Laird R. O. Edman
42
knowledge. Knowing and learning are seen as interpersonal and discussion-related;
uncertainty is to be resolved by personal judgment rather than debate or logic.
At the upper levels of epistemological development the gender differences begin to
disappear, although there is some difference between interindividual vs. individualist
approaches to knowing. Interindividual approaches (the feminine pattern) tend to focus
on connection to others and understanding why others think the way they do before
evaluating their thinking. Individual approaches (the masculine pattern) tend to exhibit
independent and contextual knowing by evaluating the quality of someone’s thinking
prior to trying to understanding why they think the way they do.
These gender-related differences are important in thinking about ways to help shepherd
students to more sophisticated ways of thinking. Using approaches that call for exclusively
masculine-related or feminine-related patterns of thinking may handicap some students.
If we want to help students to expand their thinking repertoire, we should look to strate-
gies that support both masculine and feminine patterns of knowing while pushing stu-
dents to think a step higher than their typical thinking stage (see also Clinchy, 2002).
Independent Belief System Theories
One criticism of developmental stage theories in general is that they tend to oversimplify
cognitive development and miss the more subtle nuances found in individual differences.
Marlene Schommer (Schommer, 1994; Schommer-Aikens, 2004) has examined personal
epistemology not as a unitary belief system that develops synchronously in a uniform pat-
tern for all people, but as a set of relatively independent beliefs that can develop at differ-
ent rates and in different patterns. Her theory includes a focus on beliefs about both the
nature of knowledge and the nature of learning (Schommer-Aikens & Easter, 2006). This
approach is currently generating more interest and research than the older unidimensional
development theories.
While there are several variations on the nature of independent beliefs (Jehng,
Johnson, & Anderson, 1993; Schraw, Bendixen, & Dunkle, 2002; Wood & Kardash,
2002), most theories posit five somewhat autonomous beliefs about knowledge and
learning, each of which flows on a continuum from naïve to more sophisticated beliefs
(Hofer & Pintrich, 2002). Beliefs about the nature of knowledge include:
1 Beliefs about the structure of knowledge: These range from believing that knowledge
consists of isolated bits and pieces (which are to be memorized independently), to
a more sophisticated understanding that knowledge can be integrated into complex
and interrelated concepts. Perhaps this can be illustrated by contrasting the student
who thinks learning statistics means memorizing formulae with the student who
knows statistics is about understanding logical relationships and the nature of prob-
ability and research methodology.
2 Beliefs about the stability of knowledge: These range from believing that knowledge
is unchanging and eternal (and thus what is true is true, and what is false is false),
to a more sophisticated understanding that knowledge is tentative and can change.