Strengthening Practice with = Theory
By Martha E. Casazza
The field of developmental education is strong in = part due=20 to the range of disciplines represented by its practitioners. = Developmental=20 educators come from a multitude of backgrounds including psychology, = student=20 development, reading and adult education to name a few. This = multidisciplinary=20 foundation may be applied an integrated approach to educational = practice. This=20 integration could be further enhanced by constructing an = interdisciplinary=20 theoretical framework. Such a framework would serve as a standard point = of=20 reference for training new practitioners and for facilitating decision = making in=20 the field. It would also help to ensure that practices are not randomly=20 implemented and, as a result, could increase communication and=20 collaboration.
This article begins to construct a framework for = practice=20 by exploring theory related to ways of knowing. This includes taking a = new look=20 at how intelligence is defined and levels of thinking and reasoning. It = also=20 considers how learners think about what knowledge really is and how it = is=20 acquired.
Looking at Some of Today=92s Learners
In order to more easily integrate theory with = practice in=20 the article, three students are introduced and utilized as a living = context to=20 illustrate integration. They characterize many of the learners enrolled = in=20 postsecondary educational systems today. Through descriptive narratives, = students=92 general circumstances, goals, and backgrounds are detailed; = they each=20 embody many features of the students we work with daily. As you read = their brief=20 histories, you will probably find that they share much in common with = the=20 students you encounter regularly.
These three students will serve as case studies = throughout=20 the article to clarify connections between theoretical foundations and = the=20 teaching and learning process. Readers are encouraged to reflect on your = students to try and make similar connections and to assist a relevance = and=20 clarity that may come with the concrete applications = offered.
Descriptive Narratives of Students
Eva: Case Study #1
Eva is a former ESL ( English as a Second = Language)=20 student who has recently completed her English language course work. She = had=20 been living in the U.S. for 1 year when she first enrolled at Urban = Commuter=20 University (UCU) 3 years ago. Before that, she had immigrated from = Poland with=20 her family to join extended family members who lived in a large = metropolitan=20 area of the Midwest. Eva spoke little English, and her parents spoke = none at=20 all. Since they lived in a Polish-American community where it was easy = enough to=20 find jobs for which English was not required, learning English was not a = priority.
After 1 year, Eva began to feel the restrictions=20 associated with her job in the neighborhood and the missed opportunities = due to=20 her lack of English. She discovered through friends that UCU had a good = ESL=20 program, but she was a little apprehensive. Her family did not see the = need for=20 her to leave the community; after all, she had a good job and a secure=20 environment. After much encouragement from her friends, however, she = went to UCU=20 and was assessed by the ESL faculty. They placed Eva into level one of = the=20 five-level English language program, and she diligently worked her way = through=20 all five levels.
It took her almost 2 years to complete the course = work=20 attending classes in the evenings. She worked full time during the day = and=20 joined her growing group of young classmates in the evenings. More and = more, she=20 looked forward to meeting them for dinner to practice her English before = going=20 to class. Eva was finding less time for her family, and when she was = home she=20 spent most of her time studying. As much as she wanted to help, she = became=20 increasingly resentful of the additional family responsibilities she had = to=20 assume due to her increasing proficiency in English. She also wanted to = speak=20 English while at home, and she offered to help her parents learn. She = found,=20 however, that speaking Polish provided a comfort zone and a tie to their = heritage that her family did not want to give up.
Shortly before completing the fifth level of = English=20 study, Eva moved into an apartment downtown with some of her friends. = She found=20 a new job near school where she had to speak English, and she chose a = program of=20 study at UCU that would lead to a career in Medical Technology. Although = she was=20 excited and extremely proud of her accomplishments, her family did not = want to=20 talk about it and spoke very little when she came home to visit.
Mike: Case Study #2
Mike went to work full time at his uncle=92s auto = body shop=20 after his graduation from high school. High school had seemed pretty = easy to=20 Mike; after all, based on standardized test scores he had been advised = at the=20 beginning of his freshman year to focus on vocational/technical courses, = and as=20 he grew up he had spent a great deal of time in his uncle=92s shop. He = felt very=20 comfortable in the shop atmosphere of vocational classes and often felt = that he=20 knew more than the teachers. Mike and his friends, in fact, developed a=20 reputation for being confrontational and difficult both in and outside = the=20 classroom. Their attitude was that they were already doing "real" work = in their=20 part-time jobs as mechanics, and there was nothing relevant going on at = school.=20 Mike rarely did homework and often skipped class or was asked to leave = when he=20 became too disruptive. Teacher expectations were low, however, so, in = spite of=20 this, he passed all his classes and graduated in 4 years.
This experience in high school left Mike with the = feeling=20 that formal education was for others; he would rather learn on the job = where the=20 work was exciting and fulfilling. He worked long hours for his uncle, = and,=20 because of his dedication and growing expertise, the customers often = personally=20 asked for his service. At the end of 2 years he was working "on the = side" for so=20 many customers that his work week had stretched to an average of 65 = hours. He=20 began paying his friends to help him out with the extra work and = eventually=20 rented space in an empty garage down the street from his uncle=92s where = he worked=20 evenings.
Facing pressure from his friends to cut down on his hours, Mike = decided to=20 leave his uncle=92s shop and direct his efforts toward developing his = own=20 business. He figured that he already had plenty of customers and good,=20 dependable help from his friends. What he didn=92t have, and didn=92t = know he=20 needed, was formal training in the various components of running a small = business. He knew his trade, but he needed a framework for budgeting, = marketing,=20 accounting, and training. The first year was tough because he had to = depend on=20 others for this expertise. Many of his friends left because he wasn=92t = able to=20 pay them on a regular basis, and Mike became frustrated when he = couldn=92t=20 adequately communicate with his employees.
Mike asked his uncle for advice and, after = listening to=20 him, decided to go back to school in the evenings and take a few = classes. He=20 registered for an accounting class in the continuing education program = at his=20 former high school where he immediately began to experience the = assignments as=20 irrelevant. He struggled with the math examples from the text and = wondered what=20 they had to do with his goal of running a business. All of this led to a = return=20 of the feelings of frustration and inadequacy he previously experienced = in high=20 school.
Anna: Case Study #3
Anna graduated from college with a 3.5 GPA in = English=20 Literature and went to work for a small company that specialized in = corporate=20 training. Her job was to write up the training proposals that were sent = out to=20 potential clients; she primarily worked alone and at her own pace. She = was quite=20 successful, and her interest in writing continued to grow. After 10 = years Anna=20 grew tired of this position and also felt that she needed to spend more = time at=20 home raising her two children.
She decided that returning to graduate school = might be the=20 answer; it might provide her with the opportunity to refocus her career = and at=20 the same time allow her to meet the increasing time demands of her young = family.=20 She found a graduate program that seemed to be a good fit; it had a = writing=20 specialization and also offered the option of delivering the instruction = through=20 an an interactive video delivery system. That meant Anna would not have = to spend=20 time driving the 30 miles to class; rather, she could simply go to the=20 interactive video classroom at the local community college and be = connected to=20 her classmates and teacher through a video camera. All instruction = originated=20 from the primary site, and most of the students attended there; in fact, = Anna=20 was the only one actually present in the local community college = classroom=20 during the time of instruction.
Even though Anna had no prior experience with = technology,=20 and the monitors and cameras scared her a little, she welcomed the = opportunity=20 to be a part of this new distance learning process. She quickly learned = how to=20 work the controls and participate in discussions. She had always been=20 resourceful and independent, so she was accustomed to figuring things = out on her=20 own. Soon, however, she began to notice the informal conversations going = on=20 among her classmates before the teacher arrived. And even though she was = always=20 included in group projects and activities, she felt a little like an = outsider as=20 she watched the others handling and distributing the materials for a=20 presentation that she had helped to create.
One evening, the teacher invited a guest speaker = to class=20 who had never experienced an interactive delivery system. Anna was = present via=20 the video link, but the speaker kept forgetting about her and rarely = looked in=20 her direction as she spoke to the group. Anna was able to ask questions = at the=20 end, but still it was unsettling to feel so removed. It was then that = she=20 decided to make the 30- mile trip and attend the next class session at = the=20 primary site. She had never met her teacher or classmates face-to-face, = and she=20 felt that she needed that connection.
Connecting the Theory
If we "take these students along with us" as we = look at=20 some theoretical constructs, the theory may seem more relevant and = directly=20 connected to the teaching and learning process. By continuously asking = questions=20 raised by the various theories and then critically reflecting on how = they could=20 directly enhance the learning and development of these students, the = reader can=20 begin to experience the value of integrating theory with practice.
Chances are that when we prepare to teach a class = or lead=20 a workshop, we design instructional materials that fit our own ways of = knowing.=20 We may even reflect on what has been most effective in our personal = learning=20 experiences and, feeling comfortable with it, adapt it to the subject at = hand.=20 For instance, if we have always found visual reinforcement helpful, we = probably=20 enter the classroom armed with a folder of carefully constructed = overhead=20 transparencies. If we go beyond this, our preparation may include what = we have=20 heard at the latest professional conference where research from a = presentation=20 has confirmed that the lecture is dead and collaborative learning is the = way to=20 go. With this information, we systematically design small-group = activities and=20 let the students work on their own. After all, we believe that knowledge = isn=92t=20 simply transferred from us to our students through lecture and note = taking;=20 knowledge is built by connecting new ideas to experience and integrating = others=92=20 thoughts with our own. Or maybe our colleagues have suggested that there = is one=20 particular method that works best for our discipline. In a workshop on = time=20 management or in a chemistry lab, for example, there may be a "tried and = true"=20 set of materials developed around a formula that is believed to work for = everyone.
What these assumptions are missing is a = theoretical=20 framework that can inform educators about the learners=92 different = understandings=20 of what knowledge is and also how they approach the task of learning. = Once we=20 have a better idea of the variables affecting the many ways of knowing, = we can=20 construct a more effective range of instructional approaches to meet the = needs=20 of the increasing variety of learners pursuing their further = education.
Let=92s first take a look at Mike and what has = been=20 effective for him as he developed into a sought-after mechanic. He seems = to be=20 most successful when he is involved in an environment that is relevant = to his=20 interests. Brown, Collins, and Duguid (1989) suggest that learning is = highly=20 effective when the learner is engaged in realistic, "messy" problems = rather than=20 those that are more linear and predictable as is the case so often in = formal=20 educational settings. From their research with "Just Plain Folks," they = conclude=20 that cognitive apprenticeships in which the learner is engaged in = authentic=20 activities in a relevant context help to foster learning. For Mike this = suggests=20 that he might learn best through an internship or independent study = situation=20 with a plan of study that includes at least several hours a week at a = work site=20 under the guidance of an expert in the field. If this is not possible, = perhaps a=20 simulated work environment where in-class teams design a business plan = and then=20 are expected to find solutions to realistic problems associated with = their "own"=20 businesses would better fit Mike=92s learning needs.
If Mike were engaged in such a learning = environment, his=20 practical intelligence would be highlighted and perhaps serve as = positive=20 reinforcement that would further motivate him to come to grips with more = abstract concepts and ideas associated with his vocational interest. In = other=20 words, he may not do well in the analytic tasks required of him in = school, but=20 he excels in an environment in which practical performance is valued. = Tennant=92s=20 notion of tacit knowledge (Tennant & Pogson, 1995) supports this = concept. He=20 contends that adults develop expertise in domains indirectly through = experience.=20 Often they are unable to articulate their knowledge base, but rather = they depend=20 on an implicit memory that does not diminish with age. He refers to the=20 importance of procedural rather than declarative knowledge. Howard = Gardner=92s=20 (1983) ideas may also help our understanding of how to help Mike. His = theory of=20 multiple intelligences describes an intelligence as a set of tacit = knowledge=20 related to performance in a particular domain. Gardner outlines seven=20 intelligences; Mike may be strong in several of them including=20 bodily-kinesthetic and interpersonal abilities.
Another factor related to Mike=92s lack of success = in a=20 formal learning setting seems to be the stress that it elicits. McLeod = (1996)=20 theorizes that when fear and stress are present, hormones may be = released that=20 actually interfere with meaningful learning. He refers to the presence = of a=20 "Deep Learning State" that occurs only when the brain=92s = neurotransmitters are=20 open and there is a more efficient flow of information. The learning = environment=20 can act as a stimulus that determines which mode the brain enters.
In the case of Mike, he may be so fearful that he = actually=20 is not able to take in the information during class that he needs in = order to=20 further process it for learning. If this is the case, it could interfere = with=20 his ability to input and store material for later use. Such an = information=20 processing model in which learners take in information from the external = world=20 through their senses has been described by Bruer (1993). After initial = intake,=20 information is subsequently processed in working memory where decisions = are made=20 regarding its usefulness. From here, information is either sent on to = long-term=20 memory or used for immediate output to answer a question in class or = make a=20 response to an instructor=92s comment, for example. It is in the working = memory=20 that Bruer describes a possible "bottleneck in our cognitive system" = that may=20 occur if it becomes overloaded. If this overload is not managed = efficiently, the=20 learner probably will not progress from lower level to higher level = skills=20 (p.15). Due to his high level of stress, Mike may be unable to make the=20 necessary decisions that determine where information is directed. = Consequently,=20 he may not forward information to his long-term memory systems or, if he = does,=20 he may be too anxious to manage an organized storage system from which = he can=20 retrieve it when needed.
Emotions such as those related to the anxiety of = Mike can=20 also contribute to one=92s cognitive processing in a positive way. Mayer = and=20 Salovey (1997) have described this concept as emotional intelligence. = They=20 define it as a developmental process that starts with learners = perceiving and=20 accurately expressing needs related to their emotional state and moves = to a=20 level with individuals consciously regulating emotions and reflecting on = them=20 regularly. In the case of Anna, she seems to be able to understand and = to=20 express her needs related to distance learning. She understands that her = feelings of isolation and lack of involvement stem from her physical = separation=20 from the larger group of learners. She does not attach these feelings to = resentment toward the instructor or to any inability to understand the = content.=20 It is likely that Anna has moved through level two of Mayer and = Salovey=92s=20 emotional intelligence development as she has allowed an analysis of her = feelings to help her direct attention to the significant variables in = the=20 situation; she appears to be a learner who enjoys collaborative = processing, and=20 she realizes that she must change her environment in order for that to = be=20 satisfied. If she were at the highest level of emotional development, = Anna would=20 be able to consciously detach herself from the negative feelings she = attaches to=20 the off-site approach to instruction by reflecting and concentrating on = the=20 positive, utilitarian aspects of it which led her to enroll in the first = place.
Anna is in the process of adapting to her = environment=20 based on a personal understanding of her emotional state. This = experience leads=20 us to Sternberg=92s (1988) triarchic theory. He contends that = intelligence=20 consists of three components: analytical, synthetic, and contextual. The = analytical piece is perhaps best reflected in traditional approaches to = learning=20 in a more formal setting. There the learner frequently processes = information by=20 analyzing how to solve a given problem and then monitoring and = evaluating the=20 effectiveness of the solution. Following this, the solution is = implemented, and=20 subsequently knowledge is acquired by sorting out the most relevant = information=20 for storage and connecting it to prior knowledge. The process here = follows a=20 linear format and is characterized by an internal, mental = methodology.
Anna has always been successful using this type of = process, as measured by her standardized test scores and consistently = high=20 grades in college. For Mike, however, this area causes the most trouble. = He is=20 not particularly interested in learning through an internal, mental = analysis of=20 information that is presented to him. This could account for his low = grades and=20 for low performance on standardized tests. Mike=92s performance in the = second=20 area, synthetic, is probably higher. Here is where many traditionally = high=20 achievers in school experience difficulty; they cannot go beyond what is = given=20 them in order to create solutions for novel situations. The internal = world of=20 mental processing often collides with the external world of messy, = complicated=20 situations where neatly learned solutions don=92t work. Mike=92s ability = to deal=20 effectively with the daily problems of his business indicates his = strength not=20 only in this second component but in the third piece of Sternberg=92s = (1988)=20 theory, the contextual.
This contextual piece is where one is able not = only to=20 adapt successfully to the everyday world but also to go beyond adapting = to=20 actually selecting and shaping the environment. Mike, as we know, has = been quite=20 successful in the real world of work and relating to people as clients. = He also=20 has experienced taking an active role in selecting and shaping his = environment=20 by breaking away from his uncle=92s business and starting his own. He = has=20 understood that, if some of his needs are not being met, he can take the = actions=20 necessary to make a change.
The work of Vygotsky (1965) helps the = understanding of the=20 significant role played not only by the overall environment but by the=20 facilitators in that environment as well. Vygotsky describes an = individual=92s=20 zone of proximal development as being the area between one=92s latent = ability and=20 realized potential. He has theorized that guided instruction which leads = one=20 across that zone is a necessary ingredient for learning and that = intelligence=20 wis most related to performance following the mediation of guided = instruction.=20 In Mike=92s high school environment, no one provided the scaffolding = necessary for=20 him to cross this zone. He was never challenged and chose to remain in = his=20 comfort zone. Eva, on the other hand, received the guided instruction = from=20 teachers as well as more English proficient friends as she gradually = became more=20 independent and realized her potential. Vygotsky=92s framework outlining = the=20 effectiveness of an external mediator who gradually releases the = responsibility=20 of learning to the learner relates to the concepts of collaboration and=20 constructivism.
Although there is no one constructivist approach = to=20 learning, most emphasize social interaction and adaptability. To view = learning=20 through this lens, it is necessary to rethink the traditional idea of = what=20 knowledge is. In the traditional view, knowledge is considered = foundational and=20 most often the expert, or instructor, utilizes Friere=92s "banking = concept" (1970)=20 by making deposits into a willing, passive recipient, the learner. The=20 constructivist viewpoint, on the other hand, suggests that knowledge is=20 nonfoundational and is "a socially constructed sociolinguistic entity = and that=20 learning is inherently an interdependent, sociolinguistic process" = (Bruffee,=20 1993, p.3). Bruffee discusses this approach as it relates to = collaborative=20 learning. He makes the assumption that learning occurs as people talk = and work=20 toward a consensus about the knowledge they need for the task at hand. = He=20 suggests that when heterogeneous groups of learners work together, the = zone of=20 proximal development expands due to the varied experiences of all = members in the=20 group and consequently increases the potential learning power of the = individual=20 ( p.39).
When Eva first enrolled at UCU, she assumed that = she would=20 learn English by taking extensive notes and having her teachers correct = the=20 grammatical mistakes she made in her papers. She was not prepared for = the=20 collaborative peer discussions that took place each evening in her = classes. At=20 first she was angry because she did see how she could possibly learn = from other=20 students who also were learning English. She resented her teacher for = not simply=20 providing the rules and letting her memorize them. Gradually, as she = became more=20 comfortable, she realized how helpful it was to practice the language = and listen=20 to others as they practiced also. Through their "sociolinguistic = processing,"=20 they could actually learn from each others=92 mistakes and become more = independent=20 at the same time.
Related to Bruffee=92s emphasis on individuals = learning from=20 each other is the work of Stephen Brookfield (1986). He has researched = adult=20 learners using Witkin=92s (1949,1950) concepts of field dependence and = field=20 independence. Within the field of adult learning, there is often the = assumption=20 that self-directed learning is a sign of maturity and that being = characterized=20 as a field-independent learner is more likely to lead to success.=20 Field-independent learners are considered to be more analytical, = inner-directed,=20 and individualistic and also to have a stronger sense of self-identity;=20 field-dependent learners are extrinsically oriented, in need of external = reinforcement, and also in need of more structure from a mediator = (Brookfield,=20 p.41). What Brookfield=92s research has shown is that successful = self-directed=20 learners exhibit characteristics of field dependency rather than = independency.=20 "Their learning activities are explicitly placed within a social = context, and=20 they cite people as the most important learning resource. Peers and = fellow=20 learners provide information, serve as skill models, and act as = reinforcers of=20 learning and as counselors in times of crisis" (p.44).
Looking back at Anna=92s plight, we see that she = is expected=20 to be self directed as she sits at the far end of a camera, but she does = not=20 feel the connectedness that she needs from her peers. She needs their=20 reinforcement and more direct opportunities to collaborate in order for = her to=20 effectively process information. The distance from the primary site acts = as a=20 barrier to her learning.
Constructivism has much to do with how the learner = understands what knowledge is. This has been reflected in reading = comprehension=20 theory. Schraw and Bruning (1996) discuss readers=92 implicit models of = reading=20 and explain how the different perspectives regarding knowledge that one = brings=20 to the task of reading determine how one attempts to understand. The=20 transmission model involves the reader acting passively with the purpose = of=20 simply extracting information from the text. This sounds like the = perspective=20 that many developmental learners bring to studying, probably as a = consequence of=20 the positive reinforcement they may have received in high school for = memorizing=20 facts and then restating them on tests. More than likely, they may also = rely on=20 the translation model which involves readers finding meaning only from = within=20 the text: They decode the message without connecting it to previous = knowledge or=20 experience. If instructors do not encourage students to interpret = information,=20 the students simply may not consider it their right to evaluate it = critically or=20 to raise questions about the material as it relates to their own = experiences.=20 The students=92 understanding of knowledge is often that someone else = "has it" and=20 they need to collect it. This may explain, in part, why Mike has so much = trouble=20 relating text-based information to his actual work.
However, if Mike=92s instructor showed him how to = ask=20 questions before reading, it could encourage him to relate the text to = what he=20 already knows and to what he needs to know. From there he might move = into an=20 active transaction with the author of the text. The third model of = reading=20 comprehension discussed in Schraw and Bruning (1996) connects directly = to a=20 constructivist point of view and is called the transactional model. The=20 constructivist perspective assumes that comprehension results from a = reader who=20 actively engages in the process of building meaning by setting goals and = purposes and relating new information to prior knowledge. They contend = that most=20 readers are not conscious of the perspective they bring to the reading = task and=20 that this often leads to their comprehension being author or text = centered. This=20 implies that instructors need to provide some direct instruction on how = to read=20 a text before making assignments to encourage active reading. They could = direct=20 students to set a purpose for reading by outlining critical questions = beforehand=20 and directly articulating expectations for connecting new material to = prior=20 knowledge.
Mezirow (1991) has introduced the concept of = "meaning=20 systems" which act as filters through which learners take in information = and try=20 to make sense of it. These systems are constructed by individuals based = on their=20 own personal experiences. Learners use their experiences to develop sets = of=20 beliefs, theories, and assumptions. These, in turn, become the filter = through=20 which incoming information is processed. If they are distorted and = organized=20 without careful thought, or critical reflection as Mezirow describes it, = then=20 new experiences will be processed through the same "distorted" filters. = Eva and=20 Mike embrace two very different meaning systems when it comes to formal=20 schooling. For Eva, school was the obvious place for her to go when she = decided=20 to learn English. It never occurred to her to learn on her own or = through social=20 interaction in more informal settings. Mike, on the other hand, has = experienced=20 his most relevant learning on the job, outside the formal setting of = school. He=20 had to experience a crisis to return to school. The two very distinctive = meaning=20 systems provide the filter for students=92 attitudes toward school. In = order for=20 Mike to have a meaningful experience at school, his instructors will = need to=20 understand this and address it. Mike will need to engage in a process of = critical reflection regarding his goals and how best to connect his work = to=20 school rather than seeing them as two separate environments.
Cross and Steadman (1996) also talk about this and = refer=20 to it as schemata. Without schemata, learners would have to rely on = memorization=20 for learning. The authors provide a good image for this by the = description, "Our=20 existing knowledge base is the Velcro of the mind to which new = information=20 sticks. However, in the same way that lint can keep Velcro from = sticking,=20 misconceptions in a schema can interfere with connecting new information = to=20 existing knowledge" (p.41).
Some of these ways of knowing and various = understandings=20 of what knowledge is can be related to the developmental stages through = which a=20 learner moves. This notion began with the work of William Perry (1970) = when he=20 established his nine classic stages of cognitive development. According = to him,=20 learners progressed through four major categories of knowing: = absolutist=20 or dualist where they view the world in terms of right or wrong = with=20 experts holding the "right" answer; multiplicity or = problematic=20 where uncertainty creeps in; relativism where knowledge = becomes=20 contextual and learners make their own judgments and commitment=20 which leads to a personalized set of values, lifestyle, and = identity.=20 Mike probably functions at an absolutist level when he is in a formal = learning=20 situation; he most likely is intimidated by his instructors in part = because he=20 sees them as authorities who hold the answers. He becomes frustrated = when he=20 cannot seem to find "their" answers, and that is when he returns to the = "real"=20 world. In the context of his world of mechanics, his level of knowing = may be at=20 the level of relativism as he makes judgments regarding work to be done = based on=20 varying sets of conditions. He has sufficient experience and knowledge = to know=20 that repairs frequently are personal judgments and not set in stone. = Perry=92s=20 levels are most useful to us if we apply them, not developmentally but = within a=20 context, as a way of understanding different thinking patterns.
Whereas Perry=92s (1970) work was limited to = males, Belenky,=20 Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule (1986) extended the notion of various = ways of=20 knowing to females and found five levels. Even though the researchers = did not=20 suggest that these ways were developmental, they have been widely = interpreted as=20 such. These positions include silence (where one feels = voiceless),=20 received knowing (where knowledge comes from an external = source),=20 subjective knowing (where knowing is intuitive rather than = based=20 on evidence), procedural knowledge (where procedures for=20 processing information are developed), and constructed = knowledge=20 (where knowledge is considered to be contextual and the knower is part = of the=20 context).
More recently, Baxter-Magolda (1992) has looked at = college=20 students=92 ways of knowing and reasoning. She discovered patterns of = thinking=20 that were related to, but not dictated by, gender (1992). She argues = that=20 attributing characteristics to gender is primarily a social construct = and that=20 differences between the sexes result from interactions within particular = contexts and also vary within gender. She has identified four stages of = ways of=20 knowing that evolve from simple to more complex; within the stages, she = has=20 found patterns of gender differences. These stages are very = similar to=20 those of Perry (1970) and Belenky et al. (1986), but the patterns within = them=20 make them significantly different.
At the absolute level the learner = sees=20 knowledge as held by an external authority. Females at this level tend = to=20 function as receivers, taking notes and studying to do well, whereas = males=20 function here in a mastering pattern, exhibiting more verbal interaction = with=20 the instructor. At the transitional level of reasoning the = females=20 tend to exhibit an interpersonal pattern, relying on the opinions of = others=20 through dialogue and the collection of others=92 ideas to help construct = their own=20 knowledge, whereas the males more often engage in an impersonal pattern, = using=20 the opinions of others as material for debate or challenge. At the=20 independent stage of knowing females are often engaged in = an=20 interindividual pattern; males at this stage tend to use a pattern of=20 independent processing. Within the interindividual pattern, learners = have their=20 own interpretations but value an exchange of ideas; on the other hand, = the=20 individual pattern focuses more on the learners=92 own independent = thinking. The=20 contextual level of knowing, according to Baxter-Magolda = (1992),=20 rarely appears during the undergraduate years. Consequently she does not = suggest=20 any patterns within this level. It is generally characterized by = thinking that=20 one is able to make informed judgments and evaluate distinctions among=20 perspectives.
As Eva began her studies, she viewed knowledge of = the=20 English language as something her instructors had and that she needed to = "get."=20 She was clearly behaving at an absolute level of thinking as she = studiously took=20 notes on grammatical constructions and was very reticent to experiment = with the=20 language. She did not understand it when instructors would require = collaboration=20 and have students work orally in small groups. She felt this was a waste = of time=20 because the others didn=92t know any more than she did, and she believed = she was=20 there only to take the knowledge from the instructor. Gradually, she = came to=20 understand that the rules she struggled so hard to memorize from her = notes came=20 much more easily if she tried to construct language by actually engaging = in it=20 through the small groups. This more developed level of reasoning carried = over=20 into her other classes. There she began to experience how her = interpretation of=20 the material often helped others to rethink their own positions and vice = versa.
Mike will eventually move from the absolutist = level of=20 reasoning once he begins to discover the connection between what he does = at work=20 and the knowledge being discussed in the formal classroom. When he does = begin to=20 integrate his own experiences and prior knowledge to that of the text = and the=20 instructors, he will enter the transitional level and most likely = challenge both=20 in active debate in order to figure out what he really thinks.
Conclusion
This study has outlined a brief look at theories = related=20 to cognitive development and different ways of understanding what = knowledge is.=20 In the classic work of Perry (1970), he outlined a hierarchical stage = theory=20 with the learner progressing through three major categories of thinking. = Belenky=20 et al. (1986) used this framework and discovered through interviewing = women that=20 their stages of cognitive development were somewhat different and not=20 necessarily hierarchical. Baxter-Magolda (1992) studied undergraduates = and found=20 that there were gender patterns within broader categories of thinking = and that=20 the patterns did tend to build on one another.
Bruffee=92s (1993) notion of knowledge as = "constructed=20 collaboration" led us to think about students as active participants in = the=20 learning process. Friere (1970) gave us the dualistic concept of banking = versus=20 problem solving to describe the difference between passive receivers of=20 knowledge and those who actively seek answers. Bruer (1993)offered an=20 information processing model for how this happens whereas Mezirow (1991) = and=20 Cross and Steadman (1996) described systems that affect the organization = and=20 storage of information for use later on.
The notion of different kinds of intelligence has = also=20 been examined in the article. Gardner (1983) provides seven talents that = individuals possess to varying degrees, and Robert Sternberg (1988) = theorized a=20 triarchic model that he contends can be taught. Another way of looking = at=20 intelligence came from Mayer and Salovey=92s (1997) ideas regarding = emotional=20 intelligence and the developmental nature of four stages.
Looking back at this framework, some common = denominators=20 emerge: Cognitive development occurs in stages, not necessarily = hierarchical=20 ones, which may be related to gender; intelligence is not one = generalized factor=20 underlying all learning; learning is an active process in which = collaboration=20 plays a significant role; and knowledge is at the very least partially=20 constructed by the learner.
These theories raise as many questions as they = provide=20 answers. The next step is to engage in a process of critical reflection=20 regarding practices in developmental education to see if they lead to a=20 reconstruction of the principles currently used as a framework=20 .
References
Baxter-Magolda, M.B. (1992). Knowing and = reasoning in=20 college: Gender-related patterns in students=92 intellectual=20 development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Belenky, M.F., Clinchy, B.M., Goldberger, N.R., = &=20 Tarule, J.M. (1986). Women=92s ways of knowing: The = development of self,=20 voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.
Brookfield, S.D. (1986). Understanding and = facilitating=20 adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. = (1989). =20 Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational = Researcher,=20 18(1), 32-42.
Bruer, J.T. (1993). Schools for thought: The = science of=20 learning in the classroom. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Bruffee, Kenneth A. (1993). Collaborative = learning:=20 Higher education, interdependence, and the authority of = knowledge.=20 Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Cross, K.P., & Steadman, M.H. (1996). = Classroom=20 research: Implementing the scholarship of teaching. San = Francisco:=20 Jossey-Bass.
Friere, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the = oppressed. New=20 York: Herder and Herder.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory = of=20 multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Mayer, J.D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is = emotional=20 intelligence?" In P. Salovey and D. Sluyter (Eds.) Emotional = development and=20 emotional intelligence: Implications for educators. New York: = Basic=20 Books.
McLeod, A. (1996). Discovering and facilitating = deep=20 learning states. The National Teaching & Learning = Forum,=20 5(6), 1-7.
Mezirow, J. (l991). Transformative dimensions = of adult=20 learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Perry, W.G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and = ethical=20 development in the college years. New York: Holt, Rinehart &=20 Winston.
Schraw, G., & Bruning, R. (1996). Readers=92 = implicit=20 models of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, = 31(3),=20 290-305.
Sternberg, R.J. (1988). The triarchic mind: A = new=20 theory of human intelligence. New York: Penguin Books.
Tennant, M., & Pogson, P. (1995). Learning = and=20 change in the adult years: A developmental perspective. San = Francisco:=20 Jossey-Bass.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1965). Thought and = language. New=20 York: Wiley.
Witkin, H.A. (1949). The nature and importance of=20 individual differences in perception. Journal of Personality, = 18,=20 145-170.
Witkin, H.A. (1950). Individual differences in = ease of=20 perception of embedded figures. Journal of Personality, 19,=20 1-15.
Acknowledgement
Martha E. Casazza, = Director,=20 Developmental Studies Graduate Program, National Louis University, = Chicago,=20 IL 60603-3202