Philosophical Development Stages and Why it Matters

Revisiting Not Just Teaching Skill but Values

LaVon Shearer-Ihrig

English 687: Composition Theory & Practice

Professor Cason

Particial Bizzell on William Perry and Liberal Education

                                         Not Just Teaching Skill but Values

Patricia Bizzell article addresses William Perry developmental model of a college student, how a student will socially evolve and how this will affect their writing process. William Perry developed his theory through a series of interviews with Harvard undergraduate men, in which Perry concludes that college students will pass through three stages of development within their four years of college.  These stages are “Dualism,” “Relativism,” and “Commitment in Relativism.”  What is interesting, although they are termed as developmental stages/or world views, they are, however more specifically, a “young person’s attitude toward schoolwork” (Bizzell 299). [It is also worthy to note here that these developmental stages were defined only through interviews conducted with young men, and no women. Since it is generally accepted that young women’s emotional growth is advanced or different then young men’s it is worth asking if this developmental model would apply to both genders.] 

Placing Perry’s developmental theory within some of the composition theory conversations which we have been discussing over these past few weeks was a little difficult; however, it is Bizzell’s response in how writing instructors can apply (albeit limitedly, as she admits)  to their students work, in which there are some interesting connections. Furthermore, if we consider that Bizzell’s interpretation of Perry’s social development theory, there appears to be a parallel connection if we return to Berlin’s request for composition instructors to consider the fact that“[i]n teaching writing, we are not simply offering training in a useful technical skill that is meant as simple complement to the more important studies of other areas” but instead “[w]e are teaching a way of experiencing the world” (Berlin 248). 

Berlin was calling instructors to be aware of how their philosophical beliefs will influence how a teacher instructs, based upon that personal philosophical pedagogy which then can have a negative or positive influence upon their students.  Since each pedagogical theory has its own belief in how language, truth, perception work which influences how a student arrives at understanding, then instructors are to some great extent influencing student’s philosophical development which Berlin points and Perry’s research demonstrates.  

An interesting side note, Bizzell states that Perry’s stages are distinctly different then the well-known cognitive developmental stages that every child evolves through which was developed by Piaget. The first distinction is that it is a process that is “undertaken” by students versus the unconscious cognitive development of a child’s.  Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, the stages that students “undertake” is a philosophical development which is a conscious choice taken by the student. 

To better understand Perry’s developmental model, I would just like to briefly outline his three stages.  Dualism, as explained by Bizzell, is “characterized by the belief” that “everything in the world” fits into two categories---“right or wrong” (300).  It is a very black and white approach to their (students) world view. The Dualist student relies on the “Authority” (Instructors/Professors) to instruct the “Absolutes” (rules, terms, beliefs, ect.) to them. To understand what the world means, the student will memorize these “Absolutes” and then apply them to the proper circumstances.  To the Dualist student, the entire education process is narrowed down to “the process of finding right answers,” and following the rules. They are dependent upon the teacher to provide those answers; there is no real amount or evidence of critical thinking within this developmental stage. (399). Nancy Sommers also addresses this stage of development in her article “Revision Strategies”, in which this student during their process of revision is unable to revise because they can only abide by these black and white rules: “The students decide to stop revising when they decide that they have not violated any of the rules…At best the students see their writing altogether passively through the eyes of former teachers…and are bound to the rules they have been taught” (Sommers 49). If instructors keep in mind the philosophical developmental stage of this student, instructors can better understand the inability of students to revision and reflect and begin to guide them to the next philosophical change which Perry labels “Relativism”.

The stage of “Relativism” is where “the Absolutes either are unknowable or no longer exist” and since they no longer exist, the Authority “can no longer empower one to categorize the world as right or wrong” (300).  Therefore the Relativist must create their own plan for survival by exploring “problematic questions” and “prefers disciplines in which they abound;” furthermore, the students prefer to work with teachers who relate “personally with the student” instead of being the sole “Authority” (300).  This student has finally reached the ability to begin to think about the world in a critical manner and the ability to perceive the world as neither black nor white but gray—we can find this student in their mid-level classes and college years.

Finally the final stage is the world view of “Commitment in Relativism.”  Like the perspective of the Relativist, the “Commitment Relativist” world is still without Absolutes and Authority. However, the world still has order and the decisions of the Commitment Relativist “need not be based on solitary self-interest” (300). The interests are now based on social and cultural values: “[O]ne can make confident judgments of what is better or worse relative to them, while still realizing that other people who have sufficiently examined their values may employ different but   valid standards of judgment” (300).  The Commitment Relativist works with authority not as an unequal but as a “mentor or experienced fellow worker” (300).  A student at this stage would be close to graduating, and secure in their particular area of study; furthermore this student is able to recognize that although they have their own value system, it is possible to regard and respect what others may value even though it may not parallel with their personal value system. 

The bigger question to Perry’s research is why is this important to composition instructors or for a liberal college curriculum?  Bizzel explains that Perry’s objective is to persuade us to see that this growth in a student’s perspective of the world is important to instruction. A student who cannot be “self-reflective” is “anti-intellectual.”  As we have seen in Hayes and Flower’s “Cognitive Process Model” that Reviewing is an essential part of cognitive thinking and part of the process of writing.  When a student reviews, they are reflecting on the feedback of the audience, considering different world perspectives, creating meaning through that process and assigning value to what is understood.  This particular stage of “Commitment in Relativism” echoes the type of philosophical pedagogical theory, “New Rhetoric,” that Berlin, in his article “Contemporary Composition,”   encourages composition instructors to embrace. He insists this pedagogical theory develops the type of cognitive thinking process which liberal education embraces, because it creates an awareness of the self to others and brings about that critical reflective practice which is necessary for students as they enter the adult world.

 Just as Berlin cautions future instructors to be mindful of where their philosophical pedagogical practices lie in order to not confuse their students, Bizzel says that Perry’s research  is also useful because we do expose and influence students to accept and use different value systems: “Perry’s analysis describes the changes in student thinking that result from their socialization into the academic community” (305) (my own emphasis); therefore this should make us realize “that as we bring our students through the process of liberal education, we are not simply teaching them to think or to grow up…Rather we are teaching them to think a certain way” (305). Bizzell claims that Perry’s research greatest value lies in how he helps us see that “our assumptions about the ends of education are strongly culture bound…To a high degree we persuade our students to our values through our use of language, in lectures, textbooks, informal discussions, and writing assignments” (307).  Bizzel, like Berlin, states that Perry’s developmental stages are useful for instructors because it allows us to see where our students are within the writing process and their connection to others within the academic and social world. 

Overall, the value in this article is similar to Berlins—we (composition instructors) need to accept that we do have a moral responsibility to our student and accept we are teaching a value system. If we do not, we stand the chance of confusing our students and perhaps disrupt the ability of students to allow the philosophical developmental process of our students and confuse their ability to write, reflect and effectively connect to others in society.

. 

                                                            Works Cited

Bizzell, Patricia. ""William Perry and Liberal Education"" Cross-talk in Comp Theory: A

           Reader. Third ed. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1997. 299-308.

          Print.

 Berlin, James A. "Contemporary Composition: The Major Pedagogoical Theories." College

            English (1982): 765-777. Print

We are Teaching Values not Just Skills

         

Picture Credit: Robert Alan De Beaugrand
http://beaugrande.com/new_intro_to_study.htm

   In the article “Contemporary Composition” James A. Berlin’s argues that while the “composing process is always and everywhere the same because writer, reality, reader and language are always and everywhere the same” it is imperative that composition teachers need to examine how they teach writing because the students cognitive understanding of their world determines their writing (Berlin 765).  He challenges the idea that writing is simply about grammar and punctuation, and instead stresses what is more important is teachers need to be aware that they are “teaching a way of experiencing the world, a way of ordering and making sense of it” (776); furthermore, he states “The test of one’s competence as a composition instructor...resides in being able to recognize and justify the version of the process being taught, complete with all of its significance for the student” (777).  Berlin believes that teachers are not just offering a technical skill but instructors are teaching a way of understanding.  He forms this conviction on the differences in how rhetorical theories have different approaches to how people arrive at truth, reality, perception and knowledge by using language.

When different composition methods are based off of leading theories of rhetoric, these differences within the leading theories are not simply surface variations but have profound differences in how the writer perceives, understands reality and truth, and interprets them through writing—the theories are reflective on how knowledge is gained and how the writer communicates this knowledge: “Rhetorical theories differ from each other in the way writer, reality, audience, and language are conceived” (766).  Therefore, he states that the focus of pedagogical analysis should actually be centered on the relationship between the instructor and the student: “[I]t is not difficult to see the writer-reality-audience-language relationship as underlying, at a deeper structural level, each of these three stages…this deeper structure determines the shape that instruction in prewriting” (765).  By understanding where the philosophical underpinnings of each rhetorical theory, an instructor can then be clear in whether their goals for students, syllabus and instruction line up for student success.  More often than not, Berlin argues that because instructors do not understand the philosophical basis of rhetoric they frustrate their students with confusing and often conflicting messages throughout instruction.

Berlin uses four of the most leading rhetorical theories used in composition instruction: Neo-Aristotelian Rhetoric or Classical Rhetoric, Positivists or Current Traditionalists, Neo- (Berlin)Platonists or Expressionists, and the New Rhetoricians or Epistemic Rhetoric.   Berlin analyses these dominant theories by explaining the philosophy of each theory and how they affect the practices in the instruction of writing: how truth or knowledge is gained, language and it role in the perception of reality, and finally the role of the audience. 

In Classical Rhetoric knowledge is gained through critical thinking, and that truth is existed before language. The idea of truth before language is also argued by Positivist and Platonic theory as well.   Classical Rhetoric is not concerned as much with the audience, but with the structure of rhetoric.   Positivists, on the other hand, believe that truth is achieved through the human experience and by the scientific method. They also use metaphoric language to express the unexplainable truth and the author’s responsibility to the audience is enlightenment. Meanwhile, Neo-Platonists argue that truth already resides within the individual, and errors are found through the audience responding to the author’s work.  Finally, New Rhetoric believes that “[t]ruth is dynamic and dialectical” (774), furthermore without language truth cannot be determined and the role of the audience is important because it is equal in the relationship between writer, language, reality and the audience.  Berlin writes that he is convinced “that the pedagogical approach of the New Rhetoricians is the most intelligent and most practical alternative available” because, “it best serves the interests of our students” (766). He concludes his argument from that from the “point of pedagogy, New Rhetoric treats in depth all the offices of classical rhetoric that apply to written language-invention, arrangement, and style” (776).  

Moreover, he says it does so because it falls back on a dialogue and the relationship between the writer and peer review (or audience), in which the writer then returns to reflect upon their writings and re-writes and either finds truth and gains knowledge. It is easy to agree with Berlin that it is important for instructors to create mindful instruction which challenges and encourages different ways of thinking so that students can move beyond the basic functions of writing and engage in their world in a critical manner; furthermore, the importance in how the teacher clearly articulates and justifies the particular pedagogical theory being used in that process to the students is also easily understood.  However, the article does not clearly explain how an instructor is to take this understanding and apply it in practice.

Discussion Questions:

How would understanding of each theoretical schoolings work or translate into practice for composition instructors?  If understanding what theoretical practice you adhere to, how do you align your instruction, syllabus, and student goals to reflect this?

How does one recognize what schooling of theoretical schooling their practice or instruction may adhere too?

                                   

Works Cited

Berlin, James A. "Contemporary Composition: The Major Pedagogoical Theories." College English (1982): 765-777.

A very brief summary of the article written by Douglas Hesse,

 "Writing and Learning to Write:  A Modest Bit of History and Theory for Writing Students"


             Hesse writes that there is not a "correct formula for writing" period.  Therefore, many different strategies exist in which an instructor can use to teach students. He also stresses that writing is a process that takes time and practice to master. Therefore,  Hesse's main point in the article is "the real proof and practice come only when one engages specific strategies for, say, analyzing an audience, and only when one applies those strategies to specific writing situations."  This idea of being mindful of what strategy an instructor is using strongly echoes what Berlin was stressing in his above article...let your pedagogical theory be reflected throughout the entire process of instruction for the benefit and success of the student.



Discussion Question:
If we first need to justify our pedagogical theory used in practice and furthermore be mindful of the strategy used for specific writing situation, how then would an instructor construct their rubric? Would you use one?