Eight The Reflective Judgment Model: Transforming Assumptions About Knowing Karen S. Kitchener Patricia M. King Yor years, educators have emphasized the importance of help ing children, adolescents, and young adults become critically reflective in problem solving, Mezirow, in hs introduction to this book, offers a definition of eritical reflection that emphasizes “ovestioning the assumptions with which individuals typically ttogin problem solving, ‘These assumptions range from beliefs shout the self as an effetive problem solver to beliefs about ‘chether and when problems are solvable. Transformative ear ing is aimed at helping the individual become more aware and ‘ilical of assumptions in order to actively engage in changing thore that are not adaptive or are inadequate for effective prob- lem solving ‘Our ovn writing and research has been on the develop- ment of reflective judgment. Based on the work of Dewey (1933), ‘tho identified reflective thinking as a goal of education, our ie The mate hin chap op devapmetal inaction using te rele ‘judnent eluted piano werk sneby Pain Ring, Tay STEGER Jonathan Digest Bowing Green Saxe Univery in 187 159160 Fostering Critical Reflection ia Adulthood work defines a reflective thinker as someone who is aware that a problematic situation exists and is able t bring ertical judg ‘ment to bear on the problem, In other words, a refective thinker understands that there is real uncertainty about how a problem may best be solved, ye is still able co offer a judgment about the problem that brings some kind of closure toit. This judg. tment, which Dewey refers to as a grounded” cr “warranted” frserion, is based on criteria such ax evaluation of evidence, Consideration of expert opinion, adequacy of argument, and im plications ofthe proposed solution. ‘Our research suggests that the ability to make reflective judgments isan outcome of developmental sequence that both Timits learning and ean be influenced by learning. Our work thas focused primarily on validating the sequence and understand ing the relationship between it and other aspects of development, such as moral and ego development. As a result. the emphasis ff this chapter wil difer somewhat feom other chapters in this book. First, we willdeseribe the elective judgment model. Second, ‘we wil identify several developmental parameters, based on re ‘earch, that influence learning tobe rellective. Tied, we will ug fest pose method dha educators can te to premote reflective judgment at two developmental points. Last, ‘we will briefly tleseribe program that was designed to promat development. ‘The Reflective Judgment Model The reflective judgment model (Kitchener and King, 1981; Kitehener and King, forthcoming) describes changes in assumptions about sourees and certainty of novledge and how decisions are justified in light of those assumpions, In other words, the model focuses on describing the development of {epistemic assumptions and hove these assumptions act as meat ing perspectives (ce Chapter One) tha radically affect the way individuals understand and subsequently solve problems. In italy, the model was influenced by the work of Perry (1970) fand Broughton (1975) on epistemological development ‘At each step in the model, there are sets of assumptions ‘that develop at about the same time, apparently because they uve logically interrelated, Ax already noted, each set includes ‘The Reflective Judgment Model 161 assumptions about what can be known and how certain one can be about knowing; i alko includes assumptions about the role fevidence, authority, and interpretation in the formation of folutions to problems, While mor often these assumptions are tot explicit, they can be inferred from how individuals approach problem solving, their expectations of instructor, their beliefs bout the certainty of problem solving, andl so on. For exam> ple, inthe following two quotation, the students imply that they Expect truth to be clear and easy o decipher, that interpreta tion is both unnecessary and illegitimate, and that instructors fought to provide them with the “truth” about the world Example A-1, “Ie scems as if college examinations don't test the student on the material covered in the lecture, but ‘on whether the student can decipher a trick question. Why tant the test come right out and ask fora simple answer?” In other words, the student asks why test involve interpreta: tion and why instructors cant require students simply to repeat the facts (oF the “truth") on tests, Example A-2. Instead of discussing all these issues, I wish you'd (the instructor] just tell us the real reasons for the Civil War." In other words, the instructor should simply tll students the truth rather than ask them fo figure it out ther students have given up ever Ending the absolute truth and, at a consequence, they conclude that there are no ‘ways to evaluate any conchasion as better than another. Their ‘ssumptions are reflected in comments like those in examples Bel and B2, Example B-1. "What do you mean I got a 0? Art can be ‘anything you want it to be and my judgment is as good ‘as yours, T worked hard so T think T deserve an 4.” Without certainty, students lke this one suggest that hard work is the omly way to judge merit. At least its concrete.162 Fostering Critical Reflection in Adulthood Example B-2, “The instructor kept tying to free her ideas about the poem on us... Tmean, what makes her ideas fany better than mine, anyway?” In other words, this student suggests that if there ate no ab solute eriteria for evaluation, that is, no sources of cestaimty, then anything goes. "The rellective judgment model regards such comments as implicit cues to stent! meaning perspectives. Our rerearch suggests that these perspectives are identifiable, that they are age related, and that they change ina predictable fashion over time. Further, our research suggests that these perspectives act as frames of reference through which students interpret learn Ing experiences In the following paragraphs, each stage in the develop- imental sequence willbe described. We refer to each step as a stage because we are describing a st of beliefs and assumptions that typically develop at about the same time. Descriptions of these stages are based on the rules for reflective judgment scor- ing in Kitchener and King (1985), at well ason other recent fr ‘ulations of the model (Kitchener and King, fortheomings Kitchener, King, Wood, and Davison, fortheoming). The de scriptions illustrate more precisely the sts of assumptions ev dent at each stage ‘We should note that the grade levels to which we refer throughout this next section have been drawn from interviews with more than 1,000 subjects and fom several ses (Kitchener and King, forthcoming). Reflective judgment scotes have con- sistently increased with age and education. Adult students be- toveen their mid twenties and mid fies entering ellege forthe first ime typically score remarkably similarly to waditional-age undergraduates. In other words, the epistemic meaning perspec tives of adult learners are, on the average, similar to those of| atraditional-age learner a similar edueationalevl, The adult? scores, however, are more variable, providing a reminder of the raced to acknowledge individual ferences among adult earns, ‘Stage One. At this stage, knowing is characterized by a concrete, single-category belie! system: What the person observes ‘The Reflective Judgment Model 163 to be true is true, Individuals assume that knowledge is both absolute and concrete, thus, beliefs do not need tobe justified. Since they need only observe to know sehat exists, individuals {do not seknovledge that problems exist for which there are no Absolutely crue answers, This stage in its purest form is prob ably only found in young children, Stage Tise. Knowing takes on more complexity at this stage since individuals assume that, while truth is ultimately accessible, it may not be direcly and immediately known to everyone, Since truth is not availabe (o everyone, some people hho right beliefs while others hold “wrong” ones. Perry (1970) called this belief system dali. However, since the truth may ‘ukimately be known, individuals continue to assume that al, problems are solvable. As a consequence, they assume that the Knower's role i to find the right answer and that the source of this answer will be an authority, for example, a teacher, priest for doctor. Individuals holding these assumptions often make statements like those in examples Act and A-2. This frame of reference is most typical of young adolescents, although some college students continue to hold these assumptions (Kitchener and King, fortheoming) Stage Three. Ac this tage, individuals acknowledge that in some ateas truth is temporarily inaccessible, even for those in authority. In other ares, they maintain th belie that author- ies know the truth. In areas of uncertainty, they maintain the belief that absolute truth will be manifest in conerete data some- time in the future and argue that, since evidence is currently {ncomplete, noone can claim any authority beyond hisorher own personal impressions or felings. Beliefs can only be justified fn the basis of what fels right at the moment. Consequently, like the students who made’satements B-1 and B-2, individuals a this stage do not understand or acknovledge any basis for evaluation beyond those feelings. Implicily, however, they "maintain the assumption that ulimately all problems have sol- ‘ions and that certainty wil, inthe long run, beatained. Students in their ase two years of high sebool or first year of eollege typically score at about Stage Three (Kitchener & King, fortheoming)164 Fostering Critical Reflection in Adulthood Stage Four. The uncertainty ofknowingisintally acknov- edged in this stage and usually attributed to limitations ofthe Inower, Without certainty, individuals argue that knowledge can not be validated externally; thus, they argue tht iis idiosyn- Crate. They often appear confused about how to make claims {o knowledge in light of uncertainty and withou: authorities to provide them the answers Infact, individuals a: this stage fre- [quently express skepticism about the role of authorities. Exam- Ble C-1 quotes one college student who was asked about how fo sort cut the claims about evolution and creationism Example C-1. "Td be more inclined to believe in evalu tion if they had proof... I don't think well ever know ‘because people will differ, Who are you going co ask? No ‘one was thete” [quoted in Kitchener, King, Wood, and Davison, forthcoming) For him, uncertainty was real because people cannot go back inime to relive the event, Asa result, he was at alos to substan- ate hin views, Authorities were of no help because they faced similar epistemic limits "The fact that uncertainty is clearly accepted at this stage san intrinsic characteristic of knowing is, however, an impor fant development. I allows individuals co distinguish between ‘what we (Kitchener, 1983) and others (Churchman, 1971 ‘Wood, 1989) have called well- and illstructured problems ‘Welkstructured problems—for example, an arithmetic problem can be described completely and solved with certainty Real-world problems, such as what career path ro follow or how to reduce pollution, can rarely be treated as well-structured prob Tems since all the parameters are seldom clear or available and since it i dificult to determine when and whether an adequate Solution has been identified, Therefore, we call real-world prob Tes il! sracture, When individuals in Stages One, Two, OF “Thiree cannot acknowledge that some problem: do not have an absolutely correct slution, they cannot acknowledge the ex fstence of real, istructured problems. At Sage Four, iste tured problems are afforded legitimacy. Such reasoning is most typieal of college seniors (Kitchener and King, forthcoming). ‘The Reflective Judgment Model 165 ‘Stage Five. At this stage, individuals believe that know- ‘edge must be placed within a context. This assumption derives from the understanding that interpretation plays arle in what 4 person perceives, Although these individuals move beyond the idiosyheratic justifications of Stage Four to argue that just fication mutt be understood as involving interpretation of evi- dence within a particular perspective, they cannot compare and tvaluate the relative merits of two alternative interpretations Of the same iarue, We have found that this type of reasoning is most typical of graduate student (Kitchener and King, forth coming). ‘Stage Sis, Individuals a this stage believe that knowing uncertain and that knowledge must be understood in rel tionship tothe context from which i was derived. In adltion, they argue that knowing involves evaluation and chat some perspectives, arguments, or points of view may be evaluated {better than others, These evaluations involve comparing tvidence and opinion across contexts, which allows an initial basis for forming judgments about il-structured problems. Such solutions are typically found among advanced graduate students (Kitchener and King, forthcoming) ‘Stage Seven. Altbough individuals at this stage believe that knowing is uncertain and subject t interpretation, they slso argue that epistemically justifiable claims can be made about the better or best solution to the problem under consideration. ‘As with Devteys description (1988) of reflective thinking, individuals claim that knowledge can be constructed via critical inquiry and dhrough the synthesis of existing evidence and opin- jon into claims that can be evaluated as having greater "truth ‘yalue” or being more ‘warranted’ than others. Individuals argue that such views can be offered as reasonable current solutions to the problem at hand, as stated inthe example tht follows Example D-l. [We] can argue here that one isa better ‘argument chan che other. One is more consistent with the ‘evidence. What I am really after is a story that i... as intelligible as possible... . don't think i's as much of a166 Fostering Critical Reflection in Adulthood puzzle solving siti trying to get the narrative straight” [quoted in Kitchener, King, Wood, and Davison, forth coming]. Such reasoning is a rarity even in graduate students, although itis found in some educated adults as they mature into their thirties and beyond, ‘Developmental Parameters for Learning Research on the reflective judgment model has several implications for education, First, individuals are quite consis- tent in their reasoning across diferent tasks (Kitchener and King, forthcoming: Kitchener, King, Wood, and Davison, forth- coming). Typically, when people are presented with several ill ructured problems, their assumptions about knowing and justification will best be represented by the same stage about {hree ou of four mes, On the remainder ofthe problems their reasoning will seldom vary by more than one stage, even vehen they are tested on similar tasks drawn from disciplines as diferent fascience and history. Aferdentfying a stadent's recive jg ‘ment stage, educators can assume that the stclnt typically wil approach most il-structared problems with the same set of| epistemic filte Second, recent research at the University of Denver (Lynch and Kitchener, 1989) suggests that even under condi- ‘ions designed to elicit the highest stage of reasoning of which people are capable, individals are sekdom able to produce eazoning that is more than one stage above their typical = sponte. Furthermore, the data suggest that there are age-related developmental ceilings on the highest reflective judgment stage fan individual can use. These data parallel those found by Fscer ‘and Kenny (1986) on arithmetic reasoning. ‘The Lynch and Kitchener data and Fischer's (1980) model suggest that adoles- cents prior to ages nineteen to twenty are not eapable of under standing the highest reflective judgment stages (Stages Six and Seven). Our own data (Kitchener, King, Wood, and Davison, forthcoming) show that even among acellege-edacated sample, ‘The Reflective Judgment Model 167 the majority did not typically use reasoning higher than Stage Four prior to age twenty-four. In other words, educators should not assume that younger students ean either understand or Ciulate what Dewey described as reflective thinking. On the fother hand, while adult learners ordinarily reason with assump: tions like those of similarly educated younger students, there may not be a ceiing on the highest reflective judgment level that adults can understand after practice and with support Tied, our data strongly suggest that epistemic assump: sions change sequentially (Kitchener, King, Wood, and Davison, forthooming). In other words, its not typical for individuals ‘to move from Stage Four assumptions to Stage Seven assump- tions without showing some evidence of understanding and us- Jing the sssumptions ofthe intermediate stages, In fact, iis most {ypica for subject scores to move upward about one stage every ix years, Regressions are rae Preliminary data from the University of Denver study (Lynch and Kitchener, 1989) also suggest that individuals have Aificuty comprehending epistemic assumptions more than one for two stages higher than the stage they typically use. These dara, along with the data on sequentiality, sugges that educators fought target their interventions no more than one or two stages higher than where the student typically responds. Trying t0 move from 4 to C without attending to the meaning perspec lives of B will probably be counterproductive. By identifying # students typical rearoning style and knowing the next step inthe sequence, educators can identify a developmental range within which transformative earning ex periences can be targeted. Learning tasks ean be identified that ‘ase eritialrefletion on eureent meaning perspectives, for ex- simple, by esquiring skills ore typical of the next highest reflec tive judgment stage. (This point is ilustated below.) Fourth, eritical to ackfiowledging uncertainty i the recog nition that some problems are ill structured (Davison, King, and Kitchener, forthcoming). Too often in traditional educational seating, Courses are taught and textbooks are written as though they provide the absolute cuth (Fister, forthcoming). By con- teas, students need to struggle with ill structured problems in168 Fostering Critical Reflection in Adulthood many domains if they are to come to terms with the need for reflective thinking on many of life's problems. Last, from our perspective, transformative learning that leads to developmental change dees not occur without disequi- libeium. Disequilibrium is frequently uncomfortable and, in some cases, can even be frightening. As Kegan (1982) has noted, siving up old frames of reference, old worldviews, or, in tit ‘ate old meaning perspectives about how and what we ean know, islike losing te sell. When the selfs lost, individuals are often unsure that anew self or frame of reference can be found. As educators, when we accept the task of deliberately educating to promote development, we must also accept the responsibility ‘of providing students with both an emotionally and intellectually supportive environment. In other words, we must not only challenge old perspectives but must support people in their search for new ones. Thus, we must create an educational milieu that is developmentally appropriate In the following section, we wil describe learning objec- tives and the dificult learning tasks for individuals who are reasoning primarily a reflective judgment Stages Three and Five. We will then suggest the kinds of assignments that can be use to borh challenge and support individuals a thove stages in order to create transformative learning experiences, While these lenrning tasks and assignments are designed for traditional tlassrooms, they can be applied to nontraditional educational Settings as well, is assumed in the following examples that udents are working on problems that are ill stractured. Developmental Instruction Using the Refleetive Judgment Model Challenging and Supporting Stage Three Reasoning. 88 noted in an eatlier section a this chapter, the following assump tions are characterise of Stage Three reasoning: Knowledge le absolutely certain in some areas andl temporarily uneesain| inothers; conclusion ae justified via authorities in areas of ce tainty and via intuition in areas of uncertainty; and evidence doesnot play «role in reasoning to. conclusion since there i ‘The Reflective Judgment Model 169 ro certain way to evaluate it. ICs dificult for learners who hold this view to recognize legitimate sources of authority as beter ‘qualified than themselves to make judgments or to draw con- losions about il-structured problems. They also have dificulty ‘istinguishing between facts and opinions and do not under stand the use of evidence to justify «point of view. In addition, itremains dificult for these individuals to tolerate or value mult ple evidence-based perspectives on a single issue. For many, these multiple perspectives are seen simply a adding confusion to an already confusing world or as examples of false author- tative claims in areas of temporary uncertainty. ‘One learning objective for individuals using Stage Three reasoning isto dilferentate between evidence and opinion— for example, between the use of authority to support an argue iment and the evidence the authority uses. A second objective is for learners to ute evidence 10 evaluate their intuitive beliefs about a problem. Last they need to confront and evaluate the ‘evidence for multiple perspectives on an issue. Some possible "usignments tha follow from these objectives ae listed below. 1. Evaluate an argument (or or against an issue) in terms of its use of evidence, dependence upon authority, and under standing of the other view ofthe issue. 2. Give the beat evidence you can find fora specific point of view. Identify what makes it count at evidence 3. Tdentify the evidence and arguments for a view that an authority in che id is presenting. What makes the evidence for the argument strong or weak? 4. Identify two oF more points of view on an issue. 5. What do you believe about an ie? Is there any evidence that supports what you believe? What isthe evidence that is contrary to what you believe? ‘Asa sep in the transformation of Sage ‘Three to Stage Four perspertives, each ofthese aesignmente is designed to help students who uae Stage Three reasoning to critically reflect upon ‘hee implicit assumptions about evidence and opinion, about how arguments are validated, or about the legitimacy of diferent170 Foster 1g Critical Reflection in Adulthood points of view. It should be noted that other naturally occur ing events—for example, contact with individvals with alter native lifestyles and belie systems-—will also contribute to the tuansformation of Stage Three meaning perspectives. “Although it is important to challenge implicit epistemic assumptions, i is also important to legitimize students’ strug- les with ther feelings of being confused and overwhelmed by Alternative perspectives and with questioning what counts at evidence, Bdueators can acknowledge the struggle explicitly as ‘well at help peers share their confusion with each other in discus sions or written assignments. Edueators can also provide sup- port by modeling good use of evidence—for example, making explicit the justification for both sides of an argument, distin: ‘Sushing inapplicable evidence from relevant evidence, of ex plaining the rationale behind their own use of expert oF Authoritative opinion, The aniety that comes from giving up the belie that knowledge is certain may be exacerbated by the anxiety of not ‘knowing what an instructor expects in a dass. Therefore, detailed assignments with clear expectations ean provide the stidents at this level with an environment that allows safe exploration. Challenging and Supporting Stage Five Reasoning. To review, Stage Five reasoning is characterized by the assumption that no knowledge is certain because interpretation is inherent in all understanding. Individuals suggest thae beliefs may be justified only within a given context. Within particular contexts, however, they acknowledge that some evidence can be evaluated qualitatively as stronger or more relevant than other evidence. is dficult for those using Stage Five reasoning to evaluate competing evidence-based interpretations that reflect diferent points of view on anise. I is hard for them to iden- tly relationships between points of view and to act as though cach were cee. These nvidia alo have difcly en dorsi anther, a8 if doing so woul deny the legitimacy of other perspectives. Consequently, the ‘most important learning objective for those at this stage is © relate alternative points of view to each other, comparing the ‘The Reflective Judgment Model a ‘evidence and opinion for each in order to arrive ata conclusion that integrates the alternatives or evaluates one as better or best, in limited sense. Further, individuals must acknowledge that such conclusions need not sacrifice the appreciation for multi- ple perspectives that isthe hallmark of Stage Five reazoning Possible assignments thar make this goal explicit are listed below. 1. Compare and contrast two competing points of view, citing and evaluating evidence and arguments used by proponents ‘of each, Determine which author makes the better inter pretation ofthe evidence apd which conclusion is most apy propriate 2, Select a controversial issue from those discussed in clas. Explain atleast to points of view from which the isue has been addressed by scholers. Indicate which pint of view you believe 1o be most apprepriate and the grounds for that decision, ‘As with Stage Three reatosing, the transformation offone's smcaning perspective can be frustrating, confusing, and some= times frightening. Therefore, with individuals using Sage Five reasoning, itis important to legimize the struggle to adjudicate between competing points of view as required in the above sosignments. Modeling choice making by carefully explaining the evaluation process and reasons for choices provides support for the students’ own struggles. For example, instructors can five relevant interpretations of evidence from different points ff view and explain the reasons or choosing one interpretation ‘ver another. Because individuals who use Stage Five constructs often equate choice making with intolerance for diferent points fof view, legitimizing inquiry fiom different perspectives and valuing diferent points of view remains important A Progeammatic Example ‘As noted eater, our workhas been primarily on develop ing and empirically texting the rdlectve judgment model. Whileae Fostering Critical Reflection ia Adulthood we have applied ideas such as those discussed above to our own Teaching, we have not developed or tested » program designed ‘o help students examine their own epistemic perspectives. Kroll (forthcoming), however, has developed sch program, which wwe describe below Based on our work as well asthe work of Perry (1970), Kroll designed a learning experience for a literature and com- positon class to help freshmen college students become more thoughtful and reflective, Based on data suggesting thac many college freshmen struggle with the epistemic assumptions char scteriatic of Stage Three, he focused the assignments on under- Sanding that diferent people in postions of authority may provide discrepant accounts of the same event, a factor that Imakes it dificult to know what to believe "The content of Krolls course was taken from accounts fof the Vietnam War, Students were asked to make judgments ft the beginning and at the end ofthe course about two dif ‘rent accounts ofa batle. Specifically, they were asked whether fone account ofthe battle was more believable than the other, ‘one was more likely to be true, and, last, what realy «Vin this bate, In other words, Kroll asked students tovlently what they could know and howe they could know when they were faced with an illstructured historical problem. The ‘questions were designed to help the instructor understand more about the students’ epistemological assumptions when they ‘catered the class and (0 evaluate those assumptions again when they Tet the class ‘Ache end ofthe semester, most students were emphatic in claiming that the courte had influenced their ability to be critical in their thinking, tobe cautious about what they read ind to be more skeptical about accepting what others claim (0 bbe truth. Hecanse many students pointed 0 a unit on the Hue ‘massacre as particularly influential, it seems usefl to identify rts ofthat unit Erol had student road two quite different accounts of what happened at Flue. One presented the ofcal view that Communist forces had systematically massacred many South because oftheir political tiesto the United States. the other account took the perspective that the Viet Cong, ‘The Reflective Judgment Model 173 planned to execute only afew government officials and that most Erte civilians died in the ruthless counterattack of the United States forces. After reading these accounts, students read thi teen more accounts ofthe event and viewed a documentary that Ucpeted several interpretations of what happened at Hue. At tach step, they kept an account oftheir thinking about the at- files in journals. Instractor® comments, both in response 10 Journal entries and in class discussion, were focused on gesting radents to reflect eritcally on what they were reading. Tnstruc- tors carly avoided endorsing one interpretation. Instead, hey taked students to identify the diferent postions, to articulate sihich claims supported each, and to begin to evaluate these ‘aims, Late, they asked students to analyze the material they had read and to present the best case they could for what really happened in Hue in 1968, Kroll reports that when asked at the end of the course to again interpret the two accounts of the batdle on which they trrote during the fist week of class, students” writing reflected Tome differences: Students appeared tse dogmatic approaches Test often and to use what he called precttical and extical strategies more often, They also expressed skepticism more f= {quently about what they read. While Kroll acknowledged that there was no way to cleaely prove chat these changes resulted ‘only from the course work, students attributed the changes 10 it Kroll ako noted that while chere were some differences in Students responses atthe end of the course, they did not ‘wolve major changes in what we would cll epistemological oien- tation, He notes, and we would agree, that reflective thinking tlevelops slowly od stadents need more than asingl-semester fcourse to make major changes in their meaning perspectives. Homever, he and we woud also argue that education can make 2 difference in epistemological perspectives if takes into ac Count the developmental world through which student filter thei telacational experiences, Conclusions Research onthe reflective judgment model has shown that students at liferent ages andl educational levels enter the leering,14 Fostering Critical Reflection in Adulthood environment with markedly diferent sssumplions about what and how something can be own and how to male judgments inlight ofthese assumptions. Some enter believing that they can Know absolutly through concrete observation, ‘They #2 thei earning task at dacovering te uth or ening some. fone, an authority, who can expat it Others accept that thee fre many problems for which there are no abuolutly true an sere The tak for thee problem solvers ist construct a solu. tion that ajostiable afer considring alternative evidence and interpretations, In this complex worl, where so many ofthe problem adults fce lava uncertainty or are srucate, Sve would argue that the later meaning perspective sore ap. tive, more esenil, and more consistent withthe sated mis of eoleges and universes (Or data sugges that this second meaning perspective doesnot develop intl the ad years (tha in telat we ties or early thier) and tha itis usually Ged to participation jn advanced education when individuals are involve inthe ce soni: ince ur dao ge at hs of tame age witout higher education coe mor similar to younger subjects of the sane edataoal evel we beteve that eda tion does make adiference (Kitchener and King, forthcoming. We super that edseational experiences wheter inside cor outside the elauscom, can be deliberately dengned to cha Tenge meaning perspectives and that there challenges along wih appropriate environmental sapport will promote growth, Krolls work on improving relletive thinking through a iterature and Composition course supports that position. Similarly, Welle (1982) suggests that since career counseling involves making ‘decisions about an il-strctared problem, itcan also facilitate the transformation of epistemic meaning perspectives. Undosl ‘edly, many other experiences, from travel to participation ia reading groups, can have similar effects. On the other hands there may be some developmental its to how far or how [ast dents ata given age level cam advance, Develipuren secur slowly; and, in our opinion, it is unlikely that young adults even given the best educational environment, will ery often use the kind of reflective judgment that Dewey idealized. ‘The Reflective Judgment Model 5 ‘One key to developing reflective thinking isthe idemtifes- tion and use of ilrsructured problems (Davison, King, and Kitchener, forthcoming). Kroll chose an il-structured historical problem as the content on which to base his course in literature Phd writing, I-structared problems are not, however, limited to history and literature. They can be found inthe hard sciences, the socialsciences, business, humanities, and the professions ‘because they are the problems ofthe real world. We belive their tose as educational tools is essential if critical, reflective think- ing is to be advance, References Broughton, J. M. The Develpmen of Naar! Epistnology in Years “it 16, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard Univer- wiry, 1975. Churchman, C. W, The Design of Inquiring Sysems: Baie Con ‘apts af Sylens and Organizations, New York: Basic Books, 1971 Davison, M. L., King, P. M,, and Kitchener, K.S. "Develop ing Reflective Thinking Through Writing.” In R. Beach and S. Hynis (eds), Bering Reads and Writes Dusing Aden ‘and Adultond. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex, forthcoming, Dewey, J. How We Think, Lexington, Mas.: Heath, 1985. Finster,D. "Developmental Instruction: Part 2, Application of Perry's Model t9 General Chemistry.” Journal of Cemical Edhcaion, fortheoming. Fischer, K-W."A Theory of Cognitive Development: The Con Uwol and Construction of Hierarchies of Skill.” Pycoloizal Review, 1980, 87, 477-531. Fischer, K, W., and Kenny, 8. L. “Environmental Conditions for Discontinuities in the Development of Abstractions." In R.M. Mines and Ke S. Kitchener (eds.), Adu Cognitive Development. New York: Praeger, 1986. Kegan, Re The Bolg Self Cambridge, Mave: Harvard Uni- ‘versity Press, 1982 Kitchener, K. S, "Educational Goals and Reflective Thinking.” Bauctinal Foran, 1983, 48, 75-95.176 Fostering Critical Reflection in Adulthood Kitchener, K.S., and King, P. M. "Reflective Judgment: Con- ‘cepts of Justification and Their Relationship to Age and Education." Journal of Applied Deelpmental Pycoloy, 1981, 2, 89-116 Kitchener, K.S., and King, P.M, “Reflective Judgment Scoring “Manusa* Bowling Green, Ohio: Bowling Green State Univer- sity, 1985, (Mimeographed.) Kitchener, K.8., and King, P.M, “The Reflective Judgment “Model: Ten Years of Research." In M. L. Commons, J.D. ‘Sinnott, F.A. Richards, and C. Armon (eds.), Adult wo rent: Comparisons and Applicaton of Adolescent and Adult Deeop- imental Models. New York: Praeger, forthcoming. Kitchener, K. S., King, P. M., Wood, P. K., and Davison, 'M. L. “Consistency and Sequentalty in the Development cof Reflective Judgment: A Six-Year Longitudinal Study.” Jour tal of Applied Deedopmetal Pocholey, fortcoming. Kaoll, B. M. “Teaching English for Reflective Thinking.* In R. Beach and 8, Hynds (eds.), Beoming Readers and Writs During Adeleene and Adulthied. Norwood, N.J.: Able, frth- coming, Lynch, C. L., and Kitchener, K. . “Environmental Condi ‘ions for Optimal Performance in Reflective Judgment.” Paper presented a the annual meeting ofthe American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, March 1988. Perry, W. G. Forms of Iullctual and Ethical Deelopment in the Callge Years, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1970 ‘Wood, P. K. “Inquiring Systems and Problem Structure: Im- plications for Cognitive Development." Human Droeopment, 1983, 26, 249-265, —ee FOSTERING CRITICAL REFLECTION IN ADULTHOOD A Guide to Transformative and Emancipatory Learning isan his one hweaniaeo e.s0667 He CsJossey Bass Publishers San Francisco + Oxford + 1990