DEVELOPING REFLECTIVE JUDGMENTPatricia M. King & Karen Strohm Kitchener

(1994)

Presented by: Gwendolyn Williams & Michael Montgomery. March 16, 2009

Patricia M. King• THEN: Associate Professor/Chair of Dept. of

Higher Education @ Bowling Green State University.

• NOW: Professor of Higher Education @ U-Michigan

Karen Strohm Kitchener• THEN: Professor in Morgridge College of

Education / Director of Counseling , University of Denver.

• NOW: retired 2005

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:–Epistemological

assumptions–Structure 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

Developing Reflective Thinking

Quasi-reflective

ReflectivePre-reflective

Empirical Grounding• > 1,700 individuals

– 200 people in a 10 year longitudinal study from 1977 – 1987

– 150 high school students

– 1,100 college students

– 200 graduate students

– 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

• Don’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

Stage 1

• Concrete, single-category belief system• Knowledge = copied, absolute & predetermined• Knowledge & belief aren’t distinguished• No controversies, criticisms, doubt• Don’t know how to respond when faced w/ ill-

structured problems• Closed framework• “single representational skill” (Fischer, 1980)

“What I have seen, is true.”

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 (advancement from Stage 1)• Differences of opinion are acknowledged (but if

not from authority, it’s “wrong”)• “representational mapping skill” (Fischer)• “dualistic epistemology” (Perry, 1970)

Stage 2

"If it is on the news, it has to be true."

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 (idiosyncracies)

• 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• 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 is a process that requires action on the part of the knower; no longer a spectator

• Ill-structured problems need solutions that must be constructed - even experts!

• Knowledge is uncertain; must be understood w/ relation to context & evidence

• Rejection of “right” and “wrong”… but one view may be better?

• Construct solutions, evaluated by criteria• Decision based on compelling nature of evidence, not

idiosyncratic reasoning (Stage 4)• BUT - still fail to understand the larger system of knowing…

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 nota 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 super-

ceded 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

Retention Problem

• Whatever retention problem we choose (that will still be visible on the poster board)

• Direct the class to the probing questions and purpose handout

Results of the Study

Chickering & Riser Relation

• Developing (intellectual) competence

• Developing integrity

Limitations

Implications for Practice

References