1 MCRI Workshop on Undergraduate Cognitive Development, Learning Styles, and Student Learning Outcomes Assessments February 18, 2008 Katherine McAdams Associate Dean of Undergraduate Education University of Maryland, College Park Katherine McAdams Associate Dean of Undergraduate Education University of Maryland, College Park Karen Kurotsuchi Inkelas Associate Professor College Student Personnel Program University of Maryland, College Park Karen Kurotsuchi Inkelas Associate Professor College Student Personnel Program University of Maryland, College Park

2 Agenda for today’s workshop: Welcome and introductory remarks Opening scenario Review of cognitive development theory Review of typological/learning styles theory Lunch Assessment of student learning outcomes What are learning outcomes? Examples from the CORE Diversity Writing Project Characteristics of effective learning outcomes Example from Life & Physical Sciences Group activity Welcome and introductory remarks Opening scenario Review of cognitive development theory Review of typological/learning styles theory Lunch Assessment of student learning outcomes What are learning outcomes? Examples from the CORE Diversity Writing Project Characteristics of effective learning outcomes Example from Life & Physical Sciences Group activity

3 A scenario You’re a chemistry professor, and you assign a lab experiment to your undergraduate students. However, the results of the experiment do not go according to plan. Instead of the usual lab write-up, you ask your students to reflect on why the results of the experiment were different than expected. You’re a chemistry professor, and you assign a lab experiment to your undergraduate students. However, the results of the experiment do not go according to plan. Instead of the usual lab write-up, you ask your students to reflect on why the results of the experiment were different than expected. …And, you get a range of reactions from your students:

4 A question to you: How many of you have experienced any of these types of students in your classes? Which types? Which types seem most prevalent in your classes? What may be driving their different reactions to the same assignment? How many of you have experienced any of these types of students in your classes? Which types? Which types seem most prevalent in your classes? What may be driving their different reactions to the same assignment?

5 Perry’s (1970, 1981) scheme of intellectual and ethical development Critique: Belenky et al.’s (1986) women’s ways of knowing Baxter-Magolda’s (1992) epistemological reflection model Also: King & Kitchener’s reflective judgment model Kohlberg’s theory of moral development Gilligan’s model of women’s moral development Perry’s (1970, 1981) scheme of intellectual and ethical development Critique: Belenky et al.’s (1986) women’s ways of knowing Baxter-Magolda’s (1992) epistemological reflection model Also: King & Kitchener’s reflective judgment model Kohlberg’s theory of moral development Gilligan’s model of women’s moral development A review of undergraduate cognitive development theory

6 Basic tenets of all cognitive development theories Begin with the work of Jean Piaget The mind has structures that dictate how an individual adapts to and organizes his/her environment All examine the process of intellectual development, which is a complexification of these structures Most tend to be stage-wise and invariant

7 Perry’s (1970, 1981) scheme of intellectual and ethical development A background William G. Perry was a professor and educational psychologist at the Harvard Graduate School of Education Conducted interviews with Harvard undergraduates over 15 years ( s) to study their beliefs about knowledge, values, and responsibility (i.e., epistemological growth) Critique: homogeneity of subjects and implications for applicability to diverse contemporary college students Scheme describes developmental sequence to orientations to knowledge that build off of one another Scheme includes “positions” (or stages) that students progress through with increasing complexity about how they understand the world around them However, scheme is not entirely linear; students can regress William G. Perry was a professor and educational psychologist at the Harvard Graduate School of Education Conducted interviews with Harvard undergraduates over 15 years ( s) to study their beliefs about knowledge, values, and responsibility (i.e., epistemological growth) Critique: homogeneity of subjects and implications for applicability to diverse contemporary college students Scheme describes developmental sequence to orientations to knowledge that build off of one another Scheme includes “positions” (or stages) that students progress through with increasing complexity about how they understand the world around them However, scheme is not entirely linear; students can regress

8 Perry’s (1970, 1981) scheme of intellectual and ethical development DUALISM Knowledge is dualistic, absolute Learner views self as receptable ready to receive “truth,” Difficulty with academic tasks requiring recognition of conflicting points of view, or self-reflection Position 1: World seen in absolutes, polar terms Position 2: Multiple perspectives recognized, but accounted for as confusion by poorly qualified authorities DUALISM Knowledge is dualistic, absolute Learner views self as receptable ready to receive “truth,” Difficulty with academic tasks requiring recognition of conflicting points of view, or self-reflection Position 1: World seen in absolutes, polar terms Position 2: Multiple perspectives recognized, but accounted for as confusion by poorly qualified authorities Adapted from M. McEwen course notes

9 Perry’s (1970, 1981) scheme of intellectual and ethical development MULTIPLICITY Multiple perspectives acknowledged Limited ability to evaluate merits of differing opinions Ends with belief that all opinions are legitimate, or “everyone is entitled to his/her own beliefs” Position 3: Diversity, uncertainty seen as legitimate, but temporary Position 4: Knowledge translated to pseudo-relativism (see above) MULTIPLICITY Multiple perspectives acknowledged Limited ability to evaluate merits of differing opinions Ends with belief that all opinions are legitimate, or “everyone is entitled to his/her own beliefs” Position 3: Diversity, uncertainty seen as legitimate, but temporary Position 4: Knowledge translated to pseudo-relativism (see above) Adapted from M. McEwen course notes

10 Images from internet: Bill Rapaport, SUNY-Buffalo. Moving from dualism to multiplism:

11 Images from internet: Bill Rapaport, SUNY-Buffalo. Multiplicity depicted:

12 Perry’s (1970, 1981) scheme of intellectual and ethical development CONTEXTUAL RELATIVISM Beginning to recognize the knowledge is contextual and relative Critical thinking emerges in this period Preliminary awareness that “truth” is created as an amalgam of personal experience and judgment Position 5: Knowledge, values perceived as contexual, relativistic Position 6: Apprehension of having to make commitments to beliefs CONTEXTUAL RELATIVISM Beginning to recognize the knowledge is contextual and relative Critical thinking emerges in this period Preliminary awareness that “truth” is created as an amalgam of personal experience and judgment Position 5: Knowledge, values perceived as contexual, relativistic Position 6: Apprehension of having to make commitments to beliefs Adapted from M. McEwen course notes

13 Perry’s (1970, 1981) scheme of intellectual and ethical development COMMITMENT TO RELATIVISM Accepts responsibility of a pluralistic world, and acts through commitment to establishing identity, integrity Active questioning, testing of assertions or theories Positions 7 through 9 Note: Perry and subsequent researchers acknowledge that very few students ever reach this phase before graduation COMMITMENT TO RELATIVISM Accepts responsibility of a pluralistic world, and acts through commitment to establishing identity, integrity Active questioning, testing of assertions or theories Positions 7 through 9 Note: Perry and subsequent researchers acknowledge that very few students ever reach this phase before graduation Adapted from M. McEwen course notes

14 Perry’s (1970, 1981) scheme of intellectual and ethical development Deflections from growth: Temporizing: student delays in some Position, exploring its implications or explicitly hesitating to take the next step Retreat: student entrenches in dualism Escape: student exploits opportunity to remain detached from knowledge by staying in multiplicity Deflections from growth: Temporizing: student delays in some Position, exploring its implications or explicitly hesitating to take the next step Retreat: student entrenches in dualism Escape: student exploits opportunity to remain detached from knowledge by staying in multiplicity Adapted from M. McEwen course notes

15 Typical college student progression via the Perry Scheme  Enter college Leave college Dualism Multiplism Contextual Relativism Commitment to Relativism

16 Belenky et al’s (1986) women’s ways of knowing Critiques of Perry’s scheme Perry’s research based primary on undergraduate men Also, men from highly privileged backgrounds at elite institution known for fostering relativistic thought Enter Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule Interviewed 135 women from a variety of backgrounds Asserted that women process and orient themselves to knowledge differently than men Critiques of Perry’s scheme Perry’s research based primary on undergraduate men Also, men from highly privileged backgrounds at elite institution known for fostering relativistic thought Enter Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule Interviewed 135 women from a variety of backgrounds Asserted that women process and orient themselves to knowledge differently than men Adapted from M. McEwen course notes

17 Belenky et al’s (1986) women’s ways of knowing Adapted from M. McEwen course notes 1st way of knowing SILENCE One blindly follows authority, sticks with stereotypes, and has a very hard time defining oneself 2nd way of knowing RECEIVED KNOWING One is capable of receiving and reproducing knowledge, but not creating it 3rd way of knowing SUBJECTIVE KNOWING One perceives knowledge as personal and subjectively intuited; listens to the “voice within”

18 Belenky et al’s (1986) women’s ways of knowing Adapted from M. McEwen course notes 4th way of knowing PROCEDURAL KNOWING One recognizes a need for evidence beyond personal feelings to support opinions/interpretations. Two orientations: Connected knowers: attempt to find truth through listening, empathizing, and taking impersonal stances to information Separate knowers: exclude their feelings from making meaning and strictly rely on reason 5th way of knowing CONSTRUCTED KNOWLEDGE One integrates his/her own opinions and sense of self with reason and the outside world around him/her.

19 Baxter-Magolda’s (1992) epistemological reflection model Found evidence that women’s cognitive development did not conform well to the Perry scheme Conducted 5 year qualitative study of 101 students at Miami of Ohio in 1986 Equal number of men and women in study Advocates “patterns” of reasoning (also avoids usage of term “stage”) Found evidence that women’s cognitive development did not conform well to the Perry scheme Conducted 5 year qualitative study of 101 students at Miami of Ohio in 1986 Equal number of men and women in study Advocates “patterns” of reasoning (also avoids usage of term “stage”)

20 Baxter-Magolda’s (1992) epistemological reflection model ABSOLUTE KNOWING Similar to Perry’s dualism, knowledge is absolute However, gender differences in how individuals acquire knowledge: Women more likely to receive knowledge, relying on listening and recording, instead of talking and asking questions Men more likely to exhibit mastery pattern, preferring debates and quizzing one another ABSOLUTE KNOWING Similar to Perry’s dualism, knowledge is absolute However, gender differences in how individuals acquire knowledge: Women more likely to receive knowledge, relying on listening and recording, instead of talking and asking questions Men more likely to exhibit mastery pattern, preferring debates and quizzing one another

21 Baxter-Magolda’s (1992) epistemological reflection model TRANSITIONAL KNOWING Acknowledgement that while some knowledge is certain, some is not Reliance on authority recedes; students accept that knowledge is more about understanding that acquiring Again, gender differences emerge: Women more likely to exhibit interpersonal pattern, preferring to gather ideas from relationships with others Men more likely to show impersonal pattern, where others are utilized merely for debating; challenge is more important than relationships TRANSITIONAL KNOWING Acknowledgement that while some knowledge is certain, some is not Reliance on authority recedes; students accept that knowledge is more about understanding that acquiring Again, gender differences emerge: Women more likely to exhibit interpersonal pattern, preferring to gather ideas from relationships with others Men more likely to show impersonal pattern, where others are utilized merely for debating; challenge is more important than relationships

22 Baxter-Magolda’s (1992) epistemological reflection model INDEPENDENT KNOWING Knowledge as uncertain becomes basic assumption Students see themselves as active participants in knowledge production Gender differences Women express inter-individual pattern, where connections with peers important, but sense of voice is developing Men express individual pattern, where autonomy of thinking emerges more strongly INDEPENDENT KNOWING Knowledge as uncertain becomes basic assumption Students see themselves as active participants in knowledge production Gender differences Women express inter-individual pattern, where connections with peers important, but sense of voice is developing Men express individual pattern, where autonomy of thinking emerges more strongly

23 Baxter-Magolda’s (1992) epistemological reflection model CONTEXTUAL KNOWING Student completely thinks for him/herself Knowing requires judgments based upon evidence and integration of ideas Baxter-Magolda found very few students at this stage, and thus deferred judgment on whether gender-related differences emerged CONTEXTUAL KNOWING Student completely thinks for him/herself Knowing requires judgments based upon evidence and integration of ideas Baxter-Magolda found very few students at this stage, and thus deferred judgment on whether gender-related differences emerged

24 Typical college student progression via Baxter-Magolda’s model Absolute knowers68% of first-year students Transitional knowers80% of juniors, seniors Independent knowers57% first year out of college* Contextual knowers12% first year out of college* * Note: study only followed students for 5 years

25 Comparing the models: One [crude] approach Dualism Multiplism Contextual Relativism Commitment to Relativism Silence, Received Knowing, Subjective Knowing Procedural Knowing (separate or connected) Constructed knowing Absolute Knowing Transitional Knowing Independent Knowing Contextual Knowing PerryBelenky et al.Baxter-Magolda

26 Returning to our opening scenario Which phase(s) most closely represent(s) our 3 students? Student #1: “I don’t know. Why are you asking me? You’re the professor. Aren’t you supposed to know? I don’t get the assignment— what is it that you want me to write in my report?” Student #2: “Why didn’t it work? I don’t know. You say it’s this, I may say it’s that. Sally may say it’s something else. Who really knows? Who cares? This assignment is stupid.” Student #3: “You know, I’m not sure, but do you think the different results might be due to changes in the temperature during the experiment? Actually, you know, that reminds me of what we talked about from the reading last week….” Which phase(s) most closely represent(s) our 3 students? Student #1: “I don’t know. Why are you asking me? You’re the professor. Aren’t you supposed to know? I don’t get the assignment— what is it that you want me to write in my report?” Student #2: “Why didn’t it work? I don’t know. You say it’s this, I may say it’s that. Sally may say it’s something else. Who really knows? Who cares? This assignment is stupid.” Student #3: “You know, I’m not sure, but do you think the different results might be due to changes in the temperature during the experiment? Actually, you know, that reminds me of what we talked about from the reading last week….”

27 Small group activity Take one theory/model and think of how you can use it in your current classroom practices. Or, think about something you have already done but you just didn’t have the name for it. (15 minutes) Report out to large group Take one theory/model and think of how you can use it in your current classroom practices. Or, think about something you have already done but you just didn’t have the name for it. (15 minutes) Report out to large group

28 References Baxter-Magolda, M. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender- related patterns in students’ intellectual development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Belenky, M., Clinchy, B., Goldberger, N., & Tarule, J. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books. Perry, W. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Perry, W. (1981). Cognitive and ethical growth: The making of meaning. In A. Chickering & Associates (Eds.), The modern American college: Responding to the new realities of diverse students and a changing society (pp ). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Baxter-Magolda, M. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender- related patterns in students’ intellectual development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Belenky, M., Clinchy, B., Goldberger, N., & Tarule, J. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books. Perry, W. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Perry, W. (1981). Cognitive and ethical growth: The making of meaning. In A. Chickering & Associates (Eds.), The modern American college: Responding to the new realities of diverse students and a changing society (pp ). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

29 Holland’s theory of vocational choice and the 6 personality types Kolb’s learning styles Holland’s theory of vocational choice and the 6 personality types Kolb’s learning styles A review of typology theories (Understanding different learning styles) Also: Myers-Briggs Typology

30 Holland’s personality types American psychologist (has strong ties to this area) Theory of vocational choice is that people tend to like to work in environments with people of similar personality type “Birds of a feather flock together” Personality types used in Career interest inventories (still extremely popular) American psychologist (has strong ties to this area) Theory of vocational choice is that people tend to like to work in environments with people of similar personality type “Birds of a feather flock together” Personality types used in Career interest inventories (still extremely popular)

31 Holland’s 6 personality types Realistic: practical, physical, hands-on, tool-oriented Investigative: analytical, intellectual, scientific, explorative Artistic: creative, original, independent, chaotic Social: cooperative, supporting, helping, healing/nurturing Enterprising: competitive environments, leadership, persuading Conventional: detail-oriented, organizing, clerical Realistic: practical, physical, hands-on, tool-oriented Investigative: analytical, intellectual, scientific, explorative Artistic: creative, original, independent, chaotic Social: cooperative, supporting, helping, healing/nurturing Enterprising: competitive environments, leadership, persuading Conventional: detail-oriented, organizing, clerical

32 Holland’s 6 personality types Common careers Realistic (doer): engineer, info technology, architect, chef Investigative (thinker): professor, psychologist, surgeon Artistic (creator): actor, musician, painter Social (helper): counselor, teacher, nurse, physician Enterprising (persuader): lawyer, public relations, sales, journalist Conventional (organizer): accountant, librarian, secretary, statistician Realistic (doer): engineer, info technology, architect, chef Investigative (thinker): professor, psychologist, surgeon Artistic (creator): actor, musician, painter Social (helper): counselor, teacher, nurse, physician Enterprising (persuader): lawyer, public relations, sales, journalist Conventional (organizer): accountant, librarian, secretary, statistician

33 Holland’s 6 personality types The hexagon

34 Kolb’s learning styles David Kolb is a social psychologist and educational theorist Creator of Learning Style Inventory (LSI) Probably best known learning style model Kolb posits that learning is an inherently active process where what is known is constructed by the knower through the progression of a series of steps David Kolb is a social psychologist and educational theorist Creator of Learning Style Inventory (LSI) Probably best known learning style model Kolb posits that learning is an inherently active process where what is known is constructed by the knower through the progression of a series of steps

35 Kolb’s learning styles THINKING Abstract Conceptualization FEELING Concrete Experience DOING Active Experimentation WATCHING Reflective Observation

36 Kolb’s learning styles AccommodatorsDivergers ConvergersAssimilators DOINGWATCHING FEELING THINKING

37 Kolb’s Learning Styles Defined Accommodators (Doing + Feeling) Action oriented At ease with people Prefers trial and error Adaptable Divergers (Watching + Feeling) People and feeling oriented Imaginative Good at brainstorming Good at analyzing alternatives Convergers (Doing + Thinking) Prefers technical tasks over social Good problem solver Good decision maker Practical Assimilators (Watching + Thinking) Emphasizes ideas over people Good at creating theoretical models Good at integrating observations

38 Discussion For both the Holland and Kolb types, think about the following: What are your primary learning styles? What are your students’ dominant learning styles? If there is a match between the styles, why do you think this is? If there is a mismatch, what are the implications for your teaching? For both the Holland and Kolb types, think about the following: What are your primary learning styles? What are your students’ dominant learning styles? If there is a match between the styles, why do you think this is? If there is a mismatch, what are the implications for your teaching?

39 Small group activity (15 minutes) Brainstorm typical assignments given in your classes Which types of students (i.e., which learning styles) will likely excel at these assignments? Which types of students will likely struggle? Report out to large group (15 minutes) Brainstorm typical assignments given in your classes Which types of students (i.e., which learning styles) will likely excel at these assignments? Which types of students will likely struggle? Report out to large group

40 References Holland, John. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments. Psychological Assessment Resources Inc. Kolb. D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kolb, D. A. (1985). The learning style inventory. Boston: McBer. Holland, John. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments. Psychological Assessment Resources Inc. Kolb. D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kolb, D. A. (1985). The learning style inventory. Boston: McBer.

41 Break for lunch!