Theories and Concepts of Learning: Perry’s Theory and Digesting it

Hopefully, you have watched my video on what we needed to learn from Module 2 in the Assessment course. You will hear me say..”I do not think that William Perry …” (at this point the video fades and ends). After reading everything I had time to read on Perry’s Scheme of Intellectual Development, I do not think his method of obtaining open ended questions from a population of students was a universal sample. I believe his limited sample has not given his Schema theory reliability and validity; but I do not have time to test his theory or study it in depth. Given these facts, it is difficult to set his Schema Theory aside and say it is not a true testable quantifiable theory, made up of testable hypothesese; but simply a lower level measurement of untestable data called categorization or there is no significant corrrelation between his Independent Variable(s) and the dependent variable(s). One rather reasonable explanation of this scheme was presented in a paper by William J. Rapaport and might help you understand my thinking on the matter. But let us get back to the task at hand.

Like all intellectual theorists from Harvard, we find Perry’s scheme is far deeper than most scholars can comprehend or explain away. But, we understand that he put forth a category of knowledge that explained and/or tried to explain how learners process knowledge. His journey starts by saying we begin to learn by looking at the world as a place of black and white or right and wrong. We do not question authority and tend to see the big “Truth” of what we’re being told in grade school; we are thinking in a very dualistic way. Even when we are in high school, we have only started to break away from this dualist pattern of thinking, while we begin to see the world has many areas of grey, where right and wrong or good and bad just doesn’t fit. We as learners begin to question and rebel against authority to find our own way in our world, often facing new challenges the authorities have never had to deal with.

Many of us, will stay with this comfortable way of reasoning and making sense out of the world we’re faced with because it is comfortable and doesn’ take much effort on our part or we are not strong enough to break free from dualistic thought patterns. For some learners, going to an institution of higher learning is a necessary part of maturing and becoming an adult and/or a scholar. As students or learners we are developing and moving through Perry’s positions, even though we may not recognize what we’re doing at the time. As we become more educated and socialized by our studies within the confines of the University, I believe as Perry does or did, that we move through the positions and eventually become the subject matter experts we strive to be. Let us hope we are learning to apply ourselves to problem resolution with the greater good of society in mind, based on our mores and ethics.

I was thirty three when I first began my studies in our local University. I was a high school drop out. I was, however, not processing information in a dualistic manner. I had learned not to trust authority to know all the answers, because they did not. Furthermore, I found myself trying to find new ways to solve my problems and wanted to develop the skills to move myself from poverty to a higher level of pay. During the years I worked on my Associates degree, I had no idea what I wanted to do. I just followed my interests. That lead me into the field of Sociology and Criminology, with an interest in international issues and political science.

Eventually, I began a doctoral program of study. It was at this point in my learning journey, I realized how little we really know about anything in our world. I began the task of creating my own theory to explain the phenomena I was witnessing in my own life and the world around me. I was still a novice and behaving as a novice; I was quickly transforming into an expert in my field, with a higher degree of insight and thoughtful behavior when it came to problem solving. I now had a deeper understanding of human behavior and ways in which to understand and explain it; but I was not an expert at doing so, nor was I thinking and behaving in the position of “commitment/constructed knowledge.” I could spent hours explaining those statements. It is enough to say, at that point I was not yet a professor.

I could see structure and patterns of behavior and understand the deeper facets of a problem and wanted to put them into a theory. I thought I could find the solution to the problems confronting me and the world, in the areas of law and order; the global problem of terrorism; and transnational criminal behavior, by developing my theory. However, I found myself at odds with mainstream thinking at the time. My solution and developing theory was just left of center at a time when liberal and political left thinking was not fashionable or acceptable.

As I looked at the work of my professors and fellow students, I could categorize them as routine thinkers. They could not break outside the box; because to do so would move them into a position of adaptive thinking. Thinking outside the box and trying new ways of identifying and dealing with a problem can be risky. This is especially true (small “t”) when your body of academic work is to the left of center and a threat to more conservative interests. You may not get the funds and grants that you need to fund your project or write you thesis. Every professor knows that routine thinking or following the rules of a discipline can lead to future funds. Every scholar and associate professor knows that thinking outside the box may be the only way to identify and solve a problem; but it does not lead to the grants and money the department needs to attract great minds to the institution and further institutional goals, if it is not mainstream thinking. After all institutions of higher learning are money making corporations. If you want to learn new skills and new ways of dealing with problems…you pay to learn, you follow the rules and you do not “make tsunami waves.”

Now on the stage appears Situated Cognition and the culture of learning as described by John Seely Brown and his associates. The author writes that most contemporary schools of thoughs about learning (cognition) believe there is a division between “thinking” and consequently” doing” which is unconnected from the situation or environment or institution in which it is taking place. Brown believes you cannot separate the “know what” and the “know how” from the culture or environment the learners finds themselves in. Or as I stated in the paragraph above, we are a product of the learning institution or community of participation (CoP) we are taking part in: such as our workplace; school; college; or organizations and associations we belong to. Therefore if you take this into consideration, we are a product of the learning cultures and environments (CoPs) we find ourselves in through-out our lives.

My learning culture and environment at this time is Bellevue College. I am controlled by the information my instructor wants me to learn and because of the fact that I am answering her “Big Questions.” However, because this is an eLearning course on line, I am granted permission to think outside the box to answer the “Big Questions” of this course on Assessment. In fact my PLE allows me to learn  and research other ideas on the subject of eLearning and Assessment. However if I just had a PLE, I may or may not reach the same conclusions and obtain and refine the same skills I may have at the end of this course. My thinking is being directed by the modules, while my conclusions will continue to be my own.

I like the structure of a college course vs the challenge of finding my own structure within my learning environment. However, I want to explore my own thinking about thinking. I want my conclusions to be based on what I am learning in this class, based on my interests, as well as what is being presented to me in my PLE. In the end, I want the freedom of finding my own solutions to ill-structured problems, whether or not they agree with mainstream thinking or the college I am learning in. Today’s eLearning courses and PLEs give me the freedom to think and solve problems apart from the pressures of institutions and institutional goals. In fact they encourage me to do so.

I am posting a video that I would rate a bit removed from mainstream thinking. While I do not know if there is a conspiracy out there, run by the Illuminati or if the Illuminati even exists, my intellectual curiosity wants me to ponder the questions raised in the video; because there is a message in this video and several ill-structured problems. I believe most scholars would not veiw this video. I, however, believe it has a message that should be pondered and the problems brought to our attention do need resolution. Are you willing to consider it?

[