Cognitive Development Of College Students 684c5b

Cognitive Development of College Students Theories of cognitive development focus on how people think, reason, make decisions and connections, view knowledge, and create meaning. Whereas some cognitive development theories suggest predictable or sequential stages of development in which people move from simple ways of thinking to modes that are increasingly complex, others suggest ways of thinking that are not necessarily as sequential and may be related to various aspects of identity such as gender. The unifying characteristics across all of the theories of cognitive development, however, are the descriptions and patterns they describe about the ways in which people take in and process information and knowledge and apply it to the world.

Overview of Cognitive Development Theories This literature on cognitive development of college students provides an overview of Perry’s theory of intellectual and ethical development (1968/1970), and how the theory has influenced Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule’s women’s ways of knowing (1986), and Baxter Magolda’s epistemological reflection model (1992).

Perry’s theory of intellectual and ethical development. Building on the work of Piaget (1952), William Perry (1968/1970, 1978, 1981) sought to conduct an in-depth study of cognitive development that occurs among students during the college years. The resulting theory of intellectual and ethical development, also known as the “Perry scheme,” describes a pattern of increasing cognitive complexity that occurs primarily during the traditional-age college years from late adolescence to early adulthood. Because he was one of the first researchers to focus specifically on the intellectual development of college

1

students, Perry’s theory is considered one of the foundational theories of student development.

Perry (1968/1970) derived his theory from a longitudinal study in which he conducted a series of open-ended interviews with over 400 undergraduate students primarily at Harvard in the late 1950s and into the 1960s. Through extensive analysis of the interview data, Perry (1968/1970) discovered nine distinct “positions” of intellectual and ethical development that can be grouped into four primary categories: dualism, multiplicity, contextual relativism, and commitment in relativism. The theory suggests sequential development through the stages as the person’s thinking, processing of information, view of knowledge, and approach toward commitments becomes increasingly complex. The first two positions in Perry’s (1968/1970) theory, Positions 1 and 2, are in the category of dualism. These positions are characterized by absolute, either/or thinking. Students in dualism believe that all knowledge is either known or knowable and they believe that “authorities” (such as instructors, supervisors, or parents) should provide answers and “truths.” Authorities who fail to provide what the student perceives to be truths or who provide contradicting possibilities or explanations can be frustrating to dualists, who might dismiss them as bad or uninformed (Moore, 2004). In general, students in dualism are relatively free of conflict because they do not see nuances or shades of gray; they view knowledge is either true or false, right or wrong. In Position 2, the student begins to acknowledge the existence of diversity and complexity, but it is perceived as “alien” (p. 81) or unreal. Both positions are characterized by the absolute, dichotomous thinking described above.

2

The second category of the theory is multiplicity and includes Positions 3 and 4 (Perry, 1968/1970). Students in multiplicity begin to understand that multiple viewpoints exist, yet it is extremely difficult for them to evaluate the relative merits of these differing viewpoints. Therefore, they are apt to become confused, frustrated, or overwhelmed by the sheer number of options they see before them. In an attempt to resolve this confusion, they might rationalize that every opinion or perspective is just as good as any other. In addition, students in multiplicity accept that some knowledge is unknown but they view this state of unknowing as temporary until the “truth” can be found. In early multiplicity, this is manifested as “all knowledge is knowable.” In later multiplicity, this may evolve to a “certainty that there is no certainty (except in a few specialized areas)” (Cornfeld & Knefelkamp, 1979, p. 1). Students in multiplicity still look to authorities for “truth,” although they may credit authorities who do not provide clear answers as doing so intentionally in order to make them think. They may also become focused on trying to determine what authorities (such as teachers) want in order to be able to respond accordingly. The fifth position in Perry’s (1968/1970) theory, Position 5, represents the highest position of cognitive development. It is called contextual relativism. This position involves new acceptance of the uncertainty of knowledge and recognition of multiple perceptions of truth. People in contextual relativism understand that all knowledge is contextual. They are able to assimilate new thinking, think contextually, prioritize, weigh evidence, and engage in systematic evaluation of various points of view. They tend to view authorities as resources and collaborators in the continual search for knowledge rather than experts, and they value the mutuality of learning between student and teacher.

3

They also have the capacity to engage in “meta-thought,” or thinking about their own thinking (Moore, 1990; Perry, 1981). The overall pattern of cognitive and ethical development described by the first five positions of Perry’s (1968/1970) theory implies “significant qualitative changes in the learners themselves” (Moore, 2004, p. 2). There has been great deal of research over the years focused on establishing the movement of typical undergraduate college students through Perry’s (1968/1970) theory during the college years, especially through Positions 1 through 5 relating to dualism, multiplicity, and contextual relativism (Moore, 2004). While Perry found in his original research that many of the traditional-aged students in his study, meaning those who were generally between the ages of 18 to 22, had already reached Position 5, contemporary research indicates that students generally enter college at Positions 2 or 3 (in late dualism or early multiplicity) and leave college somewhere between Positions 3 to 5 (multiplicity to contextual relativism) (Love & Guthrie, 1999). According to Moore (2004), contemporary research also suggests that few traditional-aged undergraduate students reach Positions 6 through 9, the upper positions of the model.

Women’s ways of knowing. Drawing upon the work of Perry (1968/1970) and Carol Gilligan (1982), who was among the first to suggest that women’s voices had not been adequately studied and included in existing human development theories, Belenky et al. (1986) developed a theory of cognitive development called “women’s ways of knowing” that focuses on the primary ways in which women tend to think and make meaning. In paying tribute to Perry’s work before them, Belenky et al. wrote that his work was very important to them because it “stimulated our interest in modes of knowing and

4

provided us with our first images of the paths women might take as they develop an understanding of their intellectual potential” (p. 10). However, because they knew that a potential limitation of Perry’s theory was that it had been developed primarily from interviews with Harvard men, Belenky et al. sought to focus specifically “on what else women might have to say about the development of their minds and on alternate routes that are sketchy or missing in Perry’s version” (p. 9). For their study, Belenky at al. (1986) conducted in-depth interviews with 135 women and were intentional about including women of “diverse ages, circumstances, and outlooks” (p. 13). Ninety of the women in the study were college students enrolled in a variety of different kinds of academic institutions and 45 were from family agencies that provide parenting assistance. They began each interview with the question, “Looking back, what stands out for you over the past few years?” (p. 11) and gradually continued on to questions involving “self-image, relationships of importance, education and learning, real life decision-making and moral dilemmas, s of personal changes and growth, perceived catalysts for change and impediments to growth, and visions of the future” (p. 11). Through these interviews, Belenky et al. (1986) found that many women have different ways of “knowing” than men. However, the authors are also clear to emphasize that these different ways of knowing do not necessarily apply solely to women; rather, they suggest that their theory depicts a gendered style of cognitive and intellectual processing that tends to apply to women but can also include men.

5

“Women’s ways of knowing,” includes five primary “perspectives” (rather than “stages”) that characterize the cognitive development of women. The first is silence, in which the person experiences self as mindless, voiceless, disconnected, and obedient. The second is received knowledge, in which the person has an ability to listen to the voices of others and a capability of receiving and reproducing knowledge, but does not have an ability to create it. The third is subjective knowledge, which is characterized by the finding of an inner voice and an ability to see truth and knowledge as coming from within. The fourth, procedural knowledge, is also called “the voice of reason” (Belenky et al., 1986, p. 87) and involves an ability to be objective and to take different perspectives, and the desire to seek out new ways to learn and communicate knowledge. Within procedural knowledge, Belenky et al. found that two distinct styles or preferences. These are called separate knowing, which emphasizes questioning, doubting, and critical thinking, and connected knowing, which emphasizes empathy and knowledge that is derived from sharing personal experiences with others. The fifth way of knowing in the theory is constructed knowledge. This final perspective involves a contextual view of knowledge, an ability see oneself as a creator of knowledge, and the capacity to integrate both subjective and objective strategies of knowing. According to Belenky et al. (1986), traditional-aged college students, especially those who are high achieving, are most likely to fall into one of the two categories of procedural knowledge; they tend to be either connected knowers or separate knowers. As students, connected knowers are likely to enjoy and gain most from classroom discussions and interpersonal interactions, whereas separate knowers are more likely to appreciate logical analysis. One example of how this theory can be applied to practice is creating intentional learning experiences that provide

6

challenge and (Sanford, 1966) for both types of knowers. Overall, however, Belenky et al. emphasize the importance of modeling connected knowing in order to best reach women students.

Baxter Magolda’s epistemological reflection model. Baxter Magolda (1992) was informed by the work of Perry (1968/1970) and Belenky et al. (1986). Through her work on her doctoral dissertation on cognitive development, she became especially interested in genderrelated patterns of cognitive development and whether or not Perry’s theory provides an adequate and complete framework for assessing the cognitive development of women. Specifically, she began to realize that some of the voices in the study for her dissertation, particularly those of several of the women, didn’t seem to fit. As Perry’s (1968/1970) theory had been derived from interviews with men, and as Belenky et al. (1986) had conducted the interviews for their study only with women, Baxter Magolda (1992) sought to bridge this apparent gap in the research literature by developing a study with the goal of constructing a model of epistemological development through interviews with both men and women. This led to a longitudinal study in which she interviewed 101 college students (50 men and 51 women) at Miami University in Ohio over a period of five years in the late 1980s. The theory she developed from the data that emerged from the study was the epistemological reflection model. The epistemological reflection model focuses on cognitive development primarily in the context of the college classroom. It includes four stages of development in which students’ perspectives about the role of learner, role of peers, role of instructor, evaluation (testing or assessment in class), and the nature of knowledge are described.

7

Baxter Magolda (1992) did find gender-related differences in the first three of the four stages of the model (1990, 1992). Although both men and women fit in all of the stages, two distinct patterns emerged in the first three stages of the model, one that applies primarily to the cognitive style of women and the other that applies primarily to the cognitive style of men. The first stage of the epistemological reflection model, absolute knowing, is similar to Perry’s (1968/1970) dualism in that students in this stage perceive knowledge as existing in an absolute form, authorities as having all the answers, and tests and evaluations in class as providing an opportunity to reproduce for the instructor the knowledge the student has acquired in order to its accuracy. The two patterns found within absolute knowing are (a) the receiving pattern, and (b) the mastery pattern. The receiving pattern is a more private approach to the acquisition of knowledge. In this pattern, students believe that listening and recording are their primary roles in class, they do not expect to interact with the instructor, they view peers as a network, and they prefer tests that offer them the best opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge. They also view differing opinions on an issue as a dispute over the facts rather than legitimate multiple perspectives and prefer to resolve such disputes privately rather than consult an authority. In of gender differences, Baxter Magolda found that women use the receiving pattern more often than men.

In contrast, students in the second pattern within absolute knowing, the mastery pattern, value a more public approach to the acquisition of knowledge. They tend to participate in discussions in order to demonstrate their knowledge, expect interchanges with teachers,

8

view peers as partners for debate and quizzing each other, and value tests and from the instructor that will help them improve. They are also more likely to appeal to authorities when there is a dispute about knowledge. Of the two patterns of absolute knowing, Baxter Magolda found that men use the mastery pattern more often than women. The second stage of the epistemological reflection model is transitional knowing. This stage is similar to Perry’s (1968/1970) multiplicity in that students have begun to realize that some knowledge is uncertain and that authorities do not have all the answers. Students in this stage expect instructors to do more than simply provide information and they are most satisfied when they feel that the instructor has helped them to understand and apply knowledge. They also prefer tests and evaluation processes that allow them to demonstrate their understanding of the material as opposed to simply demonstrating their acquisition of information. The two patterns within transitional knowing are (a) interpersonal knowing, and (b) impersonal knowing. Interpersonal knowing is used more often by women and is characterized by involvement in learning through intentionally seeking out others’ ideas in order to gain exposure to new thoughts and perspectives. This pattern is characterized by enjoyment from intellectual interactions with peers, a desire to develop a rapport with instructors, and a preference for evaluations that take individual differences into . The second pattern, impersonal knowing, is used more often by men. Students in this pattern enjoy being forced to think, welcome debates with peers and instructors, expect to be challenged, value evaluation that is fair and practical, and resolve uncertainty through the use of logic and research. The third stage of the epistemological reflection model is independent knowing.

9

In this stage, students have come to believe that knowledge is mostly uncertain. They feel that differences in the opinions of various authorities represent the wide range of views possible on any given issue and begin to see themselves as equal to authorities and as having equally valid opinions. They value instructors who promote independent thinking and the exchange of ideas, view peers as a legitimate source of knowledge, and stress the importance of open-mindedness. The two patterns within independent knowing are (a) interindividual knowing, and (b) individual knowing. The first pattern, interindividual knowing, is used more often by women and is characterized by a dual focus on thinking for oneself as well as considering the views of others, a preference for sharing views with peers, an expectation that instructors create opportunities for students to share their ideas, and a view of evaluation as a collaborative process between the student and the instructor. The second pattern, individual knowing, is used more often by men and is characterized by a preference for individual thinking and a general expectation that others should think independently as well. The fourth stage of the epistemological reflection model is contextual knowing, which is characterized by an ability to view knowledge as contextual, an ability to make judgments based on evidence, and the capacity to integrate and apply knowledge in context. According to Baxter Magolda (1992), this stage reflects the convergence of the genderrelated patterns evident in the first three stages of the model and therefore does not separate out into two distinct gender patterns.

10

While Baxter Magolda’s (1992) study was rigorous and comprehensive, one of the potential limitations of this study is its applicability to diverse student populations, especially students of color and those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds (McEwen, 1994). Of the 101 students interviewed for the study, all but three were White. Further, the site of the study, Miami University, is known as a fairly elite and expensive public institution that tends to attract students from more privileged socioeconomic backgrounds. Baxter Magolda acknowledged this potential limitation and cautioned against “the transfer of insights for one set of students to another” (p. 190). Instead, she suggested that her findings create “working hypotheses” (p. 191) that can inform researchers who wish to apply them and the epistemological reflection model to different populations, settings, and institutions. In the mid-1990s, Baxter Magolda (1999) extended her work on the epistemological reflection model by conducting a follow-up study in which she spent a semester observing college classes in zoology, math, and education at Miami University of Ohio and conducting interviews with both students and faculty from the classes. Out of this more recent study, she developed practices that educators can use to accommodate students’ various ways of knowing and ultimately to enhance their learning and help them develop “self-authorship” (Baxter Magolda, 1998, 1999) through “constructive developmental pedagogy” (1999, p. 7). Examples of these practices include validating students as knowers, employing methods that encourage the mutual construction of knowledge, situating learning in students’ experiences, and using narrative processes and storytelling.

11

Significance of cognitive development theories. All of these theories provide useful guidance for understanding factors that promote college students’ cognitive development. They can be important tools for helping educators describe and predict changes over time, and they can enhance understanding of how people think, learn, incorporate new information, and make meaning of the world around them. Whereas some are stage models and others emphasize cognitive differences related to identity, all provide educators with valuable guidance for creating intentional learning environments that enhance critical thinking skills, promote self-reflection, and encourage students to try out new and different views that can promote, stimulate, and enhance the overall complexity and quality of their thinking.

REFERENCES

12

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender-related patterns in students' intellectual development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women's ways of knowing. New York: Basic Books.

Cornfeld, J. L. & Knefelkamp, L. L. (1979). Analysis of the learner characteristics of students implied by the Perry scheme. In W. G. Perry (1999). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme (pp. xxxi-xxxii). San Francisco: JosseyBass. (Original work published 1968/1970).

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Goldberger, N., Tarule, J., Clinchy, B., & Belenky, M. (Eds.). (1996). Knowledge, difference, and power: Essays inspired by women's ways of knowing. New York: Basic Books.

Love, P. G., & Guthrie, V. L. (1999). Understanding and applying cognitive development theory. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Moore, W. S. (1990). The Measure of Intellectual Development (MID): A instrument manual. Olympia, WA: Center for the Study of Intellectual Development.

13

Moore, W. S. (2004). My mind exploded: Intellectual development as a critical framework for understanding and assessing collaborative learning. Retrieved October 11, 2004, from http://www.evergreen.edu

Perry, W. G. (1968/1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Perry, W. G. (1981). Cognitive and ethical growth: The making of meaning. In A. W. Chickering & Associates (Eds.), The modern American college (pp. 76-116). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Perry, W. G. (1999). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. (Original work published 1968/1970). Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: International Universities Press.

Sanford, N. (1966). Self and society. New York: Atherton Press.

14