Educational Research Review: John T.E. Richardson

Educational Research Review 9 (2013) 191–206
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Educational Research Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/EDUREV
Review
Epistemological development in higher education

John T.E. Richardson ⇑
Institute of Educational Technology, The Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, United Kingdom
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: Research has been carried out on students’ epistemological development in higher educa-
Received 8 May 2012 tion for at least 50 years. Researchers on both sides of the Atlantic have converged on
Revised 2 August 2012 accounts that describe students’ epistemological development in terms of a sequence or
Accepted 31 October 2012
hierarchy of qualitatively distinct stages or positions. The rich qualitative data obtained
Available online 9 November 2012
from longitudinal investigations do demonstrate intellectual changes, but whether the
same scheme fits all students and whether the changes found are a specific result of expo-
Keywords:
sure to higher education are open to debate. Well-validated quantitative instruments that
Conceptions of learning
Epistemological beliefs
could be used to measure epistemological development in large samples of students are
Epistemological development still lacking. Unresolved issues include: whether students can adopt multiple epistemolog-
Ways of knowing ical positions; whether these are culturally and contextually specific; and whether they are
mental entities, discursive practices or social constructions.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
2. Stage and non-stage theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
2.1. Non-stage theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
2.2. Perry’s scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
3. Women’s ways of knowing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
4. Epistemological reflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
5. Self-authorship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
6. Conceptions of learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
7. Epistemological development and conceptions of learning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
8. Quantitative approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
8.1. Schommer’s system of epistemological beliefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
8.2. Zhang’s Cognitive Development Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
9. Conclusions and critique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
⇑ Tel.: +44 1908 858014; fax: +44 1908 654173.

E-mail address: John.T.E.Richardson@open.ac.uk
1747-938X/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2012.10.001
192 J.T.E. Richardson / Educational Research Review 9 (2013) 191–206
1. Introduction
This article provides a historical and integrative review of the literature regarding students’ epistemological development
during higher education. This research has been motivated by the idea that how students themselves think about knowledge,
learning and teaching is a primary factor influencing their experience of higher education itself. Most researchers have relied
upon qualitative research methods, although a number of attempts have been made to operationalise the emerging con-
structs as scales in questionnaires. The article will take a broadly chronological approach and will consider in turn:
the distinction between stage and non-stage theories, which forms the main dividing line between different theories of
epistemological development in higher education;
William Perry’s scheme of intellectual and ethical development, the first articulated example of a stage theory of episte-
mological development during the college years;
the account of ‘‘women’s ways of knowing’’ that was presented by Mary Belenky and her colleagues as an elaboration and
extension of Perry’s scheme;
Marcia Baxter Magolda’s theory of epistemological reflection in men and women and her account of the development
towards ‘‘self-authorship’’ before and after graduation;
research by Roger Säljö, Erik Jan van Rossum and others on qualitative differences in students’ conceptions of learning as
reflections of their epistemological development;
the system of epistemological beliefs that was devised by Marlene Schommer on the basis of questionnaire surveys with
junior college and university students; and
the Cognitive Development Inventory that was developed by Li-fang Zhang in order to compare students’ epistemological
development in China and the United States.
The concluding section summarises what has been learned from research over the last 50 years, what remains open to
debate and what issues have been left unresolved. The latter issues include: whether the same individuals can adopt multi-
ple epistemological positions at the same time; whether accounts of students’ epistemological development are universal or
specific to their social and cultural context; and whether students’ conceptions of knowledge, learning and teaching are
mental entities, discursive practices or social constructions.
The research literatures on epistemological development during primary, secondary, and further education are beyond
the scope of this article. However, some researchers who have investigated epistemological development during higher edu-
cation have for comparison also studied students in secondary education (high school) (Schommer, 1993b; Schommer &
Walker, 1997) or in further (post-compulsory) education (Säljö, 1979a, 1979b; Severiens & ten Dam, 1998). This might
encourage the view that epistemological development follows a continuous trajectory from primary to secondary to further
to higher education. Nevertheless, given the paucity of evidence to support that view (see Chandler, Hallett, & Sokol, 2002,
for a critique), this literature review will focus on higher education.
2. Stage and non-stage theories
As in other areas of human development, accounts of epistemological development in higher education can be cate-
gorised into ‘‘stage’’ theories, which assume that students follow a fixed sequence of qualitatively distinct stages or posi-
tions, and ‘‘non-stage’’ theories, which assume that students develop along one or more continuous dimensions
(Kohlberg, 1969).
2.1. Non-stage theories
Probably the most influential non-stage model of student development is that devised by R. Heath (1964), although sim-
ilar accounts were offered by Chickering (1969) and D. H. Heath (1978). In all three cases, intellectual development was re-
garded as just one aspect of the growth of the whole personality. On the basis of longitudinal sets of interviews, R. Heath
described an ideal student (the ‘‘reasonable adventurer’’) and three non-ideal types whose intellectual growth approximated
the ideal in different ways. The ‘‘non-committer’’ was a cautious yet complacent extrovert who needed to be challenged or
stimulated in academic situations; the ‘‘plunger’’ was an impetuous, unpredictable introvert who needed to be given support
and structure; and the ‘‘hustler’’ was an ambivalent though competitive intermediate type. The reasonable adventurer suc-
ceeded in combining these discrepant tendencies, using each according to the demands of particular academic situations. A
more recent example of a non-stage model is that of Schommer (1990, 1993a, 1993b), discussed in Section 8.1 below.
2.2. Perry’s scheme
Stage theories of human development are more common than non-stage theories, and the most well-known stage theory
is that devised by Piaget and his colleagues (Inhelder & Piaget, 1958). The most influential example of a stage theory that is
specifically concerned with the development of students in higher education is that of Perry (1970, 1981), who explicitly
J.T.E. Richardson / Educational Research Review 9 (2013) 191–206 193
Table 1
Perry’s scheme of intellectual and ethical development.
Position 1 The student sees the world in polar terms of we–right–good vs. other–wrong–bad. Right Answers for everything exist in the
Absolute, known to Authority whose role is to mediate (teach) them. Knowledge and goodness are perceived as quantitative
accretions of discrete rightnesses to be collected by hard work and obedience (paradigm: a spelling test)
Position 2 The student perceives diversity of opinion, and uncertainty, and accounts for them as unwarranted confusion in poorly qualified
Authorities or as mere exercises set by Authority ‘‘so we can learn to find The Answer for ourselves’’.
Position 3 The student accepts diversity and uncertainty as legitimate but still temporary in areas where Authority ‘‘hasn’t found The
Answer yet’’. He supposes Authority grades him in these areas on ‘good expression’ but remains puzzled as to standards.
Position 4 (a) The student perceives legitimate uncertainty (and therefore diversity of opinion) to be extensive and raises it to the status of
an unstructured epistemological realm of its own in which ‘‘anyone has a right to his own opinion’’, a realm which he sets over
against Authority’s realm where right–wrong still prevails, or (b) the student discovers qualitative contextual reasoning as a
special case of ‘‘what They want’’ within Authority’s realm.
Position 5 The student perceives all knowledge and values (including authority’s) as contextual and relativistic and subordinates dualistic
right–wrong functions to the status of a special case, in context.
Position 6 The student apprehends the necessity of orienting himself in a relativistic world through some form of personal Commitment (as
distinct from unquestioned or unconsidered commitment to simple belief in certainty).
Position 7 The student makes an initial Commitment in some area.
Position 8 The student experiences the implications of Commitment, and explores the subjective and stylistic issues of responsibility.
Position 9 The student experiences the affirmation of identity among multiple responsibilities and realises Commitment as an ongoing,
unfolding activity through which he expresses his life style.
Note: From Perry (1970, pp 9–10).
adopted an extension of the Piagetian approach. Based on interviews carried out with students at Harvard University over
the previous 20 years, Perry posited a sequence of nine possible developmental stages, moving from a simplistic or absolute
stance concerning the fundamental nature of knowledge to a complex, pluralistic perspective (see Table 1). Perry summa-
rised his scheme in three divisions: a period of dualism (Positions 1–3), a period of relativism (Positions 4–6), and a period
of commitment in relativism (Positions 7–9). However, some commentators have summarised the scheme in four divisions:
dualism (Positions 1 and 2); multiplicity (Positions 3 and 4); contextual relativism (Position 5); and commitment within rel-
ativism (Positions 6–9) (see Moore, 2002).
The stages in Perry’s model represent increasingly sophisticated ways of resolving the dissonance produced by discrep-
ancies and inconsistencies among different authority figures. Not all students achieve this kind of development: the transi-
tion from one position to the next may be postponed, or it may be prevented by apathy or alienation, and Perry discussed the
educational and clinical implications of these ‘‘deflections from growth’’ in detail. Even so, teachers can adopt particular
strategies to promote intellectual development in their students.
On the one hand, the dualist student should be presented with ‘‘calculated incongruities’’ that ‘‘challenge him at the lead-
ing edge of his growth’’ to encourage movement towards relativism (Perry, 1970, pp. 210, 215). Students at the initial stages
of the scheme will find it very difficult to cope with unqualified uncertainty, but they may be guided towards an acceptance
of such uncertainty if they encounter incongruous data under clearly defined circumstances. By presenting them with these
incongruities in conjunction with the naive or conventional position on some topic area, students will be encouraged to ac-
cept alternative points of view as both possible and legitimate.
On the other hand, the relativist student should be provided with recognition and support in order to avoid a ‘‘nonrespon-
sible alienation’’ (Perry, 1970, p. 213) and to encourage a personal orientation through commitment. Teachers and instruc-
tors are likely to constitute significant models in this process, but their value will depend upon the extent to which they
apprehend the different personal meanings that their students ascribe to their learning experiences. Equally, they must
be prepared to recognise the processes of grief and mourning that may be attendant upon any major transition in an indi-
vidual’s personal development (Perry, 1978, 1981).
Widick and Simpson (1978) translated the distinction between the period of dualism and the period of relativism into a
set of behavioural descriptions:
Students who think in dualistic ways show the following characteristics. (1) Encounters with uncertainty or diversity are
often very stressful; one could assume that an ‘‘open’’ classroom would not be a very happy place for these students. (2)
Interpretative tasks (e.g., essays) pose great difficulties; it is quite hard to ‘‘compare and contrast’’ an issue when one does
not recognize that a variety of legitimate viewpoints exist. (3) Learning occurs at the direction of the instructor, the
authority who has the ‘‘right’’ answers; independent approaches to a course are a decided exception. (4) Evaluation
may take on an overwhelming importance; students may be confused about the criteria for giving grades and may
pay excessive attention to procedural detail (e.g., numbers of pages).
Perry’s data showed that students at relativistic positions respond differently to academic demands and classroom
instruction. The following characteristics seem to be most appropriate for them. (1) In early stages of relativism, they turn
the idea of pluralism into academic license, emphasising the value of intuition. (2) They appear to manage their studies
more efficiently and effectively; in particular, they are capable of performing complex, analytic tasks with some skill. (3)
For them, learning has become more internalized, and they seem more able to use ‘‘freedom to learn’’. (4) In general, they
express less concern about pleasing the teacher and evaluation procedures. (pp. 31–32)
Widick and Simpson suggested that teachers should adopt different styles for dualistic and relativistic students, and they
carried out an experiment to test this idea. Although the effects were slight, relativistic students tended to outperform
dualistic students, and all students tended to perform better under instruction appropriate to their intellectual
development.
Subsequently, many researchers have found Perry’s scheme to be a congenial framework. For instance, Wise, Lee,
Litzinger, Marra, and Palmer (2004) carried out a longitudinal study of 21 students taking a 4-year engineering pro-
gramme at an American university. They found relatively little change in students’ positions in Perry’s scheme from Year
1 to Year 3, but an increase equivalent to one position between Year 3 and Year 4. Marra and Palmer (2004) compared 19
final-year students from this programme who were at relatively high or low positions in Perry’s scheme. The students
who were at relatively high positions had obtained higher scores on the Scholastic Aptitude Test on admission to univer-
sity and were more likely to have taken honours courses or been awarded tuition support in the university scholars’ pro-
gramme. However, their grade point averages were similar to those obtained by the students at relatively low positions in
Perry’s scheme.
Even so, questions have been raised about the generality of Perry’s scheme. Harvard was and is an elite institution, and
the majority of the students in Perry’s (1970) original study would also have been of traditional age. Cleave-Hogg (1996)
used Perry’s scheme to analyse interview transcripts obtained from 64 students aged between 30 and 65 years at the Uni-
versity of Toronto. Most of these older students seemed to approach academic learning from a position of contextual rela-
tivism, despite the fact that many of their teachers adopted a dualistic and authoritarian approach. As Cleave-Hogg
commented:
That these students had made a major commitment to learning is axiomatic; all had made a major decision to return to
formal education, often in spite of family and social skepticism and derision. They knew what they wanted to do and were
prepared to undergo many vicissitudes to reach their goals. They accepted responsibility for their learning, knowing that,
in Perry’s terms, they had undertaken not a finite set of decisions but a way of life. They also acknowledged the implica-
tions of commitment to knowledge and realized that this was an ongoing, unfolding activity. (p. 245)
Although the principles of Perry’s model could be identified in these students, they exhibited three kinds of commitment
that had not been evident in Perry’s students:
1. a commitment to themselves and the personal urge to become more learned and to further their knowledge. . .
2. commitments made or accepted that evolved from regular life experiences and impacted on their search for
meaning. . .
3. commitments to wider, more social or cultural values. (pp. 245–246)
3. Women’s ways of knowing
Perry’s (1970) original investigation came under criticism during the 1980s because it had been based on a largely male
sample. (At the time when it was carried out, women had to study for Harvard degrees at the separate institution of Radcliffe
College.) Some researchers sought to rectify this by investigating intellectual development in women (Baxter Magolda, 1988;
Clinchy & Zimmerman, 1982; Gilligan, 1982; Gilligan, Ward & Taylor, 1988). In particular, Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and
Tarule (1986) carried out interviews with 135 women who were students, graduates or clients at health clinics. They justi-
fied the use of a demographically heterogeneous sample by saying that they were aiming ‘‘to see the common ground that
women share, regardless of background’’ (p. 13). This left them open to the charge that they had taken an essentialist view-
point for granted (see Goldberger, 1996b).
From a content analysis of the interviewees’ statements concerning their conceptions of knowledge, Belenky et al. pro-
duced an alternative account of intellectual development that was based on five ‘‘ways of knowing’’:
Silence, a position in which women experience themselves as mindless and voiceless and subject to the whims of
external authority.
Received knowledge, a perspective from which women conceive of themselves as capable of receiving, even repro-
ducing, knowledge from the all-knowing external authorities but not capable of creating knowledge on their own.
Subjective knowledge, a perspective from which truth and knowledge are conceived of as personal, private, and sub-
jectively known or intuited.
Procedural knowledge, a position in which women are invested in learning and applying objective procedures for
obtaining and communicating knowledge.
Constructed knowledge, a position in which women view all knowledge as contextual, experience themselves as
creators of knowledge and value both subjective and objective strategies for knowing. (p. 15)
Belenky et al. acknowledged that these epistemological categories were not sufficiently well defined to be interpreted as
stages of intellectual development, but they represent increasing levels of intellectual complexity organised around the met-
aphors of silence and voice.
In a subsequent study, Hipp (1997) interviewed 16 women who were taking courses at Master’s level by distance learning
with an Australian university. They participated in groups of four in an interview and discussion session conducted by
teleconferencing about a number of issues that had been identified in an earlier postal survey. Hipp linked their conceptions
of learning and their conceptions of themselves as learners with the different ‘‘ways of knowing’’ that had been described by
Belenky et al. (1986). She argued that positive personal feedback from teachers was crucial in bringing about personal devel-
opment and increased confidence among women working by distance learning, although she suggested that special work-
shops, teleconferences or self-help materials could also help to enhance their self-esteem.
The investigation by Belenky et al. (1986) raises two issues. The first is that their interpretation of the five ways of know-
ing as stages in a developmental hierarchy was based on Western assumptions and might not be valid in other cultures.
Goldberger (1996a) argued that silence and received ways of knowing might well be appropriate and adaptive in cultures
where deference to authority was taken for granted, and she suggested that ‘‘silenced’’ was a more appropriate term to refer
to the state of being oppressed into voicelessness rather than simply choosing to remain silent out of respect for authorities
(see also Clinchy, 2002). The second issue, noted by Crawford (1989), is that Belenky et al. had speculated about gender dif-
ferences in ways of knowing without having included a comparison group of male students in their study. Subsequently, in
the light of findings in both men and women, Clinchy (2002) argued that these ways of knowing were ‘‘gender-related, but
not gender exclusive’’ (p. 79).
4. Epistemological reflection
To try to reconcile Perry’s (1970) original model of intellectual development with subsequent theories, Baxter Magolda
and Porterfield (1985) developed a structured instrument called the Measure of Epistemological Reflection. This contained
a series of open-ended questions about different domains: decision making, the role of the learner, the role of the instructor,
the role of peers, evaluation of learning, and the nature of knowledge, truth or reality. An analysis of students’ responses
identified four different developmental stages, and these are summarised in Table 2. This classification of students demon-
strated a high level of reliability and, in subsequent studies, was found to be highly correlated with the findings obtained
from semi-structured interviews (Baxter Magolda, 1987, 1988). Baxter Magolda (1992) then carried out interviews with
101 students at a university in the United States over 5 years, and she found clear evidence for development through the
scheme shown in Table 2.
This developmental scheme appeared to fit the accounts produced by both women and men, although they tended to use
different patterns of reasoning at each of the first three developmental stages. In other words, there were ‘‘qualitative dif-
ferences in how students justify epistemic assumptions within the same way of knowing and, thus, different but equally va-
lid approaches to knowing’’ (Baxter Magolda, 1992, p. 37). At the absolute knowing stage, women tended to use a ‘‘receiving’’
pattern based on a private approach to acquiring knowledge, whereas men tended to use a ‘‘mastery’’ pattern based on a
public approach to acquiring knowledge. At the transitional knowing stage, women tended to use an ‘‘inter-personal’’ ap-
proach based on sharing the views of others, whereas men tended to use an ‘‘impersonal’’ approach based on challenging
the views of others. At the independent knowing stage, women tended to use an ‘‘inter-individual’’ approach based on shar-
ing one’s views with others, whereas men tended to use an ‘‘individual’’ approach based on independent thinking. Different
Table 2
Baxter Magolda’s epistemological reflection model.
Domains Absolute knowing Transitional knowing Independent knowing Contextual knowing

Role of learner Obtains knowledge from Understands knowledge Thinks for self Exchanges and compares
instructor Shares views with perspectives
others Thinks through problems
Creates own Integrates and applies knowledge
perspective
Role of peers Share materials Provide active exchanges Share views Enhance learning via quality
Explain what they have Serve as a source of contributions
learned to each other knowledge
Role of instructor Communicates knowledge Uses methods aimed at Promotes indepen- Promotes application of knowl-
appropriately understanding dent thinking edge in context
Ensures that students under- Employs methods that help Promotes exchange Promotes evaluative discussion
stand knowledge apply knowledge of opinions of perspectives
Student and teacher critique
each other
Evaluation Provides vehicle to show Measures students’ under- Rewards indepen- Accurately measures competence
instructor what was learned standing of the material dent thinking Student and teacher work towards
goal and measure progress
Nature of Is certain or absolute Is partially certain and par- Is uncertain—every- Is contextual; judge on basis of
knowledge tially uncertain one has own beliefs evidence in context
Note: From Baxter Magolda (1992, p. 30).

patterns of reasoning were not identified at the contextual knowing stage because only two of the students were classified as
being at this stage.
In short, Baxter Magolda identified the same four ‘‘ways of knowing’’ in both male and female students, and to that extent
there do not appear to be qualitative differences in the conceptions of learning and knowledge that are held by men and
women in higher education. She did find qualitative differences in students’ patterns of reasoning at three of these develop-
mental stages, but she argued that these patterns were ‘‘related to, but not dictated by, gender’’, and that they had been so-
cially constructed on the basis of the students’ differential experiences of learning (Baxter Magolda, 1992, pp. 20–22).
Severiens and ten Dam (1998) confirmed Baxter Magolda’s scheme through open-ended interviews with 53 students of
adult secondary education in the Netherlands, except that none was assessed as exhibiting a stage beyond independent
knowing. They suggested that there was a conceptual similarity between Baxter Magolda’s ways of knowing and the differ-
ent ‘‘learning styles’’ that had been identified by Vermunt (1996) using a questionnaire. They gave their students a short ver-
sion of this instrument but found no significant difference in the scores obtained by students who showed different ways of
knowing. Baxter Magolda (1998c) argued that students who were at different developmental levels might have given similar
responses to the questionnaire items based on different interpretations of the items.
Brownlee (2001a, 2001b) interviewed students taking a one-year graduate programme in teacher education at an Austra-
lian university and found categories of epistemological beliefs that were broadly similar to those described by Perry and Bax-
ter Magolda. The programme adopted a relational pedagogy that was aimed at promoting more sophisticated
epistemological beliefs. Subsequently, Brownlee (2004) interviewed students both at the beginning and at the end of the
programme. Their epistemological beliefs showed a shift towards more sophisticated views that most students ascribed
to the teaching programme. However, since the literature on epistemological beliefs was part of the assessed curriculum,
they had an explicit incentive to reproduce what they had been taught, regardless of whether or not there had been any gen-
uine changes in their epistemological beliefs.
5. Self-authorship
A very similar account of intellectual development had been devised independently during the same period by King and
Kitchener (1994). They felt that reflective judgment had been neglected as an aspect of critical thinking in the study of intel-
lectual development, and they devised interviews on how participants thought about real-world controversies presented in
the form of ill-defined problems. Based on their findings, King and Kitchener postulated a model that comprised seven devel-
opmental stages representing growth from pre-reflective to quasi-reflective to reflective thinking. Each stage was character-
ised by a view of knowledge and a process of justification that was deployed by people in legitimating their beliefs. These are
akin to the concepts of knowledge and patterns of reasoning in Baxter Magolda’s model. King and Kitchener (2002, 2004)
described the subsequent development of their account.
Baxter Magolda (1995, 1996, 1998a, 1998b) carried out further interviews with 70 of her participants after their gradu-
ation, but she broadened the scope of her study to encompass their sense of identity and relationships with other people.
Based on the preliminary findings, King and Baxter Magolda (1996) put forward an integrated developmental view of
learning:
1. What individuals learn and claim to know is grounded in how they construct their knowledge. . .
2. How individuals construct knowledge and use their knowledge is closely tied to their sense of self. . .
3. The process by which individuals attempt to make meaning of their experiences improves in a developmentally
related fashion over time. . .
4. Educators who endorse these principles will use a broad definition of learning that encompasses both cognitive and
personal development and that is sensitive to the developmental issues underlying the process of education. (pp.
165–167)
To capture the idea of their participants engaging in a process of making personal meaning, King and Baxter Magolda adopted
Kegan’s (1994, p. 185) notion of ‘‘self-authorship’’. This led to a more considered discussion of the ways in which teachers in
higher education could provide contexts in which students might achieve self-authorship (Baxter Magolda, 1999).
Although the process of development towards self-authorship continued in those students who engaged in graduate or
professional education (Baxter Magolda, 1996, 1998a), it was also apparent that the same kind of development occurred dur-
ing employment (Baxter Magolda, 1998b). Subsequently, Baxter Magolda (2001b) developed these suggestions and pre-
sented the results of further interviews with 39 of her original participants. They typically exemplified four stages in the
journey towards self-authorship:
1. ‘‘The first phase, following external formulas, was prevalent in the early years after college. Although most participants
realized the necessity of developing their own minds and voices soon after college graduation, they did not have expe-
rience in developing their internal voices. Thus they continued to follow formulas for knowing the world and themselves
that they borrowed from the external world around them.’’
2. ‘‘Dissatisfaction with following the formulas. . .led to the second phase, the crossroads of the journey. At this juncture, par-
ticipants realized that their dissatisfaction stemmed from ignoring their own internal needs and perspectives and that
they needed to look inward for self-definition.’’
3. ‘‘Work on looking inward led to the movement out of the crossroads into the third phase of the journey: becoming the
author of one’s own life. This phase involved deciding what to believe, one’s identity, and how to interact with others.’’
4. ‘‘Continued movement in authoring their lives led participants to the fourth phase: an internal foundation that grounded
them’’ (pp. xviii–xix, italics in original; see also Baxter Magolda, 2003).
According to Baxter Magolda (2001b), the conditions for achieving self-authorship consist of three core assumptions and
three key principles. The three assumptions are: that ‘‘knowledge is complex and socially constructed’’, that ‘‘self is central to
knowledge construction’’, and that ‘‘authority and expertise are shared in the mutual construction of knowledge among
peers’’ (p. 188). The three principles are: ‘‘validating learners as knowers’’, ‘‘situating learning in learners’ experience’’,
and ‘‘defining learning as mutually constructing meaning’’ (p. 191). The relevant conditions can be met in academia, in
the workplace, or even in personal life. Consequently, intellectual development can occur both inside and outside the acad-
emy—and conceivably even in people who have never participated in higher education.
Baxter Magolda went on to consider how universities could promote epistemological development during and after pro-
grammes of study, and Baxter Magolda and King (2004) described practical examples in which academic and non-academic
staff had encouraged self-authorship in students. Moreover, a recent longitudinal study of just ten students taking an inter-
disciplinary studies programme in the United States showed how their evolving self-authorship informed their understand-
ing of interdisciplinarity (Haynes & Leonard, 2010).
6. Conceptions of learning
Perry, Belenky et al., Baxter Magolda, and King and Kitchener carried out their work in the United States. In Europe and
Australia, researchers were focused more specifically on students’ conceptions of learning. Marton (1976) claimed that some
students saw learning as something that they themselves did, while other students saw learning as something that just hap-
pened to them. However, students’ conceptions of learning exhibit more variety than this.
Säljö (1979a) interviewed 90 people aged between 15 and 73 at institutions of further and higher education in Sweden.
An initial analysis of their accounts suggested that for many the nature of learning was taken for granted: it was described as
an essentially reproductive activity tantamount to rote memorisation. For other people, however, and especially for those
who had had experience of higher education, learning had become ‘‘thematic’’, in the sense that they had become ‘‘aware
of the context of learning on what you should learn and how you should set about it’’ (p. 448; see also Säljö, 1982, chap.
6). For these respondents,
Learning is something which can be explicitly talked about and discussed and can be the object of conscious planning and
analysis. In learning, these people realize that there are, for instance, alternative strategies or approaches which may be
useful or suitable in various situations depending on, for example, time available, interest, demands of teachers, and
anticipated tests. (Säljö, 1979a, p. 446)
This was an interpretative conception of learning that involved the extraction of meaning from the materials to be learned, a
process that was described as ‘‘real learning’’ or ‘‘learning from life’’, as opposed to the artificial kind of learning required in
primary and secondary education. Some of the interviewees described a process of development from the former conception
of learning to the latter, a process that in many cases had been occasioned by the transition to university and the realisation
of the demands of learning in higher education.
During the course of their interviews, the participants in this study had been asked: ‘‘Well, what do you actually mean by
learning?’’ A more thorough analysis of their responses to this question led Säljö (1979b) to broaden his distinction between
a reproductive conception and an interpretative conception into five more specific conceptions of learning:
1. Learning as the increase of knowledge.

2. Learning as memorising.
3. Learning as the acquisition of facts/procedures, etc., which can be retained and/or utilized in practice.
4. Learning as the abstraction of meaning.
5. Learning as an interpretative process aimed at the understanding of reality. (p. 19)
Säljö pointed out that the first two conceptions of learning represented a cognitive orientation towards learning tasks that
was ‘‘reproductive’’, whereas the last two conceptions of learning represented a cognitive orientation that was
‘‘reconstructive’’.
This was a cross-sectional study, and the five conceptions of learning had been found in different people, and so Säljö had
no direct information concerning the chronological or logical relationships among them. Even so, he claimed that they con-
stituted a developmental sequence or hierarchy (see also Säljö, 1982, chaps. 12–13). Säljö justified this claim in two ways.
First, some participants had made comments during their interviews concerning the process of transition that they had gone
through between school and university. Second, Säljö argued that there were parallels between the conceptions of learning
that he had found and the scheme that Perry (1970) had presented on the basis of longitudinal data.
Van Rossum and colleagues carried out similar studies in which they asked students in the Netherlands to write short
essays about their conceptions of learning (van Rossum, Deijkers, & Hamer, 1985; van Rossum & Schenk, 1984). They were
able to classify these students into Säljö’s five conceptions of learning and in addition found that their interviewees held
analogous conceptions of teaching, knowledge and understanding. They argued that their five conceptions of learning con-
stituted a hierarchy that should be seen as a parallel to the scheme of intellectual and ethical development put forward by
Perry (1970). However, van Rossum and Taylor (1987) found a sixth conception which they characterised as
6. A conscious process, fuelled by personal interests and directed at obtaining harmony and happiness or changing soci-
ety. (p. 19)
van Rossum and Taylor found that men and women were equally likely to hold these various conceptions of learning, but
that older students were more likely than younger students to hold the more sophisticated conceptions (i.e., Conceptions
4–6).
Morgan, Gibbs, and Taylor (1981) also confirmed the existence of Säljö’s original conceptions of learning in 29 students
who were taking courses by distance learning with the Open University in the United Kingdom. Six of these students were
subsequently interviewed either five or six times, and Marton, Dall’Alba, and Beaty (1993) described apparent changes in
their conceptions of learning over a period of 6 years. In their later years of studying, three of the students showed the sixth
conception of learning that had been found by van Rossum and Taylor (1987). Marton et al. described this conception as
‘‘changing as a person’’ (p. 284).
Coincidentally, all six of the students who had been interviewed on either five or six occasions were women. Beaty,
Dall’Alba, and Marton (1997) felt that their extended scheme of conceptions of learning was compatible with Perry’s
(1970) account of epistemological development in university students. Nevertheless, a more detailed inspection of the
students’ interview responses suggested that, in their emphasis on personal perspectives and change, they were more
consistent with the account put forward by Belenky et al. (1986). This led Beaty et al. to claim that ‘‘changing as a person’’
was a gendered conception of learning. Again, however, this was not a valid inference insofar as there were no male students
in their sample (cf. Crawford, 1989). Other researchers have found the conception of ‘‘changing as a person’’ in both men and
women (Landbeck & Mugler, 1994; van Rossum & Taylor, 1987).
7. Epistemological development and conceptions of learning
Hofer and Pintrich (1997) suggested that an individual’s beliefs about learning and teaching should be regarded as being
peripheral to their core ideas concerning the nature of knowledge and the process of knowing. However, their account of
the research literature on epistemological development in higher education had completely overlooked the European work
on students’ conceptions of learning. In contrast, Moore (2002) suggested that the sixfold analysis of conceptions of learning
described by van Rossum and his colleagues had ‘‘considerable parallels to the major positions of the Perry scheme’’ (p. 27).
More recently, van Rossum and Hamer (2010, pp. 55–126) spelled out in detail how their six theoretical stages could be di-
rectly aligned with those to be found in the models put forward by Perry, Belenky et al. and Baxter Magolda. As evidence, they
described the results of research on students working for a Bachelor’s degree in hotel administration at Hotelschool The Hague.
This programme had received positive evaluations in external inspections, but by the end of the 1990s it was felt that a
more student-centred curriculum was needed to ensure that students would be able to meet the challenges of the 21st cen-
tury. Van Rossum and Hamer collected accounts from students studying under both the old and the new curricula. Both lon-
gitudinal testing and the students’ retrospective accounts indicated that epistemological development had arisen as a result
of the new curriculum. Even so, van Rossum and Hamer argued that successful students were those who had developed from
reproductive to reconstructive conceptions of learning. Some students did show this pattern, and others moved from one
reconstructive conception to another. However, under the new curriculum most students had just moved from one repro-
ductive conception to another (pp. 357–409).
One major problem was that teachers and students adopted different epistemological positions, with the result that the
teachers’ teaching strategies were incompatible with the students’ learning strategies. These students experienced what Ver-
munt and Verloop (1999, p. 270) called a ‘‘destructive friction’’ as a consequence of being unable to accommodate the strat-
egies adopted by their teachers. On the one hand, such students might become nostalgic for more familiar teaching and
learning situations in which their role was less ambiguous. On the other hand, they might become disenchanted and disillu-
sioned, leading them to become disengaged and ultimately to withdraw from their academic studies altogether (pp. 411–446).
Van Rossum and Hamer also collected accounts from 43 of the teachers responsible for delivering the new curriculum
(pp. 447–465). Their conceptions of knowledge, teaching and learning could be mapped onto the framework that had been
developed from the accounts provided by their students. In fact, more than 60% of the teachers exhibited reproductive con-
ceptions of knowledge, teaching and learning. Van Rossum and Hamer concluded that higher education needed to promote
more independent and reflective thinking in students, but that this required epistemologically more sophisticated teachers.
They argued that this in turn required more imaginative approaches to teacher development involving reflective practice,
action research and narrative inquiry (pp. 521–570).
8. Quantitative approaches
The research described thus far has involved qualitative methods. The data usually consist of the transcripts of semi-
structured interviews or the responses to open-ended questions. These have then been coded and then subjected to content
analysis to yield positions in developmental schemes. Researchers using Perry’s scheme have sometimes scored responses in
a more complex manner to reflect the apparent process of transition from one position to another. These scores are then
converted to numerical values that can then be analysed statistically. For instance, a student who responds consistently
at Position 2 may be coded ‘‘222’’, which is then averaged as 2.00; a student who responds mainly at Position 3 with apparent
vestiges of Position 2 may be coded ‘‘233’’, which is then averaged as 2.67 (e.g., Marra & Palmer, 2004; Wise et al., 2004).
However, the inter-rater reliability of such systems is very variable (see Dawson, 2004), and it is doubtful whether the result-
ing scores satisfy the assumptions of the statistical tests that are commonly used to analyse such data.
An alternative strategy would be to develop a quantitative instrument to measure the same constructs. Perry, Sprinthall,
and Wideman (1968) devised the Checklist of Educational Views (CLEV) to measure students’ adherence to dualist ways of
thinking. In its final version respondents were asked to indicate their degree of agreement or disagreement with each of 46
statements on a 6-point Likert-type scale. Subsequently, Perry himself eschewed checklists or questionnaires on the grounds
that they constrained the respondents’ answers so much that they were prevented from articulating the different meanings
that they ascribed to learning in different academic situations (see Perry, 1981; White, 1970). Nevertheless, some research-
ers have borrowed items from the CLEV for their own studies with varying degrees of success (Lonka & Lindblom-Ylänne,
1996; Ryan, 1984), and others have devised new instruments for measuring the constructs in Perry’s (1970) scheme (Erwin,
1983; Moore, 1989).
8.1. Schommer’s system of epistemological beliefs
Schommer (1990) rejected the notion that personal epistemology was unidimensional and developed in a fixed progres-
sion of developmental stages. She argued instead that it was a belief system composed of at least five broadly independent
dimensions: ‘‘the structure, certainty, and source of knowledge, and the control and speed of knowledge acquisition’’ (p.
498). She constructed a questionnaire (sometimes called the Epistemological Questionnaire: see, e.g., Schommer-Aikins,
2002) in which students indicated their level of agreement or disagreement with each of 63 statements on a 5-point Lik-
ert-type scale. An analysis of the scores obtained by 266 junior college and university students yielded four orthogonal
(i.e., independent) factors: Innate Ability (reflected in agreeing with the statement ‘‘Ability to learn is innate’’), Simple
Knowledge (‘‘Knowledge is discrete and unambiguous’’), Quick Learning (‘‘Learning is quick or not at all’’), and Certain
Knowledge (‘‘Knowledge is certain’’).
This factor structure was replicated in other studies with both university students and high-school students (Schommer,
1993b; Schommer, Crouse, & Rhodes, 1992). There was no evidence in any of these studies for a separate factor concerned
with the source of knowledge (‘‘Knowledge is handed down by authority rather than derived from reason’’), but otherwise
the results were taken to support a multidimensional account of epistemological beliefs. The students’ scores on Simple
Knowledge and Quick Learning were negatively related to their performance on comprehension tests (Schommer, 1990;
Schommer et al., 1992) and in high-school students also to their grade point average (Schommer, 1993b). The latter study
also found that scores on Simple Knowledge, Quick Learning, and Certain Knowledge tended to decline across students in
successive years at high school. Schommer, Calvert, Gariglietti, and Bajaj (1997) retested 69 of the high-school freshmen
from this study when they were seniors. Their scores on all four factors had significantly declined over the 3-year period.
Jehng (1991) and Jehng, Johnson, & Anderson, (1993) devised a similar questionnaire that was intended to measure five
constructs identified from the literature, including Schommer’s (1990) article. Confirmatory factor analysis of the responses
given by 398 students yielded five factors: certainty of knowledge, omniscient authority, rigid learning, innate ability, and
quick process. Engineering students tended to obtain higher scores than did social-science students, and undergraduate stu-
dents tended to obtain higher scores than did postgraduate students. Jehng concluded that students’ epistemological beliefs
depended both on their level of education and on the domain of knowledge in which they had specialised.
Schommer (1993a) compared the responses given to her instrument by 116 students studying psychology at a junior col-
lege, 76 students studying psychology at a university, and 73 students studying physics at the same university. When demo-
graphic differences had been taken into account, the university students obtained higher scores than the junior college
students on Innate Ability, whereas the junior college students obtained higher scores than the university students on Cer-
tain Knowledge. The psychology students obtained higher scores than the physics students on Simple Knowledge. Neverthe-
less, in other respects, the students taking the two different subjects obtained very similar scores, and Schommer concluded
that students’ epistemological beliefs were general rather than domain specific. Schommer and Walker (1995) asked psy-
chology students to fill out the questionnaire once with reference to mathematics and a second time with reference to
the social sciences. Their scores on the individual scales were highly correlated between the two administrations of the ques-
tionnaire, which was once again taken to mean that epistemological beliefs were domain independent.
However, Paulsen and Wells (1998) argued that one should compare students across a wider range of subjects and in par-
ticular in all four cells of Biglan’s (1973) scheme of hard (or paradigm-based) versus soft subjects and pure versus applied
subjects. They obtained scores on Schommer’s instrument from 290 students in six areas: humanities, social sciences, nat-
ural sciences, education, business, and engineering. Students majoring in applied subjects obtained higher scores on Simple
Knowledge, Quick Learning, and Certain Knowledge than those majoring in pure subjects; and students majoring in hard
subjects obtained higher scores on Certain Knowledge than those majoring in soft subjects. Paulsen and Wells concluded
that students’ epistemological beliefs were related to their disciplinary context.
Even so, Schommer-Aikins, Duell, and Barker (2003) pointed out that the question whether different students in different
disciplines hold different beliefs was not the same as the question whether the same students hold different beliefs across
different disciplines. They asked 152 students from a variety of disciplines to fill out Schommer’s questionnaire three times
with reference to mathematics (a hard and pure subject), the social sciences (a soft and pure subject), and business (a soft
and applied subject), respectively. Their scores on the individual scales were similar across the three domains and highly
correlated across the three administrations of the questionnaire. However, when the students were classified in terms of
their amount of exposure to different domains, the correlations tended to be lower in students with high experience in
one domain but low experience in another. Schommer-Aikins et al. concluded that epistemological beliefs tend to be domain
independent in students with a range of experience but become domain specific following academic specialisation. On the
basis of a narrative review of 19 such studies, Muis, Bendixen, and Haerle (2006) concurred that epistemological beliefs were
initially domain independent but became domain specific.
Schommer’s questionnaire is psychometrically robust and has been used and adapted by other researchers (Rodríguez &
Cano, 2006, 2007; Schommer-Aikins, 2004). Schommer and Walker (1997) found that the scores obtained by 158 high-
school students predicted their attitudes to higher education, as expressed in their advice to a hypothetical student thinking
about whether to go to college. Their scores on Innate Ability and Quick Learning were negatively correlated with whether
they would encourage the student to go to college and to appreciate the role of higher education in furthering their educa-
tion, gaining employment, and living everyday life. It would be interesting to know whether their scores predicted their own
progress and achievement in higher education, but this does not seem to have been examined. Using a questionnaire based
on Schommer’s, Wood and Kardash (2002) found that students’ scores on a factor akin to Quick Learning were inversely re-
lated to their grade point average.
Unfortunately, Schommer’s questionnaire is limited conceptually, because it defines intellectual development in wholly
negative terms as the relinquishing of naive beliefs rather than as the adoption of more sophisticated ones. Schommer and
Walker (1997) described the four dimensions of her model and their associated poles in the following manner:
(1) fixed ability, ranging from the ability to learn is fixed at birth to the ability to learn can be improved; (2) simple knowl-
edge, ranging from knowledge is best characterized as isolated bits and pieces to knowledge is best characterized as com-
plex interrelated networks; (3) quick learning, ranging from learning is quick or non-at-all to learning is gradual; and (4)
certain knowledge, ranging from knowledge is unchanging to knowledge is evolving. (p. 175)
Even so, the issue remains that Schommer’s questionnaire only measures the extent to which students adopt the less
sophisticated poles of these four dimensions, and the extent to which they adopt their more sophisticated poles has to
be inferred indirectly. This problem applies to other instruments based on Schommer’s questionnaire (Jehng, 1991;
Schraw, Bendixen, & Dunkle, 2002). Some researchers (e.g., Jehng et al., 1993; Wood & Kardash, 2002) have dealt with this
by coding the items in reverse. This trivial device resolves the methodological issue that higher scores on the original
questionnaire correspond to less sophisticated beliefs, but it fails to compensate for the obvious conceptual limitations
of the instruments themselves.
Schommer’s questionnaire is also limited methodologically, because it is based on the use of factor analysis. As Makoe,
Richardson, and Price (2008) pointed out, in this analytic technique each participant’s responses are represented as a point
in multidimensional space. Both differences between participants and changes within participants are represented as quan-
titative variations within that space. Consequently, the results will accord with a theory that assumes a continuous progres-
sion along one or more dimensions rather than a theory that assumes a series of qualitatively distinct positions. Thus, an
artefact of using factor analysis is that the results will be represented in accordance with non-stage theories of development.
This artefact seems to have beguiled Schommer into adopting just such a theory, although to be fair Schommer is by no
means unique in this regard (see Jehng, 1991; Jehng et al., 1993; Schraw et al., 2002; Wood & Kardash, 2002).
Hofer and Pintrich (1997) argued that the models described by Perry, by Belenky et al., by Baxter Magolda, and by King
and Kitchener had converged on a common framework of ideas regarding the nature of epistemological development in
higher education. On the one hand, students’ beliefs concerning the nature of knowledge developed along two dimensions
relating to the certainty of knowledge (ranging from fixed to evolving) and the simplicity of knowledge (ranging from the
simple and discrete to the complex and contextualised). On the other hand, students’ beliefs concerning the nature or pro-
cess of knowing developed along two further dimensions relating to the source of knowledge (ranging from external author-
ity to the personal construction of meaning) and the justification for knowing (ranging from the passive acceptance of
received wisdom to the reasoned justification of beliefs). In this way, the various stage theories could be aligned with Schom-
mer’s multidimensional account.
Hofer and Pintrich did not put forward any new evidence to support such an account but instead referred to the results of
Schommer’s factor analyses. Nor did Hofer and Pintrich make any assumptions about the interrelationships among the four
dimensions in their model. However, Pintrich (2002) subsequently proposed that these four dimensions were ‘‘somewhat
independent of each other’’ (p. 394), once again relying on the results of Schommer’s factor analyses. In fact, in all her anal-
yses, Schommer had used varimax rotation, a technique that produces an orthogonal solution in which the factors are uncor-
related. Once again, therefore, the apparent independence of the dimensions in Schommer’s framework was an artefact of
the analytic procedures that she had employed rather than an emergent property of her data.
8.2. Zhang’s Cognitive Development Inventory
Zhang (1995; see also Zhang and Hood (1998) constructed a new instrument, the Zhang Cognitive Development Inventory
(ZCDI). In its original version, the respondents indicated their level of agreement or disagreement with each of 175 state-
ments along a 5-point Likert-type scale. The statements defined 11 subscales that were intended to characterise different
aspects of dualism, relativism, and commitment. The responses of 808 undergraduate students at universities in Beijing indi-
cated that the three major scales were reasonably robust, but a comparison of the mean scores across four years of study
yielded a pattern at variance with that expected from Perry’s (1970) scheme. The freshmen produced the lowest scores
on the dualism scale but the highest scores on the relativism and commitment scales; the juniors produced the highest
scores on the dualism scale but the lowest scores on the relativism and commitment scales; and the sophomores and seniors
produced scores that were intermediate between those of the freshmen and those of the juniors on all three scales.
Zhang (1999) reduced the ZCDI to 120 statements in nine subscales. She compared the responses given to these items by
503 undergraduate students at universities in Nanjing and 152 undergraduate students at a college in the United States with
those given by the 808 students in her original study. Factor analyses of the subscale scores obtained by the Chinese students
yielded just two factors: one measured dualism, the other measured relativism and commitment in relativism. However, a
factor analysis of the subscale scores obtained by the American students yielded three factors measuring dualism, relativism,
and commitment in relativism, respectively. There were no significant differences among the scores obtained by American
students in different years of study, but the scores obtained by the Nanjing students showed a similar (albeit weaker) pattern
to those obtained by their counterparts in Beijing.
Zhang and Watkins (2001) reduced the ZCDI still further to just 75 statements in five subscales that measured educational
dualism, educational relativism, interpersonal dualism, interpersonal relativism, and life responsibility commitment. They
used a 7-point rating scale rather than a 5-point one and obtained responses from 193 students in Nanjing and 67 students
at a university in the United States. There were no significant differences among the scores obtained by the American stu-
dents across different years of study, and those obtained by the Chinese students showed significant differences on just two
subscales: the freshmen produced the lowest scores on interpersonal dualism but the highest scores on interpersonal rela-
tivism; the juniors produced the highest scores on interpersonal dualism but the lowest scores on interpersonal relativism;
and the sophomores and seniors produced scores that were intermediate between those of the freshmen and those of the
juniors on all three scales.
Finally, Zhang (2004) administered the 75-item version of the ZCDI to 464 students in Shanghai. A factor analysis of their
scores on the five subscales yielded two factors, one measuring dualism, the other measuring relativism and commitment.
Once again, an analysis of the mean scores across four years of study produced a pattern that was the opposite to that which
would be expected from Perry’s scheme. There were significant differences on three subscales: educational dualism, educa-
tional relativism, and interpersonal dualism. On the two dualism subscales, the freshmen produced the lowest scores, the
sophomores and the juniors produced intermediate scores, and the seniors produced the highest scores. On the educational
relativism scale, the freshmen produced the highest scores, the sophomores and the juniors produced intermediate scores,
and the seniors produced the lowest scores.
Zhang (1999) argued that the Chinese students in her original studies had exhibited a different pattern of intellectual
development because of their exposure to overspecialised and restricted curricula in a highly regimented institutional envi-
ronment. With regard to her 2001 study, she suggested that the weaker pattern of results was a consequence of the educa-
tional reforms being implemented in Nanjing and elsewhere, but this was clearly not reflected in the findings of her 2004
study. Zhang (2004) maintained that the ZCDI was a reliable and valid measure of the constructs in Perry’s scheme, but that
the results that she had obtained with American students cast doubt on the scheme itself. Nevertheless, it could equally be
argued that the failure of the ZCDI to detect intellectual change in American students casts doubt on the validity of the ZCDI
as an indicator of epistemological development in higher education.
9. Conclusions and critique
Research on students’ epistemological development during higher education has been carried out for at least 50 years.
Researchers on both sides of the Atlantic have converged on accounts that describe students’ epistemological development
in terms of a sequence or hierarchy of qualitatively distinct stages or positions. Longitudinal qualitative investigations have
provided rich data sets that seem to demonstrate genuine epistemological development. Nevertheless, whether the same
scheme fits all students and whether the changes observed are a specific result of the experience of higher education are
open to debate. Well-validated quantitative instruments that could be used to measure epistemological development in
large samples of students are still lacking. There are also fundamental issues still left unresolved.
Most of the stage theorists described in this review have assumed that each student occupies a single position with regard
to their conceptions of knowledge and learning. This is implicit in the accounts provided by Perry, by Belenky et al. and by
Baxter Magolda, but it is explicit in the account given by van Rossum and Hamer (2010), who referred to students at a par-
ticular epistemological level as ‘‘level-x-thinkers’’, where x was an integer between 1 and 6. From the authors’ various ac-
counts, it is unclear whether this was a conclusion inferred from their data or an assumption that they had imposed upon
their interpretation of the data.
Marton (1978) observed that Piagetian models of intellectual development found it hard to accommodate variation with-
in the same participants across structurally similar tasks. This is known as the issue of ‘‘horizontal décalage’’ (Brown &
Desforges, 1977). Marton himself argued that mental structures were likely to be both context- and content-dependent. Con-
sequently, any attempt to articulate a content-neutral scheme of intellectual development would be doomed to failure. De-
spite these initial reservations, however, Säljö’s findings led Marton to propose just such a scheme within only a few years
(see Marton & Säljö, 1984).
More recently, some researchers have claimed to have identified two or more conceptions of learning in the same indi-
viduals (e.g., Cliff, 1998; Norton & Crowley, 1995; Tynjälä, 1997). A possible explanation is that students have access to con-
ceptions of knowledge and learning of varying degrees of sophistication and can deploy less sophisticated conceptions in less
demanding situations. For instance, a student might exhibit an advanced epistemological position in the study of philosophy,
but they might exhibit a less sophisticated position if they take an evening class in cookery or flower arrangement. And it is
certainly implausible to assume that each teacher exhibits the same conception of teaching, regardless of whether they are
teaching philosophy or cookery or flower arrangement.
Another issue is whether the findings of Western researchers are of general validity or specific to their social and cultural
context. Hofer and Pintrich (1997) suggested that previous accounts of students’ epistemological development ‘‘were
undoubtedly shaped by underlying cultural beliefs’’ (p. 130). However, Van Rossum and Hamer (2010) claimed that their
model applied to all cultures and simply reflected the human condition. As evidence, they cited the work of Boulton-Lewis,
Marton, Lewis, and Wilss (2000, 2004) on conceptions of learning in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students (descen-
dants of the pre-colonial inhabitants of Australia). However, these students had been exposed to a Western system of edu-
cation, and so the similarity between their conceptions and those of European students is unsurprising.
In fact, distinctive conceptions of learning have been found among students in China (Marton, Dall’Alba, & Tse, 1996) and
South Africa (Cliff, 1998). Zhang’s (1999) and Zhang & Watkins’ (2001) results also imply that there are qualitative differ-
ences in how students from different cultures make sense of the same statements about knowledge and learning. Chan
and Elliott (2004) reviewed research in which Schommer’s (1990) questionnaire had been adapted for use in Hong Kong:
they found evidence for the four dimensions postulated by Hofer and Pintrich (1997) but construed in a distinctive way
for the Chinese culture. Finally, Phan (2008) interviewed 24 students of educational psychology at the University of the
South Pacific about their epistemological beliefs. They distinguished between knowledge about nature, religion and personal
moral values, which was fixed and given, and knowledge about academic subjects, which was changeable and continuously
evolving. Even so, the latter was provided by external authority figures, such as lecturers, teachers, priests and village chiefs.
Baxter Magolda (2001a) criticised the positivist assumption that the findings of research into students’ epistemological
development reflected an objective reality and were generalisable to other contexts. Instead, she argued that ‘‘reality is local
and context-bound’’ and that ‘‘the issue of applicability of interpretations outside of their context hinges on transferability’’
(p. 530). In other words, it is always an open question whether a model of epistemological development derived in one con-
text will apply unproblematically in some other context (see also Baxter Magolda, 2002). Her criticisms were directed at
American researchers, but they apply equally elsewhere. For instance, Marton (1994) claimed that his aim was to discover
and classify conceptions in the same way that a botanist might discover and classify new species of plant, thus adopting an
explicitly positivist perspective.
Such theorists try to explain variations in students’ accounts in terms of an objective reality. Specifically, they interpret
conceptions of knowledge, learning and teaching as mental entities that provide causal explanations for variations in study
behaviour. Strictly speaking, however, they are only in a position to compare one kind of account (regarding students’ con-
ceptions of knowledge and learning) with another kind of account (regarding their study behaviour). Uncritically accepting
the idea that variations in study behaviour are the upshot of mental processes is a case, as Woolgar (1996) put it, of buying
into a central precept of the ‘‘natives’’ before setting foot in the field (see also Edwards & Potter, 1992; Fleming, 1995).
One possibility is that students might reproduce the conceptions of knowledge and learning that are promoted in their
courses rather than reporting their genuine conceptions. This was noted in Section 4 in the study by Brownlee (2004), where
students were taught and assessed on the literature about students’ epistemological beliefs. Lonka, Joram, and Bryson (1996)
and Tynjälä (1997) found that students espoused more sophisticated conceptions of learning following short courses in edu-
cational psychology. However, Lonka et al. found that this was not reflected in the students’ solutions to an educational prob-
lem, and so these more sophisticated conceptions did not seem to have been internalised. In Tynjälä’s study, the students’
follow-up accounts were provided in a formal examination, and so once again there was an explicit incentive to reproduce
what had been taught in the course. Finally, Phan’s (2008) students related their responses to sociocultural theories of devel-
opment and the idea of social constructivism, topics that they had recently covered in lectures. In other words, in at least
some cases there are serious questions about the veracity of the participants’ accounts.
A more radical move is to reject the whole idea that the accounts given by participants in interviews about their concep-
tions of knowledge and learning count as evidence for the ascription of mental processes and to regard these accounts simply
as examples of students’ discursive practices (cf. Potter & Wetherell, 1987). Indeed, one can go further and argue that the
entities that figure in these accounts are merely artefacts that are constituted in social interactions and have no independent
existence, a view known as ‘‘social constructionism’’ (Gergen, 1994; Potter, 1996; see also Bourdieu, 1992). More specifically,
following Edwards and Potter (1992, p. 100), one can argue that it is much more appropriate to try to understand mentalistic
notions such as ‘‘epistemological beliefs’’ and ‘‘conceptions of knowledge’’ in terms of the part that they play in social
interactions, most especially the idiosyncratic kinds of interaction that occur in research interviews about students’ episte-
mological development.
In investigations of student learning, Säljö (1988) stressed the need for researchers to accept that the categories of
description that they put forward were their own constructions, and that other researchers might in principle arrive at dif-
ferent categorisations on the basis of precisely the same evidence. It follows that they cannot be taken to refer to some objec-
tive reality that would somehow be accessible through unbiased observations, but must instead be regarded simply as forms
of speech that happen to figure in people’s interpretative practices. In later writings, Säljö (1994, 1997) developed this idea of
a constructionist re-interpretation of ‘‘conceptions of learning’’ (see also Richardson, 1999). Similarly, Baxter Magolda
(2001a, 2004) proposed a constructionist re-interpretation of Perry’s (1970) stages and of her own Measure of Epistemolog-
ical Reflection as a device for negotiating meaning with participants.
On this kind of account, when students are asked, ‘‘Well, what do you actually mean by learning?’’ (Säljö, 1979b, p. 19),
they do not consult mysterious entities in their heads but instead refer to particular kinds of social interactions that would be
described as ‘‘learning’’. In principle, these might include informal encounters in daily life; in practice, however, students
tend to base their accounts of learning on their experiences in particular institutions. These accounts will exhibit qualitative
variations depending upon the formal arrangements that are created by different kinds of institution to facilitate ‘‘teaching’’
and ‘‘learning’’. To the extent that more advanced forms of education will require more complicated pedagogical arrange-
ments (cf. Pintrich, 2002), these variations will manifest themselves as a hierarchy of increasing complexity. In short, pur-
suing the idea of epistemological development as changes in conceptions of knowledge, learning and teaching may end up
telling us less about what goes on in students’ heads and more about what goes on in their classrooms.
This kind of analysis has implications for both research and practice. For researchers, it is hardly surprising that attempts
to produce quantitative instruments to measure variations in students’ epistemological beliefs and conceptions of learning
have proved unsuccessful. As Perry (1981) noted, asking students to complete questionnaires systematically prevents them
from articulating the meanings that they ascribe to learning in particular academic situations. Instead, the sophisticated
techniques of discourse analysis need to be brought to bear on the accounts that students produce when they are asked
to talk about their epistemological beliefs and their conceptions of learning (see Potter, 2007). Exactly what discursive goals
are they aiming to achieve in constructing their accounts of knowing and learning, and exactly what rhetorical resources and
repertoires do they use to try and achieve those goals?
Similar considerations apply to the investigation of teachers’ epistemological beliefs and conceptions of teaching. There is
a much more important consideration, however. Just as students’ epistemological beliefs are constituted in their discursive
practices rather than in occult mental processes, students’ epistemological development is constituted in changes in their
discursive practices. If, as Hofer (2001) and many others have argued, epistemological development is a major aim of higher
education, teachers need to foster more sophisticated forms of discourse in their students about their epistemological beliefs
and their conceptions of learning. This in turn means that they have to provide their students with more effective discursive
resources for generating accounts of knowing and learning in higher education and hence to engage more directly with their
students’ experience of higher education itself.
Acknowledgements
Portions of this review have been based on material contained in Richardson (2000). An early version of the review was
written to inform a research project on ‘‘The social and organisational mediation of university learning’’ funded by the UK
Economic and Social Research Council under its Teaching and Learning Research Programme. I am grateful to Marcia Baxter
Magolda for her advice and to Rob Edmunds, James Hartley, Kirsti Lonka, Lin Norton, and Haoda Sun for their comments on a
previous version of this article.
References
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1987). Comparing open-ended interviews and standardized measures of intellectual development. Journal of College Student
Personnel, 28, 443–448.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1988). Measuring gender differences in ethical development: A comparison of assessment methods. Journal of College Student
Development, 29, 528–537.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender-related patterns in students’ intellectual development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1995). The integration of relational and impersonal knowing in young adults’ epistemological development. Journal of College Student
Development, 36, 205–216.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1996). Epistemological development in graduate and professional education. Review of Higher Education, 19, 283–304.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1998a). Developing self-authorship in graduate school. New Directions for Higher Education, 101, 41–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
he.10104.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1998b). Developing self-authorship in young adult life. Journal of College Student Development, 39, 143–156.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1998c). Learning and gender: Complexity and possibility. Higher Education, 35, 351–355. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/
A:1003166418248.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1999). Creating contexts for learning and self-authorship: Constructive-developmental pedagogy. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University
Press.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2001a). A constructivist revision of the Measure of Epistemological Reflection. Journal of College Student Development, 42, 520–534.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2001b). Making their own way: Narratives for transforming higher education to promote self-development. Sterling, VA: Stylus
Publishing.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2002). Epistemological reflection: The evolution of epistemological assumptions from age 18–30. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.),
Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 89–102). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2003). Learners’ narratives: Real-life stories about constructive-developmental pedagogy. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving student learning:
Theory and practice–10 years on (pp. 27–36). Oxford, UK: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2004). Evolution of a constructivist conceptualization of epistemological reflection. Educational Psychologist, 39, 31–42. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3901_4.
Baxter Magolda, M. B., & King, P. M. (2004). Learning partnerships: Theory and models of practice to education for self-authorship. Sterling, VA: Stylus
Publishing.
Baxter Magolda, M. B., & Porterfield, W. D. (1985). A new approach to assess intellectual development on the Perry scheme. Journal of College Student
Personnel, 26, 343–351.
Beaty, E., Dall’Alba, G., & Marton, F. (1997). The personal experience of learning in higher education: Changing views and enduring perspectives. In P.
Sutherland (Ed.), Adult learning: A reader (pp. 150–165). London: Kogan Page.
Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic
Books.
Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 195–203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
h0034701.
Boulton-Lewis, G. M., Marton, F., Lewis, D. C., & Wilss, L. A. (2000). Learning in formal and informal contexts: Conceptions and strategies of Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander university students. Learning and Instruction, 10, 393–414. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00005-0.
Boulton-Lewis, G. M., Marton, F., Lewis, D. C., & Wilss, L. A. (2004). A longitudinal study of learning for a group of indigenous Australian university students:
Dissonant conceptions and strategies. Higher Education, 47, 91–112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:HIGH.0000009807.00392.33.
Bourdieu, P. (1992). The practice of reflexive sociology (the Paris workshop). In P. Bourdieu & L. J. D. Wacquant (Eds.), An invitation to reflexive sociology
(pp. 216–260). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Brown, G., & Desforges, C. (1977). Piagetian psychology and education: Time for revision. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 47, 7–17. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.2044-8279.1977.tb02995.x.
Brownlee, J. (2001a). Epistemological beliefs in pre-service teacher education students. Higher Education Research and Development, 20, 281–291. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/07294360120108377.
Brownlee, J. (2001b). Knowing and learning in teacher education: A theoretical framework of core and peripheral epistemological beliefs. Asia-Pacific Journal
of Teacher Education and Development, 4(1), 131–155.
Brownlee, J. (2004). Teacher education students’ epistemological beliefs: Developing a relational model of teaching. Research in Education, 72, 1–17.
Chan, K. W., & Elliott, R. G. (2004). Epistemological beliefs across cultures: Critique and analysis of beliefs structure studies. Educational Psychology, 24,
123–142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0144341032000160100.
Chandler, M. J., Hallett, D., & Sokol, B. W. (2002). Competing claims about competing knowledge claims. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal
epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 145–168). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chickering, A. W. (1969). Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cleave-Hogg, D. (1996). Learning perspectives of older students enrolled full-time in a regular undergraduate program. In M. L. Commons, J. Demick, & C.
Goldberg (Eds.), Clinical approaches to adult development (pp. 239–249). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Cliff, A. F. (1998). Teacher-learners’ conceptions of learning: Evidence of a ‘‘communalist’’ conception amongst postgraduate learners? Higher Education, 35,
205–220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1003021132510.
Clinchy, B. M. (2002). Revisiting Women’s ways of knowing. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about
knowledge and knowing (pp. 63–87). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Clinchy, B., & Zimmerman, C. (1982). Epistemology and agency in the development of undergraduate women. In P. J. Perun (Ed.), The undergraduate woman:
Issues in educational equity (pp. 161–181). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Crawford, M. (1989). Agreeing to differ: Feminist epistemologies and women’s ways of knowing. In M. Crawford & M. Gentry (Eds.), Gender and thought:
Psychological perspectives (pp. 128–145). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Dawson, T. (2004). Assessing intellectual development: Three approaches, one sequence. Journal of Adult Development, 11, 71–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/
B:JADE.0000024541.84265.04.
Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (1992). Discursive psychology. London: Sage.
Erwin, T. D. (1983). The scale of intellectual development: Measuring Perry’s scheme. Journal of College Student Personnel, 24, 6–12.
Fleming, W. G. (1995). Methodography: The study of student learning as situated action. In G. Gibbs (Ed.), Improving student learning through assessment and
evaluation (pp. 525–544). Oxford, UK: Oxford Centre for Staff Development.
Gergen, K. J. (1994). Realities and relationships: Soundings in social construction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gilligan, C., Ward, J. V., & Taylor, J. M. (with Bardige, B.) (1988). Mapping the moral domain: A contribution of women’s thinking to psychological
theory and education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Graduate School of Education, Center for the Study of Gender, Education, and Human
Development.
Goldberger, N. R. (1996a). Cultural imperatives and diversity in ways of knowing. In N. R. Goldberger, J. M. Tarule, B. M. Clinchy, & M. F. Belenky (Eds.),
Knowledge, difference, and power: Essays inspired by Women’s ways of knowing (pp. 335–371). New York: Basic Books.
Goldberger, N. R. (1996b). Introduction: Looking backward, looking forward. In N. R. Goldberger, J. M. Tarule, B. M. Clinchy, & M. F. Belenky (Eds.), Knowledge,
difference, and power: Essays inspired by Women’s ways of knowing (pp. 1–21). New York: Basic Books.
Haynes, C., & Leonard, J. B. (2010). From surprise parties to mapmaking: Undergraduate journeys toward interdisciplinary understanding. Journal of Higher
Education, 81, 645–666.
Heath, D. H. (1978). A model of becoming a liberally educated and mature student. In C. A. Parker (Ed.), Encouraging development in college students
(pp. 189–212). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Heath, R. (1964). The reasonable adventurer. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Hipp, H. (1997). Women studying at a distance. What do they need to succeed? Open Learning, 12(2), 41–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0268051970120205.
Hofer, B. K. (2001). Personal epistemology research: Implications for learning and teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology Review, 13, 353–383. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1011965830686.
Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning.
Review of Educational Research, 67, 88–140. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1170620.
Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence: An essay on the construction of formal operational structures (A.
Parsons & S. Milgram, Trans.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Jehng, J. J. (1991). The nature of epistemological beliefs about learning (Doctoral dissertation). Available from the University of Illinois at http://hdl.handle.net/
2142/23422.
Jehng, J. J., Johnson, S. D., & Anderson, R. C. (1993). Schooling and students’ epistemological beliefs about learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18,
23–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1993.1004.
Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
King, P. M., & Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1996). A developmental perspective on learning. Journal of College Student Development, 37, 163–173.
King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and
adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (2002). The reflective judgment model: Twenty years of research on epistemic cognition. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.),
King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (2004). Reflective judgment: Theory and research on the development of epistemic assumptions through adulthood.
Educational Psychologist, 39, 5–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3901_2.
Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence. The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and
research (pp. 347–480). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Landbeck, R., & Mugler, F. (1994). Approaches to study and conceptions of learning of students at the USP. Suva, Fiji: University of the South Pacific, Centre for
the Enhancement of Learning and Teaching.
Lonka, K., Joram, E., & Bryson, M. (1996). Conceptions of learning and knowledge: Does training make a difference? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21,
240–260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1996.0021.
Lonka, K., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (1996). Epistemologies, conceptions of learning and study practices in medicine and psychology. Higher Education, 31, 5–24.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00129105.
Makoe, M., Richardson, J. T. E., & Price, L. (2008). Conceptions of learning in adult students embarking on distance education. Higher Education, 55, 303–320.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10734-007-9056-6.
Marra, R., & Palmer, B. (2004). Encouraging intellectual growth: Senior college student profiles. Journal of Adult Development, 11, 111–122. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1023/B:JADE.0000024544.50818.1f.
Marton, F. (1976). What does it take to learn? Some implications of an alternative view of learning. In N. Entwistle (Ed.), Strategies for research and
development in higher education (pp. 32–42). Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Marton, F. (1978). Describing conceptions of the world around us. Göteborg, Sweden: University of Göteborg, Institute of Education. Report No. 66.
Marton, F. (1994). Phenomenography. In T. Husén & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education (2nd ed., Vol. 8, pp. 4424–4429).
Oxford, UK: Pergamon
Marton, F., Dall’Alba, G., & Beaty, E. (1993). Conceptions of learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 19, 277–300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
0883-0355(93)90015-C.
Marton, F., Dall’Alba, G., & Tse, L. K. (1996). Memorizing and understanding: The keys to the paradox? In D. A. Watkins & J. B. Biggs (Ed.), The Chinese learner:
Cultural, psychological and contextual influences (pp. 69–83). Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong, Comparative Education Research Centre. Melbourne:
Australian Council for Educational Research.
Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1984). Approaches to learning. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning (pp. 36–55). Edinburgh:
Scottish Academic Press.
Moore, W. S. (1989). The learning environment preferences: Exploring the construct validity of an objective measure of the Perry scheme of intellectual
development. Journal of College Student Development, 30, 504–514.
Moore, W. S. (2002). Understanding learning in a postmodern world: Reconsidering the Perry scheme of intellectual and ethical development. In B. K. Hofer
& P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 17–36). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Morgan, A., Gibbs, G., & Taylor, E. (1981). What do Open University students initially understand about learning? In Study Methods Group Report No. 8. Milton
Keynes, UK The Open University, Institute of Educational Technology (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 203 748).
Muis, K. R., Bendixen, L. D., & Haerle, F. C. (2006). Domain-generality and domain-specificity in personal epistemology research: Philosophical and empirical
reflections in the development of a theoretical framework. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 3–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9003-6.
Norton, L. S., & Crowley, C. M. (1995). Can students be helped to learn how to learn? An evaluation of an Approaches to Learning programme for first year
degree students. Higher Education, 29, 307–328. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01384496.
Paulsen, M. B., & Wells, C. T. (1998). Domain differences in the epistemological beliefs of college students. Research in Higher Education, 39, 365–384. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1018785219220.
Perry, W. G. Jr., (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Perry, W. G. Jr., (1978). Sharing in the costs of growth. In C. A. Parker (Ed.), Encouraging development in college students (pp. 267–273). Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota Press.
Perry, W. G. Jr., (1981). Cognitive and ethnical growth: The making of meaning. In A. W. Chickering et al. (Eds.), The modern American college: Responding to
the new realities of diverse students and a changing society (pp. 76–116). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Perry, W. G., Jr., Sprinthall, N. A., & Wideman, J. M. (1968). Notes on the Checklist of Educational Views. In W. G. Perry Jr. (Ed.), Patterns of development in
thought and values of students in a liberal arts college: A validation of a scheme (pp. 99–119). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Bureau of Study Counsel.
Available from <http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED024315.pdf> (Retrieved August 1, 2012).
Phan, H. P. (2008). Exploring epistemological beliefs and learning approaches in context: A sociocultural perspective. Electronic Journal of Research in
Educational Psychology, 6, 793–822. Retrieved August 1, 2012. Available from <http://www.investigacion-psicopedagogica.org/revista/new/english/
ContadorArticulo.php?264>.
Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Future challenges and directions for theory and research on personal epistemology. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal
Potter, J. (1996). Discourse analysis and constructionist approaches: Theoretical background. In J. T. E. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of qualitative research
methods for psychology and the social sciences (pp. 125–140). Leicester, UK: BPS Books.
Potter, J. (Ed.). (2007). Discourse and psychology (Vols. 1–3). London: Sage.
Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. London: Sage.
Richardson, J. T. E. (1999). The concepts and methods of phenomenographic research. Review of Educational Research, 69, 53–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/
00346543069001053.
Rodríguez, L., & Cano, F. (2006). The epistemological beliefs, learning approaches and study orchestrations of university students. Studies in Higher Education,
31, 617–636. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075070600923442.
Rodríguez, L., & Cano, F. (2007). The learning approaches and epistemological beliefs of university students: A cross-sectional and longitudinal study. Studies
in Higher Education, 32, 647–667. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075070701573807.
Ryan, M. P. (1984). Monitoring text comprehension: Individual differences in epistemological standards. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 248–258.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.76.2.248.
Säljö, R. (1979a). Learning about learning. Higher Education, 8, 443–451. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01680533.
Säljö, R. (1979b). Learning in the learner’s perspective: I. Some common-sense assumptions. Göteborg, Sweden: University of Göteborg, Institute of Education.
Report No. 76.
Säljö, R. (1982). Learning and understanding: A study of differences in constructing meaning from a text. Göteborg, Sweden: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
Göteborg Studies in Educational Sciences, No. 41.
Säljö, R. (1988). Learning in educational settings: Methods of inquiry. In P. Ramsden (Ed.), Improving learning: New perspectives (pp. 32–48). London: Kogan
Page.
Säljö, R. (1994). Minding action: Conceiving of the world versus participating in cultural practices. Nordisk Pedagogik, 14, 71–80 (Reprinted 1996 in G.
Dall’Alba & B. Hasselgren (Eds.), Reflections on phenomenography: Toward a methodology? (pp. 19–33). Göteborg, Sweden: Acta Universitatis
Gothoburgensis).
Säljö, R. (1997). Talk as data and practice. A critical look at phenomenographic inquiry and the appeal to experience. Higher Education Research and
Development, 16, 173–190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0729436970160205.
Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 498–504. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0022-0663.82.3.498.
Schommer, M. (1993a). Comparisons of beliefs about the nature of knowledge and learning among postsecondary students. Research in Higher Education, 34,
355–370. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00991849.
Schommer, M. (1993b). Epistemological development and academic performance among secondary students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 406–411.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.3.406.
Schommer, M., Calvert, C., Gariglietti, G., & Bajaj, A. (1997). The development of epistemological beliefs among secondary students: A longitudinal study.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 37–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.1.37.
Schommer, M., Crouse, A., & Rhodes, N. (1992). Epistemological beliefs and mathematical text comprehension: Believing it is simple does not make it so.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 435–443. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.435.
Schommer, M., & Walker, K. (1995). Are epistemological beliefs similar across domains? Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 424–432. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0022-0663.87.3.424.
Schommer, M., & Walker, K. (1997). Epistemological beliefs and valuing school: Considerations for college admissions and retention. Research in Higher
Education, 38, 173–186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1024929619223.
Schommer-Aikins, M. (2002). An evolving theoretical framework for an epistemological belief system. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal
Schommer-Aikins, M. (2004). Explaining the epistemological belief system: Introducing the embedded systemic model and coordinated research approach.
Educational Psychologist, 39, 19–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3901_3.
Schommer-Aikins, M., Duell, O. K., & Barker, S. (2003). Epistemological beliefs across domains using Biglan’s classification of academic disciplines. Research
in Higher Education, 44, 347–366. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1023081800014.
Schraw, G., Bendixen, L. D., & Dunkle, M. E. (2002). Development and validation of the Epistemic Belief Inventory (EBI). In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.),
Severiens, S., & ten Dam, G. (1998). Gender and learning: Comparing two theories. Higher Education, 35, 329–350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/
A:1003033003124.
Tynjälä, P. (1997). Developing education students’ conceptions of the learning process in different learning environments. Learning and Instruction, 7,
277–292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(96)00029-1.
Van Rossum, E. J., Deijkers, R., & Hamer, R. (1985). Students’ learning conceptions and their interpretation of significant educational concepts. Higher
Education, 14, 617–641. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00136501.
Van Rossum, E. J., & Hamer, R. (2010). The meaning of learning and knowing. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Van Rossum, E. J., & Schenk, S. M. (1984). The relationship between learning conception, study strategy and learning outcome. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 54, 73–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1984.tb00846.x.
Van Rossum, E., & Taylor, I. P. (1987, April). The relationship between conceptions of learning and good teaching: A scheme of cognitive development. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington DC
Vermunt, J. D. (1996). Metacognitive, cognitive and affective aspects of learning styles and strategies: A phenomenographic analysis. Higher Education, 31,
25–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00129106.
Vermunt, J. D., & Verloop, N. (1999). Congruence and friction between learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 9, 257–280. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0959-4752(98)00028-0.
White, R. W. (1970). Foreword. In W. G. Perry Jr. (Ed.), Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme (pp. v–vii). New York: Holt,
Rinehart, & Winston.
Widick, C., & Simpson, D. (1978). Developmental concepts in college instruction. In C. A. Parker (Ed.), Encouraging development in college students (pp. 27–59).
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Wise, J. C., Lee, S. H., Litzinger, T., Marra, R. M., & Palmer, B. (2004). A report on a four-year longitudinal study of intellectual development of engineering
undergraduates. Journal of Adult Development, 11, 103–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:JADE.0000024543.83578.59.
Wood, P., & Kardash, C. (2002). Critical elements in the design and analysis of studies of epistemology. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal
Woolgar, S. (1996). Psychology, qualitative methods and the ideas of science. In J. T. E. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of qualitative research methods for
psychology and the social sciences (pp. 11–34). Leicester, UK: BPS Books.
Zhang, L. F. (1995). The construction of a Chinese language Cognitive Development Inventory and its use in a cross-cultural study of the Perry scheme (Doctoral
dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. UMI No. 9536271.
Zhang, L. F. (1999). A comparison of U.S. and Chinese university students’ cognitive development: The cross-cultural applicability of Perry’s theory. Journal of
Psychology, 133, 425–439. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223989909599753.
Zhang, L. F. (2004). The Perry scheme: Across cultures, across approaches to the study of human psychology. Journal of Adult Development, 11, 123–138.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:JADE.0000024545.11904.81.
Zhang, L. F., & Hood, A. B. (1998). Cognitive development of students in China and the USA: Opposite directions? Psychological Reports, 82, 1251–1263. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2466/PR0.82.3.1251-1263.
Zhang, L. F., & Watkins, D. (2001). Cognitive development and student approaches to learning: An investigation of Perry’s theory with Chinese and U.S.
university students. Higher Education, 41, 239–261. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1004151226395.

Educational Research Review: John T.E. Richardson

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Educational Research Review: John T.E. Richardson

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Educational Research Review 9 (2013) 191–206

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Educational Research Review

Epistemological development in higher education

⇑ Tel.: +44 1908 858014; fax: +44 1908 654173.

2. Stage and non-stage theories

2.1. Non-stage theories

2.2. Perry’s scheme

Note: From Perry (1970, pp 9–10).

3. Women’s ways of knowing

Domains Absolute knowing Transitional knowing Independent knowing Contextual knowing

Note: From Baxter Magolda (1992, p. 30).

1. Learning as the increase of knowledge.

7. Epistemological development and conceptions of learning

8.1. Schommer’s system of epistemological beliefs

8.2. Zhang’s Cognitive Development Inventory

9. Conclusions and critique

You might also like