Transcript File

Perry’s Theory of Intellectual
and Ethical Development
Historical Background
 Perry was born in Paris, France 1913.
 Received bachelor’s and master’s degree from
Harvard where he studied English and Greek.
 1950-1060 Director of Harvard University’s Bureau
of Study Counsel



College administrator
Counselor to students
Researcher-theorist in college-age development
( Rapaort, 2010 )
The Study
 The longitudinal study consisted of students from
Harvard University and Radcliffe University.
 Used only interviews from the men of Harvard to
validate his theory.
 2 major publications
 Very large book with examples and details of the theory
 Condensed, yet equally challenging publication
(Evans et al., 2010, p.85)
The Theory
 Perry believed that college students journeyed
through 9 positions of intellectual development.









Basic Duality
Full Dualism
Early Multiplicity
Late Multiplicity
Contextual Relativism
Pre-Commitment
Commitment
Challenges to Commitment
Post-Commitment
(Perry, 1970)
Dissecting the Positions
 The 9 positions can be broken down into four
categories:

Dualism

Multiplicity

Relativism

Commitment
(Evans et al., 2010, p.85)
Positions in Motion
Commitment
Relativism
Multiplicity
Dualism
Dualism
 Dualism is the mode of meaning making where, “the
world is viewed dichotomously.”



Right and Wrong
Good and Evil
Black and White
 Knowledge is viewed as quantitative.
 Authorizes have the right answer.
 Transition occurs: Cognitive dissonance
(Evans et al., 2010, p.86)
Multiplicity
 Mode of meaning-making where “diverse views are
thought of as equally beneficial when right answers
aren’t know.”
 Peers become source of knowledge
 Students start thinking analytically
 Transition occurs: Recognizing that support is
needed.
(Evans et al., 2010, p.85)
Relativism
 Relativistic thinkers, “acknowledge that some
opinions are of little value, and yet reasonable people
can also legitimately disagree on some matters.”
 Knowledge is more qualitative and based on
evidence and research.
 Students start to evaluate answers and solutions
(Evans et al., 2010, p.85)
Commitment in Relativism
 A shift from cognitive development to ethical
development.
 This is where students find their “identity.”
 Realize that they have to make
choices and are responsible for
those choices.
(Evans et al., 2010, p.85)
Deflections for Cognitive Growth
 Temporizing- a “timeout” when movement is
postponed from one position to the next
 Escape- Abandonment of Responsibilities
 Failure to commit
 Alienation
 No desire to pursue anything
 Retreat- Temporary return to dualism
 Overwhelmed
 Just wants answers
(Evans et al., 2010, p.85)
Assessment Methods
 Measure of Intellectual Development (MID)
 Measure of Epistemological Reflection (MER)
 Erwin's Scale of Intellectual Development (SID)
 Moore’s Learning Environment Performance
Measure (LEP)
(Evans et al., 2010, p.89)
The Developmental Instruction Model
 Knefelkamp and Widick
 Four variabes of challenge and support characterize
the model: (pg.91)




Structure
Diversity
Experiential Learning
Personalism
(Evans et al., 2010, p.91)
Why Should You Care?
Strengths and Weaknesses
Strengths
Weaknesses
 Influential Work
 Only used white, males
 Gaining Basic
 Students of the 1950’s
understanding of how
students make
meaning.
(Evans et al., 2010, p.96)
 Simple Lables
Real World Applications
 What is your name?
 What position of meaning making are you in?
 What year are you? (Freshman, Sophomore, ect)
 What’s your favorite class? Why?
 What forms of deflection might you run into?
Resources
 Evans, N.J., Forney, D.S., Guido, F.M., Patton, L.D.,&
Renn, K.A. (2010),. Student development in
college. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
 Perry, William G., Jr. (1970), Forms of Intellectual and
Ethical Development in the College Years: A
Scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
 Rapaport, W. J. (2010, October 9). William Perry's
scheme of intellectual and ethical development.
In University at Buffalo. Retrieved September 4,
2011.
(Evans et al., 2010, p.85)