is published quarterly by Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers, 350 Sansome Street, San Francisco, California 94104-1342. Periodicals postage paid at San Francisco, California, and at additional mailing offices. Postmaster: Send address changes to New Directions for Student Services, Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers, 350 Sansome Street, San Francisco, California 94104-1342.

New Directions for Student Services is indexed in College Student Personnel Abstracts and Contents Pages in Education.

Subscriptions cost $58.00 for individuals and $104.00 for institutions, agencies, and libraries. See ordering information page at end of book.

Editorial correspondence should be sent to the Editor-in-Chief, John H. Schuh, N 243 Lagomarcino Hall, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011

Cover photograph by Wernher Krutein/PHOTOVAULT © 1990.

Jossey-Bass Web address: www.josseybass.com

Authors’ Notes

At the heart of student affairs work should be a focus on student learning (American College Personnel Association, 1994; Wingspread Group on Higher Education, 1993). Indeed, the Principles of Good Practice for Student Affairs, jointly authored by the American College Personnel Association and the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (1997), stresses the creation of learning environments and learning experiences for students as a primary purpose underlying good practice in our field. “The Student Learning Imperative” (Schroeder, 1996, p. 119) also underscores that “student affairs professionals are educators who share responsibility with faculty, academic administrators, other staff and students themselves for creating the conditions under which students are likely to expend time and energy in educationally-purposeful activities.” Creating conditions that inspire students to devote time and energy to these educationally purposeful activities, both in and outside the classroom, is key to enhancing student learning and personal development (American College Personnel Association, 1994). One of the hallmarks of a learned and developed person is complex cognitive skills. Fortunately, student affairs educators have a broad base of theory and research on which to base intentional interventions and activities directed toward enhancing the cognitive development of college students.

Cognitive development has been a focus of social sciences research for much of the twentieth century. Two streams of research developed early in this century. One stream focused on the concept of intelligence and quickly captured the public’s attention with tests purporting to measure one’s intellectual potential, or “intelligence quotient” (IQ). Although the notion of IQ has come under scrutiny during the last several decades, tributaries of this stream can still be seen today. Standardized aptitude tests are direct descendants of intelligence testing. Howard Gardner’s work (1993) in identifying, describing, and creating curricula for multiple intelligences is another example of important work in the general area of intelligence.

The other stream of research on the human faculties focused on the process of cognition and the development of cognitive abilities. Jean Piaget’s work (1969; Piaget and Inhelder, 1971) in the development of formal reasoning in children is perhaps the most well known of this genre. Another important figure was Lev Vygotsky (1978), whose work in the areas now known as social cognition and constructivism was conducted in the 1920s and 1930s in Soviet Russia but only became known in the West during the last twenty-five years. After World War II, research relating to cognition expanded to include such topics as information processing, metacognition, and learning theory.

The focus of this volume is on the cognitive development of college students. Virtually all cognitive development theories of student development trace their origins to Piaget’s work. The five theories reviewed in this volume are no exception. They seek to describe the process of change in cognitive structures students use in making meaning of their world, with a focus on how meaning is structured, not on what is known or believed.

William Perry (1970) was the first researcher to focus solely on the cognitive development of college students, and his work grew directly from Piaget’s. Perry conducted his research in the 1950s and 1960s, and it was first published in 1968. In 1978, Applying New Developmental Findings (Knefelkamp, Widick, and Parker) summarized the major college student development theories of that time; Perry’s intellectual development scheme was among them. Since the publication of that popular and timely volume, the research on college student development has grown tremendously, and student development models and theories have proliferated. A concise summary of all major theories in a monograph-sized volume is no longer possible. However, a summary of college student cognitive development theory is an attainable goal. The theories that are the focus of this volume are those of Perry (1970), Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule (1986), King and Kitchener (1994), Baxter Magolda (1992), and Kegan (1982, 1994). These theories vary in a number of important ways, including the structure of the developmental process; the endpoints; and the number, characteristics, and labeling of stages or dimensions. At the same time, there are commonalities in substance and process among the theories, which we address in the final chapter.

The focus of this monograph is on understanding and applying cognitive development theory. Therefore, it concentrates on explaining the various theories and translating them into practice in student affairs. As Piper and Rodgers (1992) point out, in order to apply a theory of student development, one must first know that theory in depth. The summaries in this monograph provide a starting point for reaching an in-depth understanding of these vital theories. We recommend that readers explore the original sources for a deeper and more thorough understanding.

We intend this volume for student affairs practitioners who want a grounding in cognitive development theory. We also hope that graduate faculty and students in graduate preparation programs will find the volume useful in developing an understanding of this important area of student development theory; from that understanding, competence in intentional informal assessment and application of theory in practice may grow.

A number of other researchers have expanded on and extended the theoretical foundation of cognitive development of college students that was laid by William Perry’s groundbreaking research (which is summarized in Chapter One). Women’s Ways of Knowing (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule, 1986), though not argued by its authors to be a formal theory, is the report of research on cognitive development and the making of meaning as experienced by women. Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule, whose research is the topic of Chapter Two, extend Perry’s work to women and also to women of lower socioeconomic status (Perry studied affluent Harvard students of the 1950s and 1960s). Marcia Baxter Magolda’s epistemological reflection model (addressed in Chapter Three) grew out of her dissertation research on Perry’s scheme, as did Patricia King and Karen Kitchener’s reflective judgment model (reviewed in Chapter Four). Both of these models have become important elements of the discourse in student affairs related to student development in general and to cognitive development and learning in particular.

Chapters One through Four of this volume begin with an overview of the theory and the research on which the theory is based. This is followed by an explication of the theory and an exploration of some of the applications for student affairs practice (except for Chapter One, which instead addresses the saliency of the theory for today’s student affairs professionals).

The influence of varying social contexts and emotional states on the cognitive development of students has become a focus of consideration in general and in the field of student affairs in particular (Goleman, 1995; Love and Goodsell Love, 1995; Lundeberg and Diemert Moch, 1995). Chapter Five centers on this research area. Robert Kegan’s theory of meaning formation (1982, 1994), somewhat influenced by Perry’s research, also incorporates social, cultural, and emotional processes. Chapter Six considers Kegan’s orders of consciousness. Chapter Seven synthesizes the research described in this volume, introduces a model of intentional informal assessment of the cognitive development of students to be used in student affairs practice, and explores ways these theories can be applied in our work.

Patrick G. Love

Victoria L. Guthrie

Authors

We wish to thank Patricia King for her assistance; Marianne T. Bock and Dianne Runnestrand for their ideas, suggestions, editing, and gentle critique; and Nadine Hagoort, Vicki Hellman, and the other students in college student development courses at Kent State University and Ohio University who contributed insights and provided feedback on the manuscript.

Patrick G. Love is associate professor and coordinator of the master’s degree program in higher education and student personnel at Kent State University.

Victoria L. Guthrie is assistant professor of higher education and student personnel leadership at Ohio University.

Chapter 1

Perry’s Intellectual Scheme

William Perry’s intellectual scheme set the stage for future theory building related to the cognitive development of college students.

Little can be said about Perry’s scheme of intellectual and ethical development that has not been said already; however, any discussion of cognitive development theories of college students must begin with William Perry’s work. Among the reasons for including Perry are that three of the works also summarized in this volume (Baxter Magolda, 1992; Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule, 1986; King and Kitchener, 1994) grew out of the research of Perry and his colleagues. In addition, the theory—and what it has to say about the cognitive development of college students—is still salient for today’s practitioners. At a minimum Perry’s work has intuitive face validity for practitioners (King, 1978), and it forms a bridge from the child and adolescent studies of Piaget, Vygotsky, and others to a more direct focus on early adulthood, especially the early adulthood of college students.

Two of the most cited and thorough reviews of Perry’s theory and research are King’s chapter (1978) and Perry’s own synopsis (1981). Briefer, but more recent, reviews include Chickering and Reisser’s summary (1993) in Education and Identity and Evans, Forney, and Guido-DiBrito’s summary (1998) in Student Development in College. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a summary of Perry’s work and view it in the context of the late 1990s. Perry was a counselor and professor of education at Harvard, and during the course of about fifteen years in the 1950s and 1960s he worked with more than thirty people in conducting the research that led to the development of this scheme (Perry, 1981). Perry and his colleagues came up with the intellectual and ethical scheme now identified solely with him. One of his motives for studying the cognitive development of college students was his recognition of the increasing relativism in society and diversity on campus, which had both been accelerating since World War II. Perry felt that there was a need to comprehend how students came to understand the modern world through multiple frames of reference. The diversity Perry identified was geographic diversity—students were arriving at Harvard and Radcliffe from all over the United States and from throughout the world. This kind of diversity is distantly related to today’s concerns about such issues as class, race or ethnicity, and sexual orientation.

The population Perry and his colleagues studied consisted of white, overwhelmingly male, upper-class students at Harvard and Radcliffe—the elite of the time. They interviewed students at the end of each academic year during their four years in college. Each interview began with the same question: “What stands out for you from the past year?” They interviewed 31 students from the class of 1958 (27 from Harvard, 4 from Radcliffe), and then 109 students from the classes of 1962 and 1963 (85 from Harvard, 24 from Radcliffe). A total of 464 interviews were conducted from which there were complete four-year sequences for 84 students, of which only 2 were women. Their conclusion was that, although the content of the interviews varied tremendously, the underlying structures of meaning making (that is, the forms students used to make sense of their academic and personal experiences) and the sequence of development were equivalent. Also, they concluded that the differences were not due solely to personality styles but to different aspects of a developmental process.

Perry’s work was an outgrowth of theories that preceded his own, especially Piaget’s theory. For example, Perry and his colleagues adopted Piaget’s terms assimilation and accommodation to describe the processes of development they discovered in the students they interviewed. Perry (1970, p. 204) also pointed out the similarity between the two theories as a “movement away from a naive egocentrism to a differentiated awareness of the environment.” Both theories trace a process of new awareness of the self, of environmental influences on the self, and of the complex balance between this emerging awareness of the self and the external influences from the environment. Perry’s focus on college students extends our understanding of cognitive development beyond Piaget, whose theory stopped at approximately age fifteen.

Terms and Concepts

In some cases, Perry and his colleagues developed a specific vocabulary to explain what they were finding in their research. Definitions of some of the important terms and concepts that will be elucidated in the course of this chapter are presented here.

Position

Perry’s scheme comprises nine positions. He chose to use the term position rather than stage.Stage refers to a relatively stable and enduring form, pattern, or structure of meaning making that pervades a person’s experience (Perry, 1970). Perry and his colleagues preferred the term position because they made no assumptions about the duration of the position. Amid the variety and range of structures a particular student uses to make sense of the various aspects of the world at any particular point in time, position could express a central tendency in students’ meaning making. Also, the term implies the “place,” or vantage point, from which the student views the world (Perry, 1970).

Absolute

Perry used the term Absolute (uppercase A) synonymously with Truth—in the sense of unchanging, universal, timeless facts and knowledge. The Truth was possessed by Authorities.

Authorities

Authorities (uppercase A) were the possessors of the right answers in the Absolute; authorities (lowercase a) existed in the relativistic world and derived their authority from many sources, such as power, expertise, training, wisdom, experience, and position.

Adherence and Opposition

In several of the early positions of the scheme, Perry and his colleagues noticed that students differed in their perceived relationship with Authorities. Those identified as adherents tended to identify and align with Authorities through a dualistic structure of the world: Authorities were part of “we” (Authority-we-right). Those identified as being in opposition set themselves apart from Authorities: Authorities were part of “they,” and they were wrong (Authority-they-wrong; we-right). These different relationships with and to Authority had an influence on the form of students’ intellectual development.

Alternatives to Growth

In his original work, Perry (1970) identified at least three alternatives to forward progress through the positions of his scheme: temporizing, retreat, and escape. Knefelkamp (1999) identified at least one more: functional regression.

Temporizing occurred when a student delayed in one position for a period of time, hesitating to take the next step. The individual usually was aware of the position ahead but was unwilling to proceed.

Retreat described a movement back to the relative safety and security of dualism—a world where right and wrong were clear and ambiguity did not exist. This occurred often in reaction to the complicated nature of pluralism.

Escape described the act students engaged in when they avoided moving beyond the position of relativism to the responsibility of making commitments in a relativistic world. Students who took the escape route realized that it was easier to remain in a relativistic stance than to face the difficulty of making commitments and personal choices.

Functional regression described a process where students who were undertaking new learning in a new environment “functionally” regressed to previous positions until they felt comfortable in the new environment. That is, the regression was developmentally appropriate; to progress developmentally, the students needed to move back to previous sense making in order to get their bearings.

Perry’s Nine Positions of Cognitive Development

Perry’s scheme has been divided and sorted in a variety of ways. In various explications, it has been broken down into nine, four, three, or two parts. As already indicated, his theory lists nine separate positions. However, they often are clustered into groups for easier digestion and initial understanding. Several authors (such as Brand, 1988; King, 1978; and Kloss, 1994) suggest that the dominant pattern is four major groups within the nine positions: dualism (positions 1 and 2), multiplicity (positions 3 and 4a), relativism (positions 4b, 5, and 6), and commitment in relativism (positions 7, 8, and 9). Perry (1970) himself initially clustered them into three groups. He described positions 1, 2, and 3 as the transition from a right-wrong outlook to the recognition of relativism; positions 4, 5, and 6 as the development of this relativistic outlook; and positions 7, 8, and 9 as the development of commitments in a relativistic world. However, the scheme also can be seen as having two major orientations: pre–position 5 (knowledge and values are objective, certain, and universal); position 5 and post–position 5 (knowledge and values are relative, contingent, and contextual). Position 5 is where the most significant revolution in sense making occurs for the individual (Perry, 1970). It is this dichotomy that led to King’s criticism (1978) of Perry’s theory, in which King contends that the first five positions described epistemological and intellectual development and that the last four described moral, ethical, and identity development. This chapter focuses on the first five positions of Perry’s scheme and the transitions between them. (The last four positions of Perry’s scheme were lightly drawn and in the intervening years have not been filled in. Instead, ethical and moral development has arisen as a separate area of focus and research.) Providing information on the transitions between positions allows for clearer application of the theory in practice (Perry, 1981). To further enhance clarity, Knefelkamp’s labels (1999), which she indicated she and Perry developed to clarify confusion about the original labels, are given in parentheses, either following the subheading of the section where the label is discussed (for positions 1–5) or within the text of that section (for positions 6–9). For example, Knefelkamp’s label for basic dualism is strict dualism.

Position 1: Basic Dualism (Strict Dualism)

For those who view their experience from this position, the world is divided into absolutes (right and wrong, good and bad). Everything is known. Authorities possess the Absolute Truth; they know the right answers and identify what is good (Perry, 1970). The world of Authority is free from conflict, and a student’s job is to listen to the Authorities in order to receive the right answers—the Truth. All problems are solvable by obeying and conforming to what is right and what Authorities want.

Perry and his colleagues did not find any students who by the end of their first year in college had basic dualism as a dominant orientation (Perry, 1970). However, the expectation associated with dualism (the existence of right answers for all questions and problems) persists as an important assumption underlying the first four positions of the scheme. It is only in position 5 that the discovery of a simple right answer becomes recognized as the exception rather than as the rule.

Transition to Position 2

Development is prompted by the recognition of the existence of different opinions and the recognition that some Authorities disagree on what is right and good (Perry, 1981). In Perry’s original work (1970), he noted that students were confronted with pluralism and diversity of opinions most powerfully in the residence halls and that the first challenge to basic dualism often came from peers.

Position 2: Multiplicity Prelegitimate (Strict Dualism)

Multiplicity refers to the pluralism of answers, opinions, ideas, and points of view related to problems and issues. The notion of multiplicity being “prelegitimate” means that students recognize but stand in opposition to pluralism, complexity, diversity, abstractness, and interpretation. In this position the student remains loyal to Authority, still seeking truth from professionals, such as a professor or advisor, or from books written by “experts.” Perry (1970) noted that students at this position also express fear, stress, and sadness when they realize that the way they have known (that is, the world as absolutely known and knowable) is at times no longer in evidence. Because multiplicity is not perceived as legitimate, students must make sense of its existence. They will, for example, allow a difference of opinion but recognize it as only temporary or decide that questions without clear-cut answers are used by Authorities for the purpose of making students think more. Students at this position will also differentiate between good Authorities (“My professor wrote the book on this subject.”) and bad Authorities (“She’s only a teacher’s assistant. What would she know?”).

Transition to Position 3

Progression toward the outlook that pluralism may be a legitimate notion is prompted when students experience good Authorities admitting that even they do not have all the answers yet (Perry, 1981). Students struggling with this transition may divide subjects into the definite (most often math and science) and the vague (such as social sciences and humanities) (Perry, 1981).

Position 3: Multiplicity Legitimate but Subordinate (Early Multiplicity)

Students who view the world from this position accept as legitimate the idea that there is room for human uncertainty but that this uncertainty does not affect the nature of Truth itself because the uncertainty is temporary (Perry, 1970). The limit of uncertainty that students can tolerate has expanded, but uncertainty is still agitating. Eventually, the one right and universal answer will be found. However, where there is no agreement as to the right and good answer, there is then no wrong answer. Instead, in areas of uncertainty everyone is viewed as having a right to a personal opinion. Rightness, therefore, vanishes as a standard of evaluation. For example, students who see the world from this position begin to question systems of grading or modes of evaluation (in and out of the classroom). If there are no agreed-on answers, nothing is left for a basis of the judgment of schoolwork but style and good expression. Students set out on a quest to discover what the Authorities (that is, professors) want and then try to give it to them (Perry, 1970).

Transition to Position 4

Students recognize that uncertainty is not isolated but widespread and that the chance of quick answers coming soon is slim. Uncertainty is now unavoidable, and the strong identification of Authorities with Absolute truth is further loosened (Perry, 1981).

Position 4: Late Multiplicity

In Perry’s original work (1970), position 4 represented the modal starting point of freshmen at the end of their first year. In the earlier positions of the scheme, Perry (1970) described how students varied in how they experienced and worked through their development. However, in position 4 the differences were so dichotomized that Perry and his colleagues identified two different paths students took. Basically, students split into two groups in position 4, only to be reunited in position 5. In 1981, Perry noted that some students may actually proceed from 4a to 4b before moving on to position 5. Perry and his colleagues also found that the path students took seemed to be dictated by their relationship and identification with Authority—that is, the balance between a student’s tendency toward Opposition on the one hand and Adherence on the other.

Position 4a: Multiplicity Correlate (Oppositional Alternative)

Perry’s description (1981, p. 84) of students’ mind-set in position 4a was as follows: “These students create the double dualism of a world in which the Authority’s right-wrong world is one element and personalistic diversity [multiplicity] is the other. The students have thus succeeded in preserving a dualistic structure for their worlds and at the same time have carved out for themselves a domain promising absolute freedom. In saying in this domain, ‘Everyone has a right to [their] own opinion,’ students are also saying, ‘Where Authorities do not know the Answer, any opinion is as good as any other.’”

Perry’s double dualism involved seeing all issues in the world falling into two categories. For many issues and questions, Authorities had the right answers. In this category the student viewed the world dualistically. Regarding issues and questions for which there were no clear-cut answers, the student felt that everyone had a right to a personal opinion. As long as ambiguity remains, people have a right to their own opinion, and no one has the right to call anyone wrong. In this position students claim multiplicity as a domain of their own, equal in legitimacy—a correlate—to Authority’s domain (that is, where Truth is known) (Perry, 1970). Perry (1981) argued that multiplicity should not be dismissed as mere license to discount others who disagree with one’s opinions. Instead, he pointed out, the egalitarian spirit (the belief that all opinions have equal worth and validity) “expresses a respect for others through a respect for their views” (p. 85).

Transition to Position 4b