NUTSHELL NOTES

The Perry Model, Stage 1 - Dualism Encounters the Serpent

In NN v7, n 8, we introduced dualistic thinking as a level of thinking characterized by certainty that there are right and wrong answers to every problem. Dualistic thinkers see good teachers as those who project authority as sources of knowledge, and who clearly convey facts. Dualism, if nothing else, is comfortable. Perry notes that challenges to such thinking are at least as old as the Book of Genesis:

"It was, after all, the serpent who pointed out that the Absolute (the truth about good and evil) was distinct from the Deity and might therefore be known independently without His mediation. The Fall consisted of man's taking upon himself, at the serpent's suggestion, the knowledge of values and therefore the potential of judgement."  (Perry, 1999, p. 67)

In any process where lifelong and often cherished beliefs are challenged, apprehension, discomfort, and even resistance should be expected. Taking on the responsibility for thinking and judging can force one out of "Eden"?whereas one could once relax in the comfort of certainty and the security of authority, one must now learn how to resolve contextual issues that have competing (and seemingly reasonable) solutions. Rather than finding a single one of these solutions anointed as "right" by authority, one will instead find several sources of authority in conflict or even in hot confrontation. The role of the university in this process is indeed as "serpent." (Small wonder some see us educators as the devil incarnate!)

Perry's work shows that advances to contextual thought from dualistic thought and toward truly questioning  authority (rather than  simply dismissing it) are not achieved in an instant of enlightenment.  Rather, the transition occurs through a series of experiences and reflections. The transition is captured in a student's statement:

"When I went to my first lecture, what the man said was just like God's word, you know. I believed everything he said, because he's a professor, and he's a Harvard professor.... And -ah, ah people said, 'Well so what?'...And I began to ah, realize."

In practical terms, what do Perry's results provide for us as teachers?  The wisdom to act on  "what is" rather than on "what is supposed to be" can be one benefit. The reality is that most of our students enter college without the intellectual development that we have achieved. We often wish: "If only we had better students!"—"better" meaning "capable of reasoning at our levels." Perry's results reveal this to be an unrealistic wish, so being upset or critical by believing "students today can't think well" is just a ticket to our own burnout and dissatisfaction. Undergraduate students are not yet ready for the same kinds of intellectual grappling that we find stimulating from our professional colleagues. When students fail in their ability to deal with ambiguity or open-ended problems, it is rarely because they are being obstinate or because they are unintelligent. Rather, it is probably because they are not so far along in their transition toward the level of thinking at which they, given effective educational opportunities, will surely, but later, arrive. Perry's work reveals this transition won't be made in a single moment or a class, so there is no use in flagellating ourselves or our students because they don't yet reason like us.

Just as a successful writer must know her or his audience, a professor must know his or her students. In this context, the principle (NN v1, n8) "Good practice communicates high expectations" works only when the "high expectations"  match the real students we have, and not the ideal students we wish we had. Perry's work is invaluable in helping us to set realistic learning objectives that help  students to advance in intellectual growth. We should not expect our individual effort to bring about the full transition. However, our collective efforts should do so. We expend much effort on evaluating professors, but little on assessing collective outcomes in intellectual development at the curricular and university level. Why is that?

---------
THANKS!

This year's annual Teaching Effectiveness workshop on Challenges of Teaching and Learning " Ethical Guideposts and Practical Resolutions was a great success. Thanks to faculty colleagues  Mitch Handelsman, Candice Shelby, and  Laura Cuetara and  to the attendants who made this such a  splendid and beneficial day.  A special thanks go to the student participants of these, especially the theatre students who worked for some time on the scenarios faculty furnished.
---------
BOOT CAMP for PROFS- 2000 is Coming!
Boot Camp for Profs® will be held this year in Leadville, Colorado, July 22- 29. Contact Ed Nuhfer (556-4915) enuhfer@carbon.cudenver.edu if you want to attend. More details will follow.