1. DEVELOPING REFLECTIVE JUDGMENT
Patricia M. King & Karen Strohm Kitchener (1994)
“During this hour, we will be talking about several issues which are of general concern and about which most people are at least vaguely familiar. I am not concerned with how much information you have about an issue, but how you think about them. . .” (K&K, 1994 pg. 102). Then present Braxton problem on poster board. Then move on to the next slide. Will come back to this problem at the end and add probing questions listed on pg. 102 of the King & Kitchner book.
Presented by: Gwendolyn Williams & Michael Montgomery. March 16, 2009

2. Patricia M. King
THEN: Associate Professor/Chair of Dept. of Higher Bowling Green State University.
NOW: Professor of Higher U-Michigan
Karen Strohm Kitchener
THEN: Professor in Morgridge College of Education / Director of Counseling , University of Denver.
NOW: retired 2005

3. 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)
Critical thinking is skillful, responsible thinking that facilitates good judgment because it (1) relies upon criteria, (2) is self-correcting, and (3) is sensitive to context.
Reflective thinking requires the continual evaluation of beliefs, assumptions, and hypotheses against existing data and against other plausible interpretations of the data.

4. 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
There are 2 major differences between the typical descriptions of critical thinking and our conception of reflective judgement: the epistemological assumptions (assumptions about knowledge) on which the thinking person operates and the structure of the problem being addressed. Basically, awareness of uncertainty MUST exist prior to the initiation of reflective thinking.

5. Well- and Ill-Structured Problems
Critical thinking is used more so for well structured problems, where as reflective thinking, which leads to reflective judgment is used when an ill-structured problem is introduced.
This table gives a detailed description of the differences between ill-structured and well-structured problems. An example of a well-structured problem would be something like figuring the yield rate of a university or college (first time degree seekers/total admits).
An example of an ill-structured problem would be more along the lines of . . .(what’s one of Braxton’s retention problems)
Engage the class: Would anyone care to share the first time you encountered an ill-structured problem that required you to engage in some form of reflective thinking?

6. Developing Reflective Thinking
Pre-reflective
Quasi-reflective
Reflective
Introduce Reflective Judgment Model and the method of data collection (Reflective Judgment Interview)

7. 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
“To date, more than 1,700 individuals representing a wide variety of student and nonstudent subgroups, have participated in the RJI (Reflective Judgment Interview). This number includes almost 200 people who took part in longitudinal studies, over 150 high school students, and 1,100 college students (both traditional-age and adult samples), and about 200 graduate students. In addition, more than 150 nonstudent adults were tested” (K&K, 1994 pg. 126)

8. 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?
The Reflective Judgment Interview (RJI) measures how students typically function, not how they might function under optimal learning and testing conditions (pg. 126)

9. 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

10. 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)

11. “What I have seen, is true.”
Stage 1
“What I have seen, is true.”

12. Stage 2
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)

13. "If it is on the news, it has to be true."
Stage 2
"If it is on the news, it has to be true."
Standard problem # 2? About news . ..

14. Stage 3
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

15. 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.”

16. 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

17. Stage 4
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

18. 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.”
Standard problem #1 (about pyramids)

19. Stage 5
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…

20. “What’s known is always limited by the perspective of the knower.”
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."

21. 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

22. Stage 6
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…

23. 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."

24. Stage 7 “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

25. 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."

26. 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

27. Results of the Study
Pg. 161 and 162 tables, pg. 166 ~ more variable among seniors from state schools to highly selective liberal arts colleges
Gender differences – pg. 175
Cross cultural differences pg. 177
Pg. 173 differences among graduate student disciplines

28. Chickering & Riser Relation
Developing (intellectual) competence
Developing integrity
Vector 1 – Developing competence: Skill in using one’s mind; mastering content, gaining intellectual and aesthetic sophistication, and building a repertoire of skills to comprehend, analyze, and synthesize
Vector 7 – Developing integrity: closely related to establishing identity and clarifying purposes. Our core values and beliefs provide the foundation for interpreting experience, guiding behavior, and maintaining self-respect.

29. Limitations

30. Implications for Practice
Strength ~ pg. 250 gives an outline of how to instruct students’ development in reflective judgement
Pg. 125 ~ gives some information about implications for practice
Pg. 235 student affairs strategies for promoting reflective thinking
Other ideas from the class

31. References