Progression from Perry

Index

• Introduction
• If you were to read one paper..
• Perry's Model
• Chemistry Application 
• Criticisms of Perry
• Belenky’s Model
• Belenky’s model compared to Perry’s stages of learning
• Criticisms of Belenky
• Other theories
• Practical solutions to the Perry Schema
• References

Introduction

For many years it was believed that students were blank slates to which lectures could inscribe knowledge and truth. In the last 40 years, there had been substantial changes in how we view student's ethical, intellectual and emotional development through education. William Perry (1970, 1991) was the first to devise a model which defines the students’ trajectory as progressing through 9 ‘positions’ which are categorised into four headings: Dualism; Multiplicity; Relativism and Commitment within relativism. His theory was both highly influential and heavily criticised. The most noted critique of his work was in: ‘Women’s Ways of Knowing’ by Belenky et al. (1986). It could not be ignored that Perry had only selected males for participation, and consequently Belenky et al. (1986) interviewed women to gain insight into how their epistemological development and beliefs differed from men. She found that women view knowledge through 5 different perspectives: Silence; Received Knowledge; Subjective Knowledge; Procedural Knowledge and Constructed Knowledge. This gave an indication that Perry’s model could not be universally generalised. However, Belenky et al. (1986) did not go without criticism.  Similarly to Perry they used a restricted sample and generated their theory based upon interviews with the women. Other theorists such as Baxter Magolda (1992) and King & Kitchener (1994) also contributed theories regarding the epistemological development of college students, that weren't set apart by gender. There is still a lot of ground to cover in terms of providing empirical evidence for how students develop their understanding of knowledge, as of yet it is difficult to replicate such findings in order to understand where differences may emerge. All theories and related criticisms will be explored in more detail in the text below. If you wish to read more on the subject, links and references will be provided throughout the text.

Back to top

If you were to read one paper...

The paper by Hofer and Pintrich (1997) reviews a number of different perspectives that look into students' thinking and beliefs about the nature of knowledge and knowing. The paper analyses models by: Perry (1970, 1981), Belenky et al. (1986) Baxter Magolda (1992) and King & Kitchener (1994). If you wish to read more about the topics that will be explored in this wiki page, then follow this link.

Back to top

Perry's Model

In the 1950s and 1960s Perry conducted a longitudinal study where he interviewed students from Harvard and Radcliff using an instrument that he called a Checklist of Educational Values. From these interviews he developed a ‘scheme’ of college students’ intellectual and ethical development.

He argued that the students pass through 9 different ‘positions’, rather than stages, that are constructed via the way student views themselves in terms of what they believe knowledge to be. Although the scheme shared a lot in common with Piaget’s developmental model, it was made clear that he wasn't describing a formal developmental progress. The successive change in cognition through the positions is said to be a result of the individuals interacting with their environments and thus responding to new experiences by either adapting to existing cognitive frameworks or accommodating the framework itself.

The 9 positions were clustered into 4 sequential categories: dualism, multiplicity, relativism, and commitment within relativism. The basic scheme is detailed below:

Dualism: Positions 1-2 are characterised by a right and wrong, good and bad view of the world, they expect to be taught the ‘truth’ and therefore learning is passive process.

Multiplicity: In Position 3 is a modification of dualism, students begin to realise that authorities have a number of different perspectives; however the truth is still attainable. In position 4, dualism is modified again, students are aware of there being a number of opinions; however, no one is right or wrong, everyone’s view has equal importance.

Relativism: In Position 5, students are now transitioning away from a dualism perspective to a relativist view; write a wrong thinking is still appropriate, but only in certain contexts. In position 6 students see knowledge as contextual and contingent and begin to see the need to establish an identity and make order of the chaos of diverging opinions.

Commitment within relativism: In the final positions, 7 through 9, the students focus on responsibility and engagement. They commit to a selection of ‘truths’ that although aren't ‘right’ in an absolute sense, still mean something to them in terms of their values, careers, relationships and personal identity.

Back to top

Perry's Model in the context of learning Chemistry

Finster (1989) put Perry’s model into the context of a student learning chemistry. The quotes below are from chemistry students discussing the lectures in anticipation of an upcoming test:

Student A: "I enjoyed the lecture because the Professor clearly knows what she is talking about. I am puzzled though because she couldn't seem to explain which theory was right. I have to find out which one is correct so I can answer the test questions."

Student B: "I, too, enjoyed the lecture and hearing about the different approaches to bonding. I can't tell when to use which one either, but she seemed more interested in the Valence Bond approach-although each theory seems to work. I think I'll use that one on the test because that's the one I think she likes the most."

Student C: "That was a great lecture! I used to think that scientists always had a single, right answer for everything, but now I see how differing theories can be used different ways. Neither theory is absolutely 'right' all the time, but each can be used very effectively in a given situation. It depends upon what you wish to demonstrate."

The examples demonstrate a constructivist way of learning, as the students are making different meaning of what they've learned, rather than absorbing the information in a uniform fashion. Perry's model can be used as a framework to interpret the different responses. For example, student A clearly demonstrates a dualist approach to learning, they see their professor as authorizing what they should know, and is in search for a ‘right’ answer. Student B has moved away from assuming there is a right and wrong answer, to adopting multiplistic approach; there is now more than one opinion this student is willing to taking on board, however, they are still in search of the correct answer through trying to guess what the teacher will want. Student C demonstrates a relativist approach; they value each theory on the basis of how effective each will be in a given context. They are still yet to commit to adapting the theories to reflect their own personal identity and environmental influences.

Back to top

Criticisms of Perry

Perry noted a number of weaknesses with his model; most obviously was that the sample was largely composed of white, elite, male college students educated at Harvard during the 1960s. Another weakness was found in the ways the positions shift; whilst the movement from dualism to multiplicity is clearly noted, the upper positions are less-well defined (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). More specifically, it was criticized that positions 7-9 were more reflective of the socialization process and values of Western Liberal Arts Education, rather than a true structural, developmental trajectory (Moore 1989). Another main criticism is that the theory was based upon interviews, not behavioural evidence (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991); this has been a problem for those who wish to replicate the results through measuring change. 

Back to top

Belenky’s Model

Women’s ways of knowing

Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberg and Tarule (1986) created a model which was grounded in the work of Perry (1970), but they also found that Perry’s male sample lacked to address some issues and experiences that were common and significant in the lives and cognitive development of women (Love & Guthrie, 1999). The model they created is known as ‘Women’s ways of knowing’, the theory behind this model partly comes from Perry’s scheme of intellectual and ethical development and the work of Gilligan (1982) in moral and personal development in women. Belenky et al. (1986) came up with five epistemological perspectives through which women view themselves, the world and their relationship to knowledge.

- The first perspective is silence, women in this perspective describe a feeling of not having an own voice and these women feel disconnected from knowledge, the sources of knowledge and their relationship to knowledge. Most women in this perspective are young, have limited education (though not because they weren’t smart enough), have a low socio-economical status and a lot of them have a history of abuse.

- The second perspective is received knowledge, learning by listening to others is mainly described by this perspective. Most women characterized by this perspective lack self confidence and most of the time they define themselves externally.

- The third perspective is subjective knowledge, knowledge in this perspective is seen as personal and intuitive. Women learn from their own experiences and don’t press their knowledge upon others. Even though a lot of the women in this perspective show a history of sexual harassment and abuse, they were generally optimistic and positive towards the future.

- The fourth perspective is procedural knowledge, women in this perspective focus themselves on learning and how to gain knowledge. Two modes of procedural knowledge are described, separate knowing and connected knowing. Separate knowers are mainly critical and detached and they look for convincing someone and to be convinced. On the other hand, connected knowers are seen as more empathetic and receptive and they want understand and be understood. The women in this group are mainly characterized by being economically privileged and most of them are young college students or graduates.

- The fifth perspective is constructed knowledge, this perspective distinguishes itself by the idea that all knowledge is constructed and must be judged in its own context. The women in this perspective have the ability to listen, share and work together while maintaining their own voice.

Back to top

Belenky’s model compared to Perry’s stages of learning

On one side, Perry’s developmental model takes autonomy as a starting-point and on the other side there’s Belenky’s model mostly shows that connection is an important role in the intellectual development in women. Belenky’s model is founded in Gilligans (1982) research, women are expected to be focused on the perspective of others and that they think about the consequences for others when they make their decisions.

Secondly, there’s the difference in the specific groups they both used for their research. Perry only used male Harvard undergraduates and Belenky only used females. But this gender-specificity is not needed anymore. Although women are more likely than men to show certain characteristics, this is just a cultural phenomenon. So we can use both models for both males and females.

It’s also possible to compare Belenky’s model with Perry’s stages of learning. The first perspective of silence is absent from Perry’s scheme, Perry probably didn't find this stage in his study, because it’s simply non-existent in his research group which consisted of male Harvard undergraduates. The second perspective of received knowledge can be compared to Perry’s dualism, absolute truths comes from infallible authorities. The perspective of subjective knowledge can be seen as Perry’s multiplicity, the main focus is on intuition. The fourth perspective of procedural knowledge shows similarities with Perry’s relativism subordinate, the emphasis is mainly on context and situation specific evidence. And lastly constructed knowledge is comparable to Perry’s relativism, the role of the knower in knowledge is important (Brockbank & McGill, 2007).

Back to top

There are multiple criticisms about Belenky’s women’s ways of knowing. The main critique is that it is only based on women. One of the claims is that the work is biased, because this model is described without reference to men. These critics claim that no valid study of women except sex differences study can be done. But Belenky says that they’re not claiming that its insights are limited to women, they might as well be men’s ways of thinking. 

Another claim is one about essentialism. Essentialism claims that there are characteristics which all women share. This can lead to generalizing, which is unwanted in research. But on the other hand, some degree of generalizing is needed to conduct research and to implement findings (Klein et al., 2007). A final critique that it is seen as a developmental stage theory, even though the authors claim that it isn't. This critique is based on the impression the stages give. The journey from silence to voice, gives the illusion of progress.

Back to top

Other theories

Next to Perry's and Belenky's theories, there are multiple other developmental theories from educational psychology. The ones discussed on this page, are the epistemological reflection model from Baxter Magolda (1992) and the reflective judgement model from King and Kitchener (1994). For further reading on more developmental theories from educational psychology, follow this link

The epistemological reflection model

In response to the gender differences found in Perry’s and Belenky’s models, Baxter Magolda (1992) developed the epistemological reflection model. And even though Kitchener and King’s earlier research included both men and women, gender wasn’t a main factor in their research (King and Kitchener, 1994). Baxter Magolda thought she had found an important gap in the existing research, she wanted to create a study on cognitive development that would address gender and the research group would include both men and women (Evans et al., 2010). Magolda’s model contains four stages of knowing:

• Absolute: knowledge is certain or absolute.
• Transitional: knowledge is partially certain and partially uncertain
• Independent: knowledge is uncertain - everyone has own believes
• Contextual: knowledge is contextual: judge on basis of evidence in context

The reflective judgement model

The reflective judgement model of King and Kitchener (1994) examines the ways that people understand the process of knowing and the corresponding ways they justify their beliefs about ill-structured problems (King and Kitchener, 1994: 13). Their model adds to Perry’s scheme by adding a final phase: reflective thinking. The reflective judgement model has seven stages, each stage is characterized by a more complex and effective form of justification. The seven developmental stages of the reflective judgement model can be viewed in three levels: pre-reflective (Stages 1-3), quasi-reflective (Stages 4 and 5), and reflective (Stages 6 and 7) thinking (Whitmire, 2003).

Displayed below is a summary of the models of epistemological development in late adolescence and adulthood (taken from Hofer and Pintrich, 1997).

Back to top

Practical Solutions to the Perry Scheme

Kloss (1994) has worked with the Perry Scheme in his classroom for over ten years, in his article: ‘A Nudge Is Best; Helping Students through the Perry Scheme of Intellectual Development’, he explores three of the questions proposed by Gary Hanson (1982):

1. “What teaching method or style challenges students who think in dualistic ways?

2. What causes some students to adopt a more complex mode of thinking?

3. How much change from one mode of thinking to another can be expected in a year, a semester, or a month?”

His conclusions were:

Firstly, that students need to be faced with more ambiguity; he believed that it was through reading multiple perspectives and varied interpretations that dualistic students progress to multiplicity and relativism.

Thirdly, he believed that current lecture structure is over-dominated by the teacher dictating what the students should know. Instead, free-guided discussion, where the students are talking for 80-90 percent of the time would nurture confidence and growth through valuing their contribution and knowledge.

Fourthly: That student ability shouldn’t be under-estimated; they should be encouraged to explore a variety of opinions, ideas and hypothesises, but also to direct their argument with use of appropriate evidence.

The article revisits Perry’s Scheme and makes constructive suggestions as to how the passive progression through the ‘positions’ can be manipulated so that lecturers can activate and accelerate knowledge attainment in students. Furthermore, it encourages teachers to acknowledge the current evidence regarding the student’s acquisition of knowledge, and to question whether more can be done to fast-tract their progress.

Back to top

References

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender-related patterns in undergraduates’ 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.

Brockbank, A. & McGill, I. (2007). Facilitating Reflective Learning In Higher Education. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill.

Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., Guide, F. M., Patton, L. D. & Renn, K. A. (2010). Student development in college: Theory, Research and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Finster, D. M. C. (1989). Developmental Instruction Part I. Perry's Model of Intellectual Development, Journal of Chemical Education, 8, 66, 659-661.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Hanson, G. (1982). Critical issues in the assessment of student development. Measuring student development, ed. Gary Hanson. New Directions in Student Services, 20, 47-63.

Hofer, B. K. & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The Development of Epistemological Theories: Beliefs About Knowledge and Knowing and Their Relation to Learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88-140.

King, P. M. & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Klein, S. S., Richardson, B., Grayson, D. A., Fox, L. H., Kramarae, C., Pollard, D. S. & Dwyer, C. A. (2007). Handbook for achieving gender equity through education. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kloss R. J. (1994). A Nudge Is Best Helping Students through the Perry Scheme of Intellectual Development. College Teaching, 42(4), 151-158.

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

Perry, W. G. (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. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Whitmire, E. (2003). Epistemological beliefs and the information-seeking behaviour of undergraduates. Library & Information Science Research, 25, 127-142.

Back to top