Post on 31-Dec-2015
description
DEVELOPING REFLECTIVE JUDGMENT
Patricia M. King & Karen Strohm Kitchener (1994)
Presented by: Gwendolyn Williams & Michael Montgomery. March 16, 2009
Reflective vs. Critical Thinking
• Critical thinking relies on criteria, is self-correcting, and is sensitive to context (1994, pg. 8)
• Reflective thinking requires the continual evaluation of beliefs, assumptions, and hypotheses against existing data and against other plausible interpretations of the data and is also open to self correction (1994, pg. 7)
Reflective vs. Critical Thinking
• 2 major differences:oEpistemological
assumptionsoStructure of the
problem
• Awareness of uncertainty must exist prior to the initiation of reflective thinking
Well- and Ill-Structured Problems
Definition
Educational Goal
Table 1.1 - (K&K, 1994 pg. 11)
Learn to reason to correct solutions
Learn to construct and defend reasonable solutions
Can be described with a high degree of completeness
Can be solved with a high degree of certainty
Experts usually agree on the correct solution
Well-Structured ProblemsCannot be described with a high degree of completeness
Cannot be resolved with a high degree of uncertainty
Experts often disagree about the best solution, even when the problem can be
Ill-Structured Problems
Empirical Grounding
• > 1,700 individuals
o 200 people in a 10 year longitudinal study from 1977 – 1987
o 150 high school students
o 1,100 college students
o 200 graduate students
o More than 150 non-student adults
Guiding Questions
• How do students reason about ill-structured problems?
• Does their reasoning change over time?
• Is the improvement in the ability to make reflective judgments associated with participation in higher education?
PRE-REFLECTIVE THINKING(Stages 1-3)
• Doesn’t recognize (or perceive) uncertainty of knowledge, or that real problems exist, for which there might not be a correct answer
• Doesn’t use evidence to reason toward a conclusion; reasons don’t appear logically connected to the issue
• Knowledge is gained through the word of an authority figure or through firsthand observation
• Concrete, single-category belief system
• Knowledge = copied, absolute & predetermined
• Knowledge & belief aren’t distinguished
• No controversies, criticisms, doubt
• Doesn’t know how to respond when faced w/ ill-structured problems
• Closed framework
• “single representational skill” (Fischer, 1980)
Stage 1
• There is a true reality, to be known with certainty, but not everyone will
• Knowledge is the domain of authorities; disagree with authorities and you’re wrong
• There ARE “right” and “wrong” beliefs about the same issue
• Differences of opinion are acknowledged (but if not from authority, it’s “wrong”)
• “representational mapping skill” (Fischer, 1980)
• “dualistic epistemology” (Perry, 1970)
Stage 2
• Beliefs based on authorities for some issues; but recognition that sometimes, no way to justify knowledge claims
• Reliance on personal opinion, “what feels right at the moment”
• Areas of temporary uncertainty = differences of opinion
• Confidence that concrete truth to be found in the future
• Confusion when faced with problems without certain knowledge
Stage 3
“…in some areas, authorities don’t know the truth, and people can therefore believe
what they want to believe.”
"When there is evidence that people can give to convince everybody one way or another, then it will be knowledge, until
then, it's just a guess.”
Stage 3
QUASI-REFLECTIVE THINKING (Stages 4-5)
• Recognition that some problems are ill-structured; understanding that some issues are truly problematic
• Problems with using evidence to reach a conclusion, to justify beliefs (idiosyncrasies)
• Uncertainty attributed to missing information or method of collection
• One cannot know with certainty, and it’s NOT temporary; evidence might exist, but doesn’t offer certainty
• Poor differentiation between knowledge and justification
• Start to separate beliefs, from evidence of those beliefs
• Unwilling to make judgments about others’ ideas/beliefs, but assume that others-- including authorities-- are biased
• Recognition that in some areas, knowledge will never be certain
Stage 4
“I’d be more inclined to believe it [evolution] if they had proof. It’s just
like the pyramids. I don’t think we’ll ever know.
People will come up with different interpretations because people differ. Who are you going to ask? Because no one
was there.”
Stage 4
• Knowing is all context - subjective interpretations of evidence (“relativism”) --> legitimately different conclusions
• Abstract mapping skills - relating two abstractions (Fischer, 1980)
• Broader, more connected views; so a more balanced picture of issue/problems
• Recognition of alternative theories, and that some evidence doesn’t support any particular one (Kuhn, 1989)
• “Right”, “wrong” are inappropriate; it’s about interpretations…
Stage 5
“What’s known is always limited by the perspective of the knower.”
"People think differently and so they attack the problem differently. Other theories
could be as true as my own, but based on different evidence."
Stage 5
REFLECTIVE THINKING(Stages 6-7)
• Knowledge is not a given; has to be actively constructed
• Conclusions must remain open to reevaluation
• ~ Dewey’s Reflective Thinking
• Knowing requires action on the part of the knower
• Ill-structured problems need solutions that must be constructed & evaluated by criteria - even for experts!
• Knowledge is uncertain
• Rejection of “right” and “wrong”… but one view may be better?
• Decision based on compelling nature of evidence, not idiosyncratic reasoning (Stage 4)
Stage 6
"It's very difficult in this life to be sure. There are degrees of sureness. You come to a point at which you are sure enough for a personal stance on the
issue."
Stage 6
• “Abstract internal referents”
• Reality is not a given, but interpretations can be synthesized
• Critical theory --> some judgments = greater truth
• Role of active inquirers - involved in constructing knowledge
• Conclusions are justifiable, BUT may be superceded in the future by future knowledge and/or explanations
Stage 7
"One can judge an argument by how well thought-out the positions are, what kinds of reasoning and evidence are used to
support it, and how consistent the way one argues on this topic is as compared with
other topics."
Stage 7
“Many religions of the world have creation stories. These stories
suggest that a divine being created the earth and its people. Scientists claim, however, that people evolved from lower animal forms (some of which are similar to apes) into the
human forms known today.”
Results of the StudyEducational Level
Average RJI score SD n
High schoolGrade 9 3.08 0.41 57Grade 10 3.46 0.35 15Grade 11 3.12 0.61 33Grade 12 3.27 0.51 67
Average 3.19 0.5 172
College (traditional-aged students)Freshmen 3.63 0.53 329Sophomore 3.57 0.43 89Junior 3.74 0.59 159Senior 3.99 0.67 369
Average 3.79 0.61 946
College (nontraditional-aged students)Freshmen 3.57 0.42 78Sophomore 4.3 0.59 13Senior 3.98 0.74 46
Average 3.78 0.61 137
GraduateMaster's/Early doctoral 4.62 0.81 126Advanced doctoral 5.27 0.89 70
Average 4.76 0.85 196
Results of the Study
• Disciplinary Differences
• Non-student adults
• Gender differences
• Cross-cultural Differences
Chickering & Reisser Relation
• Developing (intellectual) competence
• Moving through autonomy toward interdependence
• Developing integrity
Implications for Practice
“In the final analysis, the challenge of college, for students and faculty members alike, is empowering individuals to know that the world is far more complex than it first appears, and that they must make interpretative arguments and decisions—judgments that entail real consequences for which they must take responsibility and from which they may not flee by disclaiming expertise.” (Chapter 9, p. 222)
“Teaching students to engage in reflective thinking and to make reflective judgments about vexing problems is a central goal of higher education.” (Chapter 9, p. 222)
• Show respect for students' assumptions, regardless of the developmental stage(s) they exhibit.
• Discuss controversial, ill-structured issues with students
• Create many opportunities for students to analyze others' points of view
• Teach students strategies for systematically gathering & assessing the relevance of data, & evaluating its sources, and making interpretive judgments based on it.
• Provide feedback & provide both cognitive and emotional support
• Help to address issues of uncertainty in judgment-making & to examine their assumptions about knowledge
Implications for Practice
ReferencesFischer, K.W. (1980). A theory of cognitive development: The
control and construction of hierarchies of skills. Psychological Review, 87(6), 477-531.
King, P.M. Reflective Judgment. Retrieved January 26, 2009 from http://www.umich.edu/~refjudg/index.html.
King, P.M. and Kitchener, K.S. (1994). Developing Reflective Judgment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kuhn, D. (1989). "Children and Adults as Intuitive Scientists." Psychological Review, 96, pp. 674-689.
Perry, W.G., Jr. (1970). Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years: A Scheme. Troy, MO: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.