Complex stage theory

[Guest guest]

Since a number of the respondents on this list are

professional educators, I would like to suggest that some of us would

benefit by becoming aware (or more aware as the case may be) of

" complex stage theory, " also referred to as reflective reasoning or

reflective judgement theory. I first came across this set of theories

seven or eight years ago and have found them very useful as both an

educator and as a human being. This is a set of theories within

cognitive development and educational sciences which describe seven

levels or stages of epistemological growth and complexity in

reasoning. These seven levels describe a person's ability to reason

through increasingly complex problems with progressively higher

degrees of uncertainty. As a respondent to this list, what I sometimes

observe in our various discussions are disparaties in levels of

reasoning. While this theory, like any theory, has its flaws and

limitations, it does provide a useful model of the way people think.

It also helps explain why people reasoning at different levels of

complexity often cannot understand each other and disagree. Viz. the

Middle East vs. the West.

 

To some extent, progression through these seven stages is a matter of

chronological age. For instance, people under a certain age seldom if

ever evidence seventh level reasoning. However, even with age, there

is no guarantee that any given person will develop the highest level

of complex reasoning. In other words, development along this scale may

be arrested at any stage.

 

For those of us who have never encountered this useful set of

educational theories before (developed most notably by Piaget;

Kohlberg; Perry; Broughton; Harvey, Hunt & Schroeder; Loevigner; and

Reigeluth)in:

 

Stage 1, knowledge is assumed to exist absolutely and concretely. It

is not understood as an abstraction. Beliefs need no justification

since there is assumed to be an absolute correspondence between that

which is believed to be true and that which is true, and there is no

room for alternate beliefs. This stage is characterized by " I know

what I have seen " belief.

 

Stage 2, knowledge is still assumed to be absolutely certain. Beliefs

are unexamined and unjustified or justified by belief in an external

authority. Most issues are assumed to have a right answer. " If it's on

the news, it has to be true. " " If it's in the Bible, it has to be

true. " " If it's in the Koran, it has to be true. "

 

Stage 3, knowledge is assumed to be either absolutely certain or only

temporarily uncertain. In areas of temporary uncertainty, only

personal beliefs can be known until absolute knowledge is obtained. In

areas of absolute certainty, knowledge is obtained from authorities.

" When there is convincing proof, then we will know the truth. Till

then, it's just an opinion. "

 

Stage 4, knowledge is inherently uncertain and claims of knowledge are

individually idiosyncratic. Situational variables (e.g., incorrect

reporting of data, lost data, disparities in access to information)

suggests that knowing always involves an element of ambiguity. " I'd be

more inclined to believe evolution if they had proof. It's just like

the pyramids. I don't think we'll ever know. Who are you going to ask?

No one alive today was there. "

 

Stage 5, knowledge is contextual and subjective since it is always

filtered through an individual person's perception and criteria for

judgement. Only interpretations of evidence, events, or issues can be

known. " People think differently, and so they attack the probelm

differently. Other theories could be as true as mine, but based on

different evidence. "

 

Stage 6, knowledge is constructed into indivdual conclusions about

ill-structured problems on the basis of information from a variety of

sources. Beliefs are justified by comparing evidence and opinion from

a variety of perspectives on an issue or across different contexts,

and solutions to problems are evaluated by such criteria as the weight

of evidence, the utility of a solution, or the pragmatic need for

action. " It's very difficult to be sure in this life. There are

degrees of certainty. You come to a point where you are sure enough to

take a personal stance on an issue, but nothing more than that. "

 

Stage 7, knowledge is the outcome of a process of reasonable inquiry

in which solutions to ill-structured problems are constructed. The

adequacy of those solutions is evaluated in terms of what is most

reasonable or probable according to the current evidence, and it is

reevaluated when relevant new evidence, perspectives, or tools of

inquiry become available. Beliefs are justified probabilistically on

the basis of a variety of interpretive considerations (e.g., the

weight of evidence, the explanatory value of interpretations, the risk

of erroneous conclusions, the consequences of alternative judgements,

andf the interrelationships of these factors). " One can judge an

argument by how well thought out the positions are, what kinds of

reasoning and evidence are used to support it, and how consistent the

way one argues on this topic is compared to other topics. "

 

These descriptions of the seven stages of the development of complex

reasoning are based on King & Kitchner's Developing Reflective

Judgement, Jossey-Bass, Inc. 1994. In American colleges today, this

set of theories is pragmatically applied in classes commonly labeled

" Critical Thinking " which seek to develop more and more complex

reasoning skills.

 

According to the famous American philosopher and educator John Dewey,

reflective judgement is the end goal of good thinking. Patricia M.

King, another leader in complex stage theory and educational practices

based on these theories, says: " Teaching students to think clearly and

complexly, to present their arguments coherently and persuasively, and

to weigh competing claims is a complex and difficult process. Learning

to think reflectively... involves some fundamental changes in

students' basic assumptions about knowledge itself and the process of

learning.. "

 

I hope other respondents to this list find some of the above as useful

as a teacher and as a communicator as I have.

 

Bob

 

, WMorris116@A... wrote:

> Bob - I appreciate your ambivalent discourse. However, I think that

> functionality is going to win in my court because of the litmus test

of

> clinical use. Remaining close to what the Chinese say is important

for

> historical context and deeper insight - I share your ambivalence on

this.

>

> Will

>

>

> > That being said, functionally, I think

> > you are correct. I think we are talking about tropism for

particular

> > viscera and bowels, not channels per se. However, this is not what

the

> > Chinese say, and I think it is important to stay as close to what

the

> > Chinese say as possible.

[Guest guest]

Bob,

Thanks for posting this. Great stuff.

 

 

On Thursday, April 25, 2002, at 01:07 PM, pemachophel2001 wrote:

 

> Since a number of the respondents on this list are

> professional educators, I would like to suggest that some of us would

> benefit by becoming aware (or more aware as the case may be) of

> " complex stage theory, " also referred to as reflective reasoning or

> reflective judgement theory. I first came across this set of theories

> seven or eight years ago and have found them very useful as both an

> educator and as a human being.

[Guest guest]

Bob,

 

are , " pemachophel2001 "

<pemachophel2001> wrote:

> Since a number of the respondents on this list are

> professional educators, I would like to suggest that some of us

would

> benefit by becoming aware (or more aware as the case may be) of

> " complex stage theory, " also referred to as reflective reasoning or

> reflective judgement theory. I first came across this set of

theories

> seven or eight years ago and have found them very useful as both an

> educator and as a human being. This is a set of theories within

> cognitive development and educational sciences which describe seven

> levels or stages of epistemological growth and complexity in

> reasoning. These seven levels describe a person's ability to reason

> through increasingly complex problems with progressively higher

> degrees of uncertainty. As a respondent to this list, what I

sometimes

> observe in our various discussions are disparaties in levels of

> reasoning. [...]

 

I find this post fascinating, particularly in

light of our earlier discussion about the role

of philosophy in the development of clinical

understanding and skill. It seems a possibly

productive paradox to explore that on the one

hand you argue vehemently against the importance

of studying the philosophical epistemologies

that underlie traditional Chinese medical

theories and on the other you advance a set

of complex stage theories to provide a better

basis for communication between the members

of this list.

 

If you and I can benefit from a clearer

understanding of the ways in which we

deal with knowledge, uncertainties, and

the search for understanding, does it

not stand to reason...to the very same

reason in fact...that a doctor and a

patient can and should experience the

same benefit from a shared understanding

of the ways in which clinical complexities

present and, hopefully, reveal themselves

during the course of any medical intervention?

 

It seems to me that the only argument

against the study of the philosphical

material comes down a matter of time,

i.e., that there just isn't enough

time. But the time will pass regardless

of how it's spent, and time that is

well spent...for instance the time I

spent reading your post...can actually

help make future time spent more effective.

 

And it seems to me that what we want is

to lenghten the time spent in study and

practice rather than shorten it.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

Ken,

 

I'm sorry, but my impression is that you and I really don't seem to

communicate very well. Your categorization of my previous postings is

not at all accurate from my point of view. However, to be honest and

frank, I really don't have any interest or, more importantly, the time

to go through this line by line with you.

 

Bob

 

, " dragon90405 " <yulong@m...> wrote:

> Bob,

>

> are , " pemachophel2001 "

> <pemachophel2001> wrote:

> > Since a number of the respondents on this list are

> > professional educators, I would like to suggest that some of us

> would

> > benefit by becoming aware (or more aware as the case may be) of

> > " complex stage theory, " also referred to as reflective reasoning

or

> > reflective judgement theory. I first came across this set of

> theories

> > seven or eight years ago and have found them very useful as both

an

> > educator and as a human being. This is a set of theories within

> > cognitive development and educational sciences which describe

seven

> > levels or stages of epistemological growth and complexity in

> > reasoning. These seven levels describe a person's ability to

reason

> > through increasingly complex problems with progressively higher

> > degrees of uncertainty. As a respondent to this list, what I

> sometimes

> > observe in our various discussions are disparaties in levels of

> > reasoning. [...]

>

> I find this post fascinating, particularly in

> light of our earlier discussion about the role

> of philosophy in the development of clinical

> understanding and skill. It seems a possibly

> productive paradox to explore that on the one

> hand you argue vehemently against the importance

> of studying the philosophical epistemologies

> that underlie traditional Chinese medical

> theories and on the other you advance a set

> of complex stage theories to provide a better

> basis for communication between the members

> of this list.

>

> If you and I can benefit from a clearer

> understanding of the ways in which we

> deal with knowledge, uncertainties, and

> the search for understanding, does it

> not stand to reason...to the very same

> reason in fact...that a doctor and a

> patient can and should experience the

> same benefit from a shared understanding

> of the ways in which clinical complexities

> present and, hopefully, reveal themselves

> during the course of any medical intervention?

>

> It seems to me that the only argument

> against the study of the philosphical

> material comes down a matter of time,

> i.e., that there just isn't enough

> time. But the time will pass regardless

> of how it's spent, and time that is

> well spent...for instance the time I

> spent reading your post...can actually

> help make future time spent more effective.

>

> And it seems to me that what we want is

> to lenghten the time spent in study and

> practice rather than shorten it.

>

> Ken

[Guest guest]

Bob,

 

> I'm sorry, but my impression is that you and I really don't seem to

> communicate very well. Your categorization of my previous postings

is

> not at all accurate from my point of view. However, to be honest

and

> frank, I really don't have any interest or, more importantly, the

time

> to go through this line by line with you.

 

Understood. I'm not sure I agree that

we don't communicate well. I think we

have a disagreement. I believe I understood

what you've posted earlier, and I likewise

believe that you've understood what I've

posted. In other words, we've communicated

rather successfully. Perhaps I have

misstated some earlier point of yours,

but again, in my mind, the key thing

about such dialog is that it continue

not that it end. I highly suspect that

neither of us has delved to the depths

of the matter, but perhaps our discussion

has served to provoke the interest of

others who can take things further.

 

I only mention this because I believe

that our field will benefit from an increased

level of debate about, well, everything.

As you pointed out not long ago, a high

degree of skepticism is warranted when

dealing with the subject, from almost

any point of view. I certainly value

your skepticism about things that I

say.

 

That said, I have no problem with you

declining to debate the matter further.

It's a conflict of ideas that I welcome.

 

Ken