1. Levels of Epistemological Understanding (Earliest Average Emergence) Realist (Pre-School to Early Elementary) Absolutist (Elementary to High School) –Knowledge represents facts that are either correct or incorrect. Critical thinking is used to determine the truth value of a statement. Multiplist (High School to College) –Knowledge represents opinions. Reality is generated by humans and not directly knowable. Critical thinking is irrelevant. Evaluativist (Late High School onward) –Knowledge can be evaluated. Assertions can be compared. Critical thinking is the vehicle that promotes sound understanding.

2. Kuhn, Cheney, Weinstock, (2000) in Cognitive Development Percentage of Respondents at Each Level for Aesthetic Judgments

3. Kuhn, Cheney, Weinstock, (2000) in Cognitive Development Percentage of Respondents at Each Level for Value Judgments

4. Kuhn, Cheney, Weinstock, (2000) in Cognitive Development Percentage of Respondents at Each Level for Social Science Judgments

5. Kuhn, Cheney, Weinstock, (2000) in Cognitive Development Percentage of Respondents at Each Level for Natural Science Judgments

6. Bloom (1956) "Taxonomy of Educational Objectives" Bloom’s Taxonomy of Cognitive Learning Objectives 1. Knowledge: Memorization or recall of specific facts. Examples--Defining a term or reproducing a diagram. 2. Comprehension: Interpretation, paraphrasing, and extrapolation. Examples--Giving an example of a concept or summarizing the main points of an argument. 3. Application: Application concepts and principles to new situations. Examples--Demonstrating the relevancy of an argument to a new situation or applying a theory to a practical problem. 4. Analysis: Differentiation and discrimination between two or more concepts or principles. Examples--Comparing or contrasting two opposing viewpoints. 5. Synthesis: Creation of a structure or pattern by blending elements and parts to form a new whole. Examples--Integrating the research literature on a topic in a novel way or proposing a novel research topic. 6. Evaluation: Judge value, logical consistency, or adequacy of an argument. Examples--Evaluating the adequacy of a conclusion or judging the validity of a research claim.