What is Reflective Judgment and Why is it Important?
In their book Developing Reflective Judgment: Understanding and Promoting Intellectual Growth and Critical Thinking in Adolescents and Adults , Patricia King and Karen Kitchener detail their developmental theory which describes the stages of epistemological growth that takes place in students between adolescence and adulthood and the corresponding abilities to reason through complex problems with a high degree of uncertainty.Their theory specifically relates to the development of critical thinking skills as they relate to ill-structured problems like the ones students investigate as members of honors seminars.
The theory is useful because it will increase your understanding of where your students are and where they need to go, in order to be effective critical thinkers. In their book, King and Kitchener also make recommendations on how to move students through the developmental stages described in their theory. These recommendations can be found in Exhibit 2.1-2.4.
As is common to all developmental theories, this one depends on your ability to diagnose your students abilities based on both behavioral observations and formal assessment. In the case of reflective Judgment, these observations will be in the area of epistemology. After becoming familiar with the stages, you may need to set up a critical thinking activity like one of the ones described on the Components of a Grading Scheme page or set up one of your own activities based on the descriptions given in the table listed below in order to hear and see the various stages of your students thinking. From your observations you will probably discover your students are at different stages in their development regardless of their age or year in school. While this is consistent with King and Kitchener's theory it can make helping students through the stages of development during the course of a ten week seminar more difficult.
For a more complete description the theory, read Patricia King's article "How Do We Know?, Why Do We Believe?". The stages are summarized below, in Exhibit 1.1.
View of knowledge: Knowledge is assumed
to exist absolutely and concretely; it is not understood as an
abstraction. It can be obtained with certainty by direct observation.
Concept of justification: Beliefs need no justification
since there is assumed to be an absolute correspondence between
what is believed to be true and what is true. Alternate beliefs
are not perceived.
Stage 2
View of knowledge: Knowledge is assumed to be absolutely certain or
certain but not immediately available. Knowledge can be obtained
directly through the senses (as in direct observation) or via
authority figures.
Concept of justification: Beliefs are unexamined and unjustified
or justified by their correspondence with the beliefs of an authority
figure (such as a teacher or parent). Most issues are assumed
to have a right answer, so there is little or no conflict in making
decisions about disputed issues.
Stage 3
View of knowledge: Knowledge is assumed to be absolutely certain or
temporarily uncertain. In areas of temporary uncertainty, only
personal beliefs can be known until absolute knowledge is obtained.
In areas of absolute certainty, knowledge is obtained from authorities.
Concept of justification: In areas in which certain answers
exist, beliefs are justified by reference to authorities' views.
In areas in which answers do not exist, beliefs are defended as
personal opinion since the link between evidence and beliefs is
unclear.
Stage 4
View of knowledge: Knowledge
is uncertain and knowledge claims are idiosyncratic to the individual
since situational variables (such as incorrect reporting of data,
data lost over time, or disparities in access to information)
dictate that knowing always involves an element of ambiguity.
Concept of justification: Beliefs are justified by giving
reasons and using evidence, but the arguments and choice of evidence
are idiosyncratic (for example, choosing evidence that fits an
established belief).
Stage 5
View of knowledge: Knowledge is contextual and subjective since it
is filtered through a person's perceptions and criteria for judgment.
Only interpretations of evidence, events, or issues may be known.
Concept of Justification: Beliefs are justified within
a particular context by means of the rules of inquiry for that
context and by context-specific interpretations of evidence. Specific
beliefs are assumed to be context specific or are balanced against
other interpretations, which complicates (and sometimes delays)
conclusions.
Stage 6
View of knowledge: Knowledge
is constructed into individual conclusions about ill-structured
problems on the basis of information from a variety of sources.
Interpretations that are based on evaluations of evidence across
contexts and on the evaluated opinions of reputable others can
be known.
Concept of justification: Beliefs are justified by comparing
evidence and opinion from different perspectives on an issue or
across different contexts and by constructing solutions that are
evaluated by criteria such as the weight of the evidence, the
utility of the solution, or the pragmatic need for action.
Stage 7
Reprinted with permission from King, K.M.
and Kitchener, K.S. (1994). Developing Reflective Judgment:
Understanding and Promoting Intellectual Growth and Critical Thinking
in Adolescents and Adults. Copyright 1994 Jossey-Bass,Inc.,
Publishers. All rights reserved.
How Can I Apply the Reflective Judgment Theory in My Classroom?
Once you know where your students are in terms of their epistemology and stage of reflective judgment you will probably have a great deal of insight into the ways that your students are behaving that will help immensely when it comes to knowing when and how to intervene. For example students in early stages of development constantly try to figure out what the professor really wants, they tend to disregard their classmates opinions because they are not authority figures, may be very frustrated when authority figures disagree and hesitate to make decisions where there is no single right or wrong answer. All of these characteristics put together, may result in students wanting to avoid making decisions about ill-structured problems rather than face them. Thus, honors seminars based on ill-structured problems will significantly challenge students in early stages of reflective judgment. Exhibit 2.1-2.4 provide stage by stage descriptions of ways to promote students' reflective thinking.
However, King and Kitchener also point out that students faced with ill-structured problems at the early stages of development can learn how to work through them with the proper instructional support. The type of instructional support they recommend is often referred to as scaffolding, because it involves gradually building up to the level where you would like your students to be. Much of what they recommend is common sense if you think of learning to think reflectively being like any new learning experience. For example, a child who does not want to do something new, like ride a bike. You know it will be fun, offer new freedom,be good exercise and will take practice. But to the child it looks scary, they could fall and get hurt. Fear of the unknown is a big part of the problem. First you paint the bike her favorite color to increase her interest in it. You make bike riding look like fun by showing her how much you like to ride your bike, modeling. You buy training wheels and run along behind the bike, guided practice.Then finally when she gets on her bike and pedals hesitantly, wobbling all over the sidewalk, you tell her what a good job she is doing, encouragement. And when she falls you pick her up, tell her what went wrong and tell her to try again, feedback. Students need to go through this same process when it comes to developing their abilities to think reflectively and critically.
Specifically some activities that will help your students to develop epistemic assumptions, reflective Judgment and critical thinking skills. Some activities focus directly on developing students' epistemology, others focus on supplemental skills like using evidence effectively.
During the honors seminar any and all activities may lend themselves to opportunities to give students the kind of feedback that can help them develop their epistemic assumptions. Professor Barry M. Kroll quoted in King and Kitchener's book describes his method giving feedback to students like this, "When their responses are dogmatic, I foster all their doubts: when they seem mired in skepticism or paralyzed by complexity I push them to make judgments: when their tactics are not fully reflective, I encourage their best efforts to use critical evaluative thinking."(King and Kitchener, 232)
Combining effective feedback with multiple opportunities for challenge and practice and emotional support is the recipe for the successful improvement of students' abilities to think critically. But, don't be surprised if your students don't share the feeling of success. Robert J. Kloss, a professor of English, in his article, "A Nudge is Best" says that students often experience a sense of loss when they move from simple to complex ways of thinking, " We must keep in mind that we are asking students to exit voluntarily an idyllic life of certainty where the locus of control is clear- a garden of Eden- and to assume the heavy burden of remaking the world a new day after day, a Sisyphean task at best. If we remember this, we will have a better perspective on how drastically uneven and unfair an exchange it may seem to them, and we can better understand the wisdom of their resistance."
References:
Kroll, B.M. (1992) "Reflective Inquiry in a College English Class." Liberal Education 78.1 :10-13.