Baxter and Perry

As they mature, individuals' notions of what constitutes knowledge and how one gets it change, a process referred to as "epistemological development," or development of ways of knowing. During the past half century, several researchers have looked at how students' conceptions of knowledge develop during the course of a university education. The models resulting from such research have provided maps that may be useful to post-secondary teachers and providers of academic support.

Perry's Scheme

In the fifties and sixties, William Perry Jr., an educational psychologist and student counselor at Harvard, conducted open-ended interviews with undergraduates at the end of every year, opening with the question, "what stands out for you this year?" In this way he hoped to capture the students' own perceptions of their learning and development, not so much in terms of academic achievement as in overall changes they experienced within themselves. From full transcriptions of these data, Perry came up with his "scheme," in which he attempted to capture what he called positions (avoiding the connotations of sequential stages) that characterized the development he perceived in the interviews over a four year period.

Perry himself was circumspect in claims made for the scheme beyond a useful descriptiveness, and he was especially uncertain about applications to instruction and assessment, though he was interested and often supportive of attempts by other scholars to develop such applications. It should be noted too that Perry based the essential features of his scheme on interviews with Harvard students at a time when the population was overwhelmingly white, privileged, and male. Many researchers who have attempted to apply his model have found little evidence of his higher levels in the undergraduate populations of less elite institutions.

Perry's Scheme of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years⁽¹⁾

The journey from Dualistic thinking through Relativism to Commitment

Position as Conceptualized by Perry	Operational Concept of Knowledge
Dualism
1.Basic Duality: Assumption of dualistic structure of world taken for granted, unexamined. Right vs. wrong, we vs. others, good vs. bad, what They want vs. what They don't want. Will power and work should bring congruence of action and reward.	Knowledge is an objective, definite, and organized body of facts that constitute the truth about a subject, to be distinguished from opinion, which is subject and cannot be proven as true.
2. Multiplicity: Pre-legitimate: Truth exists, but not all authorities are knowledgeable. Multiplicity perceived, but only as alien or unreal.	Knowledge consists of facts, principles, axioms, etc. that can be proved, although it may be difficult to carry out the proof.
3.Multiplicity Subordinate: Absolute truth has not been discovered, yet. Multiplicity perceived with some of its implications. Authority may not have the answers yet on some of it.	Knowledge consists of facts, principles, axioms, etc. that can be proved, although it may be difficult to carry out the proof.
Multiplicity
4a. Multiplicity Correlate: If authorities don't know the answer then any opinion is as good as another (and/or - see 4b) Duality restructured in complex terms: right-wrong vs. M. In M, therefore, "anyone has a right to his own opinions."	Knowledge is not secure but is any person's organization and interpretation of available information. One interpretation is as good as another.
4b. Relativism Subordinate: There is more than one approach to a problem. That is, Authority can make judgments. However, this is still "how they want us to think" rather than a consequence of the nature of all knowledge.	(But people with power can assert their interpretations over those of others.)
Relativism
5. Relativism Correlate, Competing, or Diffuse: Relativism perceived as way of perceiving, analyzing and evaluating, not because "They want us to think this way," but intrinsically.	Knowledge is always changing or subject to change. It can be shared but not "measured" or counted upon to remain the same
8. Developing Commitment: Reassessment of commitments with new priorities. Sense of being "in" one's life.	Knowledge is the evolution of awareness, best expressed as ascending levels of consciousness, in which the individual must break through to new perspectives and discard those no longer useful.

Belenky et. al.'s model
Women's Ways of Knowing⁽³⁾

Way of Knowing	Metaphor	Stance	Characteristics
Silence	Feeling deaf and dumb	Acquiescence to authority without even attempting to find meaning, ascribed to extremely subjected and passive women	Economic, social, and educational deprivation. Dim sense of self with no interior voice Polarized views: win-lose, right-wrong Obedience to authority with fear of punishment Difficulty making connections with others
Received Knowing	Listening to the voices of others	Ability to hear though still not to speak in one's own voice. Received knowers are open to what others have to offer but don't see themselves as on an equal level.	Faith that others can provide valuable information and direction Confidence in ability to store information but reluctance to do anything transformative or original with it Dualistic thinking & intolerance of ambiguity Reliance on authority Concern for others not self
Subjective Knowing	The inner voice	A sense of self that overcomes reliance on outside authority and replaces it with intuition. These knowers often reject outright the influence of others and refer all decisions to inner or "gut" feelings.	Belief that individual (never authoritarian) interpretations are valid Value placed on feelings over ideas and on intuition over reason Skepticism toward rational thought and procedural approaches Centrality of personal experience Self talk as a way of developing a voice
Procedural Knowing I	Separate knowing	Abandonment of subjective knowing to assume a skeptical stance and using procedural means for evaluating any situation or making a decision. Gaining use of procedures empowers a learner to go beyond subjectivism.	Preference for argument and a critical stance emphasizing doubt Need to be prepared and confident before speaking Strategic approach to dealing with tasks and people Acceptance of established standards Emphasis on procedure, methodology, objectivity Value on knowing how, means over ends, form over content, pragmatism in solving problems
Procedural Knowing II	Connected knowing	Retention of subjective knowing while developing procedures for gaining access to others' knowledge and perspectives	Effort to emphasize, trust and connect Adherence to multiple perspectives without necessarily being converted to alternative points of view. Preference for being non-competitive and non-judgmental Preference for coming to groups with partly formed ideas to be negotiated and developed with others
Constructed Knowing	Integrating the voices	Integration of received, subjective, and procedural ways of knowing in order to construct knowledge. Rather than choosing, blending of polarities as objective/subjective, rational/emotional, etc.	Reflectiveness resulting in efforts to articulate understanding in an exploratory way. Self-awareness combined with sensitivity to others Tolerance for conflict, ambiguity, stress, internal contradiction Contextualization of problems resulting in flexibility

1. William G. Perry Jr. (1968). Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development In the College Years: A Scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

2. Marcia B. Baxter Magolda (1992). Knowing and Reasoning in College: Gender-Related Patterns in Students' Intellectual Development. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.

3. Mary F. Belenky, Blythe Clinchy, Nancy Goldberger, and Jill Tarule (1986). Women's Ways of Knowing. New York: Basic Books.

Domains	Absolute Knowing	Transitional Knowing	Independent Knowing	Contextual Knowing
Nature of knowledge	Is certain or absolute	Is partially certain and partially uncertain	Is uncertain -- everyone has own beliefs	Is contextual; judge on basis of evidence in context
Role of learner	Obtains knowledge from instructor	Understands knowledge	Thinks for self Shares views with others Creates own perspective	Exchanges and compares perspectives Thinks through problems Integrates and applies knowledge
Role of peers	Share Materials Explain what they have learned to each other	Provide active exchanges	Share views Serve as a source of knowledge	Enhance learning via quality contributions
Role of instructor	Communicates knowledge appropriately Ensures that student understands knowledge	Uses methods aimed at understanding Employs methods that help apply knowledge	Promotes independent thinking Promotes exchange of opinions	Promotes application of knowledge in context Promotes evaluative discussion of perspectives Student and teacher critique each other
Evaluation	Provides vehicle to show instructor what was learned	Measures students' understanding of the material	Rewards independent thinking	Accurately measures competence Student and teacher work toward goal and measure progress