⚠ Switch to EXCALIDRAW VIEW in the MORE OPTIONS menu of this document. ⚠

Text Elements

Developmental and Dimensional models

Social and virtue approaches

Early work investigated Intellectual and moral development together

Perry (1970). ‘Intellectual development’ of Harvard (male) college students

Subsequent work by Belenky et al., on women’s ways of knowing.

A set of approaches draw on contemporary epistemology or/and social accounts of cognition, highlighting that epistemic cognition (and epistemology) are social including our aims and practices in making claims regarding knowledge. Some also incorporate virtue epistemology.

Three components: (1) Aims and values, i.e., what we want to ‘know’ about and why; (2) Ideals, i.e., our epistemic criteria to evaluate claims against those aims; (3) Reliable processes, i.e., our approaches to achieving our epistemic aims

Highlights that (1) when we say we ‘know’ something, we’re doing something in the world; (2) that how these claims are judged involves social epistemic norms; and (3) that ‘knowledge’ claims occur in social interaction and are co-constructed. This leads to orienting to the nature of norms, their construction, and enactment, and learners engagement with this through, e.g., dialogue. Draws on Sandoval,  Hammer and Elby’s, and Reznitskaya’s work (among others).

Developmental: Stage models in which people progress through phases in sequence

Dimensional: Multiple independent beliefs with naive and sophisticated positions.

3 stages (the first two broadly parallel Perry), (1) Absolutists; (2) Multiplists; (3) Evaluativists, the world is not directly knowable, but neverthleess reason can help us evaluate justifiability of claims.

Stage based model with 9 positions over 4 stages: (1) Dualists (knowledge as objective, from authority); (2) Multiplists (there are no objective standards, knowledge is subjective); (3) Relativists (knowledge claims are contingent based on reasoning; (4) Commitment, regards how values/identities shape that reasoning

(1) Simple knowledge; (2) certain knowledge; (3) source of knowledge; and then two about learning (4) ability to learn, (5) quick learning. In this model e.g., ‘absolutists’ are described in relation to the dimensions (i.e., knowledge as simple and certain with an external source), with evaluativists holding the opposite poles.

Synthesis of prior models, characterised beliefs regarding the nature of knowledge (1) simple knowledge; (2) certain knowledge; and the nature of knowing (3) source of knowledge; (4) justification of knowledge

Sequence of (1) Silence, broadly corresponding to Perry’s dualists; (2) Received, in which knowledge is from other’s voices; (3) Subjective, in which knowledge is seen as subjective; (4) Procedural, in which knowledge is knowledge is connected to personal experience and feeling (or not); (5) Constructed, in which knowledge is developed through integrating reason with sense of self

Chinn et al.,

Knight and Littleton (2017)

Kuhn et al.’s (2000) model of epistemological understanding

Perry’s (1970) model of intellectual development

Schommer-Aikins’s (2004) epistemological belief system

Hofer and Pintrich’s (1997) epistemological theories

Belenky et al (1986)

This seminal work feeds into two overarching approaches, developmental, and Dimensional