King Kitcheners Reflective Judgment Model Presented by Ashley

King & Kitchener’s Reflective Judgment Model Presented by: Ashley Asel Buddy Housman Andy Merrill Nicole Staskal-Brecht October 22, 2007

Agenda • • • Learning Objectives Write, Pair, & Share Research Outcomes and Factors Utility Criticisms Application activity Discussion/Questions Evaluations

Learning Objectives As a result of our presentation, students will be able to: • Identify how it has been tested • Identify the major outcomes and factors contributing to those outcomes • Identify criticisms of the RJM • Apply the RJM to student learning in their assistantships or future work • Synthesize the usefulness of the RJM for student affairs work through strategy development

Think, Pair, & Share • Take a few minutes to write about a time in your own work when you have wanted to or tried to further a student’s reflective judgment. ▫ What made you think the student was in an early stage of the reflective judgment model? ▫ How did or would you try to create an environment in which the student could move to the next stage? • Pair & Share

Research on the Reflective Judgment Model • Instruments ▫ Reflective Judgment Interview (RJI) Standard probe questions: What do you think about these statements? How did you come to hold that point of view? On what do you base that point of view? Can you ever know for sure that your position on this issue is correct? How or why not? When two people differ about matters such as this, is it the case that one opinion is right and one is wrong? How is it possible that people have such different points of view about this subject? How is it that experts in the field disagree about this subject? ▫ Reasoning About Current Issues Test (RCI)

Research on the Reflective Judgment Model (cont’d) • How reliable is the Reflective Judgment Interview? ▫ King & Kitchener (1994) report reliabilities from 32 studies that used the RJI: Inter-rater reliabilities range from. 29 to. 97 Internal consistency reliabilities range from. 50 to. 99

Research on the Reflective Judgment Model (cont’d) • Longitudinal design vs. cross-sectional data • Three foci in the research ▫ Development of reflective judgment over time ▫ Differences in reflective judgment by age/educational level ▫ Differences among academic disciplines

Research on the Reflective Judgment Model (cont’d) • More than 30 empirical studies have studied the RJM by focusing on: ▫ ▫ ▫ ▫ High school students Traditional-aged college students Nontraditional-aged college students Graduate students Nonstudent adults Gender differences Cross-cultural differences

Research on the Reflective Judgment Model (cont’d) • General findings ▫ Slow but steady pattern of development in reflective judgment ▫ Engagement in educational activities improves individuals’ reasoning about ill-structured problems ▫ Development follows the stages of the RJM ▫ Presence in an educational setting facilitates development

Outcomes and Contributing Factors • • “Cultivating good thinking is one of the most rewarding and important outcomes of teaching” (King, 2000, pg. 15) Developmental progression from childhood to adulthood Slow and steady development over time Subsequent stages Educational activities tend to improve RJ

Outcomes and Contributing Factors (cont’d) • • Development of reflective thinking Process of acquiring knowledge Evaluating knowledge Able to articulate and justify their beliefs about ill-structured problems • Development evolves holistically

Seven Assumptions to Consider Before Applying This Theory • Individuals actively interpret and attempt to make sense of what they experience • How individuals interpret events is affected by their epistemic assumptions • People’s ways of making meaning develop over time • Individuals function within a “developmental range” of stages • Interaction with environment strongly affects an individual’s development • Development is stimulated when an individual’s experiences do not match expectations • Development in reflective thinking occurs within the context of the individual

Application to student affairs • • • Our Challenge Where are Students Developmentally? Challenge and Support Give Feedback Real-Life Issues

Criticisms “I love a good cross!”

The Ultimate Cross Examination • Scopes “Monkey” Trial • College study: The Belief in God and Immortality

Reflective Judgment • The “Teflon”® Theory

Mootness • Internal Consistency • Sequentiality • Intra-Individual Differences

Specific Criticisms • • • RJI>RCI Ill-structured problems Stages Subject matter Sample Ernie

Activity • Strategies for Promoting Reflective Thinking ▫ Groups of four

Discussion (time permitting) • What are some examples of “ill-structured” issues that have or might arise in your assistantship/work?

Questions

Evaluations Please complete your evaluation. Thank you!