Developmental Instruction Part I. Perry's Model of Intellectual Development DavM C. Finster
Wittenberg University, P. 0.Box 720. Springfield. OH 45501 The past 25 years has seen a revolution in the way that we view individud human development. From the early work of Piaget and Erikson to a plethora of recent models, we now see children and adults asevolvine and erowine nersons. The implications for education and learning are critical. Rather than seeine students as "blank tab1ets"unon which teachers should inscribe Knowledge and ~ r u t h , ' w e have come to recoenize the imoortance of viewine students as active learners Gith various stages of intellectuk, emotional, and ethioal maturitv. This realization can and should have a dramatic impact on the methods we use to teach and environments we create for learning. A prevalent model of student development was first described by William Perry (I). This model has been used extensivelv bv nersons involved in student services and counseling (2). Its use by teachers across campus has grown over the last decade to include application in the majority of disciplines.' The purpose of this paper is to present Perry's model and discuss the epistemology of chemistry in that context. The second article in the series will present strateeies of develo~mentdinstruction in the general chemistrv hassroom and lab using the Perry model. ~~~~
~
~
~
IN RELATIVISM COMMITMENT
RELATIVISM
- -
MULTIPLISM
. ".
Overvlew of the Perry Scheme
In the 1950's and 1960's Perry conducted a longitudinal study involving lengthy interviews of students from various classes a t Harvard and Radcliffe. From analysis of these interviews, a "Scheme" of intellectual and ethical development for college students emerged. P e m describes a series of staees or "Positions" throueh which college students progress.'i~eefigure.) Each of these Positions remesents a uniaue wav of thinkine or a particular cognitive fiiter through which students uiders&nd their world. The nine positions can be grouped into four categories: Dualism, Multiplicity, Relativism, and Commitment in Relativism. We shall first examine the general trends of the entire Scheme, but later focus on Positions 2-5. Dualism. Positions 1 and 2 represent stages where the student sees the world in dualistic fashion involving the opposites of Rightwrong, Good-Bad, and W e - T h e ~ . ~ Truth is Absolute, and any uncertainty can only be temporan'. Multi~licitv.Positions 3 and 4 represent a less simalistic view of the world. Diversity and uniertainty are recognized as leeitimate to the ~ o i nwhere t "anvone has a rieht to his or her own opinion" add all opinions &e equal, eventhose of an authoritv. ~e1at;uism. At Positions 5 and 6, the student recognizes that knowledge is contextual and relative. (Dualistic right-
'
Reference 2 contains an exhaustive listina of oaoers. dissertations, and presentations about the Perry ~cheine.F& a simpler of aaalicatlons courses see ref .-- .to ~- science . - .-.and .- math - - ~ -.--.. - 3-6. Perry's use of capital letters Indicates a special character to the quality described: 8.9..The Authority who knows The Truth vs. simply an authority who knows a truth.
Adwarnot the P Vertical axis.
( DUALISM
.
1
3
2
,
.
4 5 6 7 8 9 PERRY POSITION w Scheme focussing on me epistemologicalvector as the
wrong thinking can be appropriate, but only in certain contexts.) Personal commitment is necessary to establish an identity and t o make order of the chaos of diverging opinions, but the student is still unable to make that commitment. Commitment in Relativism. Students moving through Positions 7-9 make the Commitments recoenized as necessary in Position 6. The student at ~ o s i t i o n s8 and 9 recognizes the implications and responsibilities of Commitment. The first five Positions are mainly concerned with epistemolom and intellectual development, and the last four I'ositions-deal with ethical and identity development. Our main focus will be on Positions 2-5 since these have the most, direct application to pedagogy. (Position 1 is omitted since it is rarely found in college students in a pure form.) For a more comnlete devcrintion of the Srheme. Perrv's orieinal book (I) dr other synipses may be consulted (7-il). As with manv" coenitive development models, this one prescrihts that students follow the scheme in sequence listed. Unlike other models, however, Perrv has identified three methods by which one may interrupt-the normal progression: temporizing, escaping, and retreating, all of which represent delays or temporary regression in the scheme. There is obviously an implicit value system defined by growth along the Scheme. Since the middle to latter Positions in the Scheme are coincident with the stated goals of most institutions of higher learning (multiplicity of perspective, critical analysis, development of identity, etc.) one would expect progression along the Scheme to be embraced by educators.
-
-
An Example
~
Before proceeding to other features of the Scheme, an example will quickly illustrate its relevance to the chemistry classroom. Volume 66 Number 8 August 1989
659
Imagine that a chemistry teacher has just finished a traditional introduction to Valence Bond Theory and Molecular Orbital Theory at the freshman level including a survey of the homonuclear diatomic molecules of the second row of the periodic table. Appropriately so, an attempt is made to show the advantaees and disadvantages of each theom (such as the prohletn-of paramagnetic &olecular oxygen-in VBT). After class three students discuss the lectures in antici~ation of an upcoming test: Student A: "I enioved the lecture because the orofessor clearly knows what & is talking about. I am puzzled though because she couldn't seem to explain which theorv 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 each 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, hut each can be used very effectivelv in a given situation. It dcpends upon what yo" wish to demonstrate." The responses of the students represents far more than a simple inability to "pay attention"on the part of some students. Instead, they suggest that different students hearing the same lecture will make different meanines of what thev hear. This follows a constructivist learning tgeory (12). ~ h k Perm Scheme offers a framework for understandine the various responses. Student A is Dualistic and waits for the "Right" theorv to he presented in class. Indeed, why a "~rong"one was even discussed is unclear and confusing. Student B is Multiplistic and acknowledges the simultaneous use of two theories, hoth ex~laininabonding adetry to secondguess quately. The dilemma, though, is which one the teacher thinks is "right" and to -prepare to respond with that one on the test. Student C has heard the lectures more as they were no doubt intended to he understood. It is accentable. even advantageous, for competing theories to exist. he appropriate challenee is to know when to use each one and to understand its strengths and weaknesses. This is a Relativist point of view.
-
Results of Research wlth the Scheme A variety of studies have measured Perry level in college students since the original work (2). While Perry's original methodology is rarely used due to the cumbersome and costIv nature of the lenethv interview Drocess. other reliable tksts have been devised to assess ~ e &levei (13-16). These studies have confirmed Perry's observation of progress along the scheme as students move through the college years. Recent studies rated freshmen a t a mean of 2.4 and seniors at 3.2. Standard deviations in such studies are about 0.4-0.8.3 An important caveat here is to acknowledge that students do not uniformly approach all aspects of their life from the same Position (&lo, 19). Indeed, a student may well operate from a Relativist position in one class and a Dualist in another. The implications of this will he addressed in Part I1 of this series. It is a general feature of many developmental schemes that students can acknowledge - eleemnts of the stage that they occupy, the one following, and those that precede it, but are unable to assimilate arguments couched in terms of more advanced stages. For example, the presentation of a Relativist argument to Dualist or Multiplistic students often has the effect of creating unintended eonfusion. Relativists can 680
Journal of Chemlcal Education
nonetheless recognize Dualist arguments as special, often annro~riate. cases. .' ' ~ e v e l o ~ k e n t instruction" al is a strategy of teaching that is designed to promote growth along the Scheme (19). Several studies have investigated this in experiments comparing movement along the Scheme (20-23). Classes that used developmental instruction produced more progression along the Scheme than in control groups . - not using developmental instruction. The issue of gender bias in the Perry Scheme has been raised. As Gilligan has pointed out (24), like many other well-known studies of human behavior and development, Perm's studv is based nrimarilv on the studv of males and extrapolates-that to boih men &d women. ~ & n twork (24, 25) has sueeested that women tend to view and understand thkir w o r g i n different ways than men, yet some Perry studies have shown no gender differences (17) while others have (25). The "Posklon" ol Chemistry If we wish to "move students along the Scheme" we must know (1)at what Position most students initially reside, (2) how teachers view and present a given discipline, and (3) how to teach to encouraee erowth alone the Scheme. We have already stated that- mist freshmen are Dualistic in thought. The techniaues of develo~mentalinstruction will be oltlined in Part 1fof this series.' Do the epistemologies and teaching strategies of various disciplines align themselves along the Perry Scheme? Students would have us think so (I): I'll tell vou the best thine about science courses: Their lectures are all right. They sort of say the faets. But when you get to a humsnities course, especidy-oh, they're awful-the lecturer is just reading things into the book that were never meant to be there. Much of the content of anv course mav he viewed Dualistically. The rules of algebra define clekly what is right and wrong in the mani~ulationof equations. There is no question that George Washington w& the first president of the United States. Yet other areas seem nonDualistic: how do we evaluate the relative rightnesslwrongness of Christianity vs. Taoism, Khomeni vs. Ghandi, or even classical vs. nonclassical carbonium ions? ~-~~ Recalling that Dualist thought is seen as a special category of Relativist thought, we can acknowledge both approaches in our classrooms. How a subject is taught and whether or not Ihalist notions are presented simplistically or in a Relativist cuntext is an important education issue, however. And what of chemistrv? That it is a pan of modern (pont1700)science suggests that it will c&with it the prevailing cultural beliefs about science. Our society's propensity for turning to science for solutions to hoth t&hnkai and social ~rohlems(as if all Answers can he found there) places the perception of chemistry in a Dualist camp. Yet historians, philosophers, and practitioners of science know that science does not operate in a vacuum. Even "fundamental research"-which comes as close as possible to science unfettered hv oolitics and economics--is usuallv defended by the hopeor distant application. Indeed, there is often not a sinele "scientific answer" to such questions regarding environmental damage by acid rain or ihe safety of nuclear power plants, although the public often believes one should exist and demands it. Dualism in science is but a convenience offered by situations upon which scientists agree; only then do we see right and wrong. Yet it is from this simplified vantage point that we see much of chemistry presented. ~~
~
~
The Reflective Judgment model of cognitive development, close-
ly related to ihe Perry Scheme, corroborates this general level of
intellectual ability and sequential growth ( 17).
More specific to chemical education, Kooser and Factor have given us great insight in their critique of chemistry textbooks (27, 28). Their goal was to discover what value systems, often implicit, underlie various textbooks on the market. Apremise of their study was that the values we hold about science are therefore not only reflected in, but also generated by, textbooks. A distillation of their analysis of texts for nonmajors reveals some pervasive themes. Science is often presented with the "technical fix" bias that implies that many, if not all, of society's problems can be solved through science. The "pursuit of Truth" argument is frequently forwarded. Kooser and Factor also reviewed Chemical Principles by Masterton, Slowinski, and Stanitski (29). Their analysis, restated in a Perry Scheme context, showed that the text leans toward being largely Dualistic with threads of Relativism. Another insight into how chemistry is taught and learned comes from a auick look a t the ACS General Chemistry Exam. The test'is completely objective, dealing with fa-;, ~ r i n c i ~ l eand s . equations in a multiple-choice format. Issues bf value, history,-or process are exiluded. As a reflection of what chemical educators value, it presents chemistry as a collection of facw and equations al& Dualist perspectives. Given that science largely presents itself as a Dualistic venture and that most freshmen function as Dualists, it is reasonable to assume that general chemistry classes are largely filled with Dualistic thinkers who expect a Dualistic presentation. Indeed, even students functioning a t more advanced Positions may revert to Dualism in a science class since that is the operant mode of thought there. Perry ( I ) and others (30)have noted that science students tend to score lower on the Scheme. ~~
~
~
~
Concluslons
The Perry model of intellectual development holds many answers about how students perceive their education and approach the classroom and lab. By recognizing the assumptions of students, of teachers, and of a discipline we can
better understand both the problems of opportunities of teaching. Part I1 of this series will present strategies of accomplishing these goals. Literature CHed 1. Perry, W. 0..Jr.FormoflntollocfwrlandEthicalDouelopmnt inthaColkge Year*: A Scheme; Holt, Rinehrut, and Wioaton: New York,1979. 2. Moore. W. Bibliography and copy service catalog: Perry Development Scheme, CADI, %High Street.Faumville, VA 23901. 3. Allen. R. D. J. Coll. Sei. Tsoeh. 1981,11,9P97. 4. Copes, L.ForLeardng Moth. 1982. 3 ( 1 ) . 3 W . 5. Culuer.R. S.; Jackae, J.T. Eng.Educ. 1982, (December), 221-226. 6. Kimmd. D. h,Jr. "Use of the P e w Model in an Introductory Biologi Course": presented sf 1985 Projeef MATCH conference, Davidaon College. 7. King, P. In Applying New Dr".lopmentd Finding~;KneffIkamp, L.; Widi~k,c . ; Parker, C., Ed.: Joswy-Bass: Ssn Franciam, 1978: Vol. 4.35-52. 8. Perry, W. G. Jr. In Modern American College; Chiekering. A. W.. Ed.: J~esey-Baas: San hsndsco, 1981; 76116. 9. K n e f e l h p , L. Curr.Iasw8 HiflherEdwc. 1980,5,13-26. 10. Widick, C. C a m . Psych. 1977,6(41,3M8. 11. Finster. D. C. J. Chem. Educ. in p r w . 1 2 Bodner. G. M. J. Chom. Edue. 1986.63.873-878: and mferenea themin. 13. Bluter-Magolda, M.; Porterfield. W. J. Coll Sfu.Pem. L985,26,343-351. 14. Kndelkamp, L. PhD diaaertation, University ofMinnesota, 1974. 15. w i d i ~ kC. , nimeltation, universityaf~innesota, 1975. 16. Mines. R. A. In New D i m I l o w for Student Ssruices: M ~ a r u n ' wStudent Development: Hanson, G.R,Ed.; Jasay-Baas: Ssn Franeism. 1982; Vol. 20. 17. Kitchencr,K. 8;King.P. M.;InE~yondF o ~ ~ l O p ~ ~ L i i m I l I : M ~ d d L - ~ - n d M ~ t h h d s in the Study 01 Adolescent ond Adult Thought; Common, M. L;Armon, C.: Kohlber, L.; Richards, F. A,; Grotzner. T. A.; Smnot, J.: Eds.: Prsegor: New York, in
with permiasion). M. Touchton. J. G.; wertheima, L. c.: C~rnfeld.J. I..; Harris.,". K. H. Cwns. Psych. 1977. 6(4), 42-17. J. L.; P-I, N. "Facilitating InteUeaeaal Development in 21. Gablenick. F.; How&, Unive~ityHonors Studcob"; Univeraity of Maniland, 1983. 22. S1ephensan.B. W.;HunfC. Caum.Psyeh. l977.6,39&442. 23. Widick.C.; Simpson, D. 1nEncour~'ngDouelopmantinCollegeStu&nts;Parker, C. A,. Ed.: University of Minnesots: Minneapoli8.1978: pp 27-59. 21. Gilligan, C. In A Difemnl Voice:H~srvsrdUniversity: Cambridge, 1982. 25. Bclenky, M. F.: Clinchy, B. M.; Goldberger, N. R.; Tarule. J. M. W o m n h Way8 of Ynn,,,in..R..ir.N.~". .... -..-, .-...,19s "
26. Copoa, L., Ed. Peny Deuelopmnf S e h e m Network N e d . L987.9l2). 1:(sea Ref 2). 27. Faet0r.L.: Kaaer, R. "Value Prravp~sitiooainSeieneeTcxthwka:ACriticalRibliawaphy"; KnoxCallege, 1981. R.: Factor. L. J. Chsm.Educ. 1982.591010. 28. K-r. w.; sibwinaki. E.; stanit&, c. chomieo~~ n n e i ~ 5th ~ . ,ed.: hunden: 2s. Mate&: New York, 1981. 30. Wdfd.K. J. Coll. Stu.P.ra. 1982.23.4SU497. 31. Goldkger. N. Lib. Edue. 1982.67(1), 233-243
Volume 66
Number 8
August 1989
661
