Intervention
programs outlined within the literature suggest that some techniques
may be used to increase the use of reflective judgment.
Unfortunately, the extent to which these programs influence the
development of reflective judgment has not been studied. The current
study attempted to observe the experimental psychology program’s
influence on reflective judgment, as it hold many of the same
objectives as those outlined in literature.
A significant
difference was found between the junior and senior reflective
judgment scores obtained in this study. This lends some support for
the use of intervention programs to increase student’s use of
reflective judgments skills. However, a cautionary note must be
made. Despite the significant difference found between the junior
and senior groups, the scores did not indicate the senior class’
utilization of a higher stage of reflective judgment. Members of the
senior class’ reflective judgment scores reflected agreement with
some statements that reflected reflective judgment assumptions of
stage five (i.e. knowledge is contextual) six (i.e. knowledge is
constructed by comparing evidence and opinion on different sides of
an issue or across contexts) (Kitchener & King, 1981). While the
juniors’ reflective judgment scores indicated an agreement with a
different rang of statements reflecting stage four (i.e. knowledge
is uncertain because of situational variables) and five (Kitchener &
King, 1990). This reflects a range of reflective judgment use. As
indicated in the skill theory of learning, individuals possess a
range of ability in all skills, including cognitive ability. These
abilities may be shaped through the process of modeling and
experimentation with knowledge (Fischer, 1980). The observed scores
indicate that senior and junior participants are reliant on
different conceptions of knowledge. However, seniors agreed with
more statements that reflected more advanced conceptions of
knowledge, as juniors agreed with more statements that implied less
advanced conceptions of knowledge. Hence, the senior participants
may be in the process of formulating conceptions of knowledge that
go beyond stage five. Where as, the junior participants’ scores may
be a reflection of their new experimentation with the stage five
assumptions of knowledge.
The population studied
scored a full stage higher than the stage four found in other
studies using undergraduate students (Kitchener & King, 1990;
Kitchener & King 1981). This may indicate that the population used
in this study was more homogeneous than used in previous studies.
For example, participants were of from the New England region,
upper-middle middle class, Catholic liberal arts college, and
psychology majors. In addition, the participants in this study are
required, by the institution, to take a specific core course
curriculum. This includes a two year sequence in humanities, a two
semester minimum of a foreign language, two semesters of a science,
Theories on the Philosophy of Nature and Man, Ethics, a philosophy
elective, Biblical Theology, and two additional theologies elective.
This is in conjunction with the twelve psychology courses required
to earn a Bachelor’s of Arts in Psychology degree. Taking this into
consideration, the students studied were subjected to a stringent
curriculum and the product of attrition from both the institution
and psychology program. Thus, the experimental program offered by
the psychology department may not be the only factor regarding why
the psychology students performed well on the reflective judgment
tasks. However, it may be the source of minimal improvements in
reflective judgment scores, as most students, by their junior year,
have completed most of their core class requirements. Still, the
previous research studied students from a state university
population (Kitchener & King, 1990). It may be inferred that
students from the institution studied come from a different
demographic than those of a state university. Also, the previous
research was published ten years prior to this current study.
Indicating, two different cohorts are being compared. Thus, the
comparison may not be valid.
One additional
explanation for the different mean reflective judgment scores found
between the previously studied populations and the current
population may lie within the instruments used. The dependent
measure was specifically developed for this study. Previous studies
used the RJI and RCI as their dependent measures. The RJI and RCI
were constructed by the same researchers, Kitchener, King and Wood.
Thus, it may be reasoned that they are measuring the same concept.
The dependent measure used for this study was also modeled after a
section of the RCI. However, it is not clear that the dependent
measure used in this study and those used in previous studies are
comparable. Further research is needed to establish concurrent
validity for this measure.
An attempt to show
internal consistency within the dependent measure was made. As
previously stated, the reflective judgment scores from sections two
and three were positively correlated. Yet, it is assumed that the
reflective judgment scores obtained in sect-2 did not reach
between group significance because the participants were unable to
discriminate between the reflective judgment stages implied in each
statement. For example, participants expressed agreement with two
contradictory statements. This is evident because the average number
of statements agreed with by juniors and seniors were seven out of
eleven. Once the average stage level agreed with was calculated, the
agreement with higher stages were canceled out by the agreement with
the lower stages, resulting in an over-all low reflective judgment
score. This may have occurred due to perceived demand effects on the
part of the participants or it may indicate that participants use a
range of reflective judgments techniques depending on the
information being considered. Further research is needed to
determine why participants responded in this fashion and the
validity of its use in determining reflective judgment ability.
Similar subject biases
were found in the completion of sect-1. A majority of
respondents from both the junior and senior groups answered the
four-point Likert Scale as if it was a forced answer question. This
was done by either using the scales extremities (very similar or
very dissimilar) or using the middle ranges of the scale only in
responding to the questions. Either method used to respond to the
statements, indicated agreement with blatantly contrasting
statements. Thus, even though this section of the survey was modeled
after the RCI, it was a poor indicator of reflective judgment.
However, it can be
argued that the completion of sect-1, did give the
participants an opportunity to ponder the ill-structured problem of
who should deliver humanitarian aid to the Middle East and created
demand characteristics within the participants as to the
experimenter ‘s response expectance. As a result, creating perceived
demand characteristics within the sample population (Bransford &
Johnson, 1972). Also, the senior participants are members of the
same class as the researcher. Thus, they may have set an emotional
tone that motivated the participants to completing the survey in as
they perceived the researcher expected. Also, all participants have
been educated in the psychological field.. This may have made the
participants more sensitive to the nature of the study and given the
ability to respond as they perceived exterminator expectancy
(Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1975). It is important to note that the senior
class may have been more susceptible to this phenomenon than the
junior class, as the senior class is concluding their experimental
methods curriculum. Still, sensitivity to the instrument is a factor
in all studies, but it may have been amplified due the peer
relationship that existed between the participants and experimenter.
.This may have contributed to the significant between group
significance found.
In addition to looking
at how information was processed through the reflective judgment
model, this study also attempted in sect-4 to identify were
the participants acquired their information. As previously reported
a significant difference was found between the junior and senior’s
use of the internet in obtaining information. The root of this
difference is difficult to determine. It is suspected that the
junior participants may have had more encouraged more in high school
to use the internet as a research tool.
However, more
interesting are the implications created by the lack of difference
between the two groups. According to the data collected the juniors
and seniors used the same methods of obtaining information. However,
the reflective judgments scores did show a significant difference
between the two groups. This indicates that they possess the same
information but are processing it in two different manors.
In conjunction with
the findings presented in this study, one must consider their life
implications in the educational field. It seems despite the
significant between group differences found in this study, there are
alternative explanations to why an increase of reflective judgment
was found. These explanations and concerns are not specific to this
study alone. They may be brought up in all studies pertaining to
reflective judgment. For example the RJI, may also be creating
response sets in participants. The questions in the interview are
direct and make the experimenter’s interests self-evident. In the
interview participants are asked, "Can you ever know your position
is right?" and "How is it possible that people have such different
opinions on the same topic?" (Wood, 2001). One may infer, that the
proposition of these questions indicates the researcher’s interest
in thinking skills. That information alone may influence the
participant’s responses.
Also, the research
reviewed in the literature was conducted in a college stetting.
Unfortunately, the institution’s statistics regarding attrition were
not provided or considered in the studies’ discussion. This makes it
difficult to assess if reflective judgment increases due to the
college experience, or if the characteristics of the student body
become more homogenous within each class. These are important
concerns regarding the formation of reflective judgment. Yet, this
issue is not addressed within the literature, making it questionable
whether the reflective judgment model is a valid model of cognitive
development.
