1. Using the LEP (Leadership Environment Preferences) Assessment to Validate Perry’s Theory of Intellectual and Ethical Development Laura Sensenig Gwendolyn Williams Michael Montgomery April 20, 2009

2. Nine Positions 1)Basic Duality 2)Dualism (Multiplicity Pre-Legitimate) 3)Early Multiplicity (Multiplicity Subordinate) 4)Late Multiplicity (a. Multiplicity Coordinate b. Relativism Subordinate) 5)Contextual Relativism 6)Commitment Foreseen 7)Initial Commitments 8)Orientation in Implications of Commitment 9)Developing Commitments (Perry, 1981 as cited in Rapaport, 1982)

3. Four Frames Dualism- (Moore: Position 2) Multiplicity- (Moore: Position 3) Relativism- (Moore: Position 4) Commitment in Relativism- (Moore: Position 5) (King, 2006)

4. (Thoma, 1993) Transitioning

5. Hypothesis / Predictions Freshmen : learning methodologies reflect more basic and co-dependent structures of cognitive thinking such as dualism and early multiplicity. (Positions 2-3) Seniors : learning preferences reflect more mature cognitive positions such as late multiplicity and/or relativism. (Positions 3-4)

6. An objective, recognition-task instrument developed by William S. Moore, Center for the Study of Intellectual Development (1987). Initially designed and validated based upon the qualitative research done on Perry ’ s intellectual and ethical development model (1981) According to the preliminary longitudinal studies (Moore, 1989), there is a predicted upward trend in cognitive performance from the freshmen year to the senior year. Addresses five domains which include course content, the roles of instructors and peers, classroom atmosphere and activities, and course evaluation. Learning Environment Preferences (LEP)

7. Methodology Survey Monkey: distributed via email. http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=r5z0BTzUd Ft_2fO7Yj_2bhOxuQ_3d_3d http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=r5z0BTzUd Ft_2fO7Yj_2bhOxuQ_3d_3d Five domains, 13 questions each. Results collected Friday, April 3 rd through Friday, April 10 th. Data sent to Dr. Moore @ CSID for analysis/scoring.

8. Students  CLASS: 8 Freshmen, 8 Seniors  GENDER: 7 Male, 9 Female  RACE: 7 White 3 Asian (Indian/S.Asian, Vietnamese) 2 Hispanic/Mexican-American 1 each: African-American, biracial, international (Malay), N/A  MAJOR: 4 HOD (two combined with Comm. Studies / English) 3 PolySci (one combined with Econ) 3 Psychology, each combined with Spanish/Geology/English 1 each: English, Bio, Chem, MCB, ChemEng, Pre-nursing

9. Results (Scored by William S. Moore, CSID)

10. Transitioning (Thoma, 1993) Senior Freshman

11. Results (Scored by William S. Moore, CSID)

12. Results (Scored by William S. Moore, CSID)

13. Results (Scored by William S. Moore, CSID)

14. Conclusions Freshmen: fell within 2nd/3rd position (Perry) Seniors: fell beyond the 3rd, toward the 4th position No one scored above 4th position Several students scored “0” on Position 4- related questions Frosh vs. Senior: removing outliers, “practically significant” difference -- therefore Perry’s theory is generalizable

15. Limitations SurveyMonkey, vs. “in person” administration? Also, length of test - 30 minutes? Fatigue? What if tested mid-year, rather than late spring? (seniors/stress) “Race/ethnicity” - typed into box, not pre-filled (e.g., “biracial”, Vietnamese, Mexican-Amerian)… Non-longitudinal.. Also, limited sample - size, and Vandy-only Complicated scoring/relation to questions Confusing questions? Open to (mis)interpretation? Only top three learning preferences considered-- not the questions themselves-- when scored LEP - quantifying a qualitative method (based off essay prompts)… can the info from the latter, be translated via the former?

16. Questions / Suggestions MID versus LEP: Would the former have been better (essay prompts, “leaning” to/from stages) Choice of major - does high/low consensus matter? What about gender (seniors, frosh)? Race/Ethnicity? Sample size… Vandy vs. large university? Commuter? LAC? Other institutions… Commuter/non-traditional students: would they score beyond Position 4? Set syllabus/course, to consciously promote & address cognitive ability/issues (Perry)

17. References Chickering, A., Reisser, L. (1993). Education and Identity, (Second Edition). San-Francisco, Jossey- Bass. Evans, N, J., Forney, D. S., Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student Development in College: Theory Research and Practice. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass. King, Patricia. (2006). “William Perry’s Theory of Intellectual and Ethical Development.” New Directions for Student Services Vol. 1978, Issue 4, pp. 35-51. Moore, William S. (1989). The Learning Environment Preferences: Exploring the Construct Validity of an Objective Measure of the Perry Scheme of Intellectual Development. Journal of College Student Development. v30 n6 pp. 504-514. Perry, William, G. (1999). Forms of Ethical and Intellectual Development in the College Years: A Scheme. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass. Perry, William, G. ( 2005). Different Worlds in the Same Classroom: Students’ Evolution in Their Vision of Knowledge and Their Expectations of Teachers in ASHE Reader on College Student Development Theory, eds, Wilson, M., Wolf-Wendel, L. Pearson Custom Publishing, pp. 473-481. Perry, William, G. Jr. (2005). Sharing in the Cost of Growth in ASHE Reader on College Student Development Theory, eds, Wilson, M., Wolf-Wendel, L. Pearson Custom Publishing, pp. 483-486. Rapaport, William. (1982). “Unsolvable Problems and Philosophical Progress.” American Philosophical Quarterly. Vol. 19, pp. 289-298. Thoma, George, A. (1993). “The Perry Framework and Tactics for Teaching Critical Thinking in Economics.” Journal of Economic Education Spring: 128-136.