Assignment: stages of reflective judgment
Assignment: stages of reflective judgment
Assignment: Subsequent stages of reflective judgment
An abstract is required plus a conclusion reflecting the abstract!!
Write a paper in which you address the following:
Describe how a student who appears to be dismissing the value of an education might be encouraged to move out of a lower level and into subsequent stages of reflective judgment.
Integrate the possible selves and stages of reflective judgment theories in the text.
Discuss ethical and cultural strategies for promoting resilience, optimum development, and wellness in adults.
This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful
Reflective judgment is drawn from the theoretical work of many scholars. Listed below are scholars whose work informed the development of the Reflective Judgment Model, and how their work contributed to the model.
- John Dewey (1933, 1938): definition of reflective thinking; the observation that uncertainty is a characteristic of the search for knowledge
- Piaget (1960, 1970 , 1974): assumptions of stage-related development; the processes of assimilation and accommodation account for changes in the conceptual structures used to understand the world
- Flavell (1963, 1971, 1977): stage models generally assume that there are qualitatively different structures organized into logically coherent systems or stages; stages appear in an invariant sequence
- Perry (1968, 1981): sequential development in college students’ underlying assumptions about knowledge, truth, and values
- Broughton (1975, 1978): epistemological development after relativism; earliest stages of epistemological development are more characteristic of children than college students
- Fischer (1980; Lamborn & Fischer, 1988): cognitive skill theory model of the development of complex reasoning; an individual’s developmental range falls between optimal and functional levels
- Kegan (1982, 1994): evolution of the self; interpersonal relationships as a developmental continuum
The Reflective Judgment Model describes a dimension of cognitive development based on the work of these scholars.
Overview of the Reflective Judgment Model’s Three Developmental Periods
The conceptual framework for reflective judgment is that of a stage model characterized by seven distinct but developmentally related sets of assumptions about the process of knowing (view of knowledge) and how it is acquired (justification of beliefs). Each successive set of epistemological assumptions is characterized by a more complex and effective form of justification. The seven developmental stages of the Reflective Judgment Model may be broadly summarized into three levels: prereflective (Stages 1-3), quasi-reflective (Stages 4 and 5), and reflective (Stages 6 and 7) thinking.
Prereflective Reasoning (Stages 1-3): Belief that “knowledge is gained through the word of an authority figure or through firsthand observation, rather than, for example, through the evaluation of evidence. [People who hold these assumptions] believe that what they know is absolutely correct, and that they know with complete certainty. People who hold these assumptions treat all problems as though they were well-structured” (King & Kitchener, 2002, p. 39).
Quasi-Reflective Reasoning (Stages 4 and 5): Recognition “that knowledge-or more accurately, knowledge claims-contain elements of uncertainty, which [people who hold these assumptions] attribute to missing information or to methods of obtaining the evidence. Although they use evidence, they do not understand how evidence entails a conclusion (especially in light of the acknowledged uncertainty), and thus tend to view judgments as highly idiosyncratic” (King and Kitchener, 2002, p. 40).
Reflective Reasoning (Stages 6 and 7): People who hold these assumptions accept “that knowledge claims cannot be made with certainty, but [they] are not immobilized by it; rather, [they] make judgments that are “most reasonable” and about which they are “relatively certain,” based on their evaluation of available data. They believe they must actively construct their decisions, and that knowledge claims must be evaluated in relationship to the context in which they were generated to determine their validity. They also readily admit their willingness to reevaluate the adequacy of their judgments as new data or new methodologies become available” (King & Kitchener, 2002, p. 40).