Presentation on Perry's Scheme of Intellectual and Ethical Development for my Student Development Theory course at Stony Brook University.

1. PERRY‟S SCHEME OF
INTELLECTUAL AND ETHICAL
DEVELOPMENT

2. The History of Perry‟s Scheme
 In 1953 Perry was a staff member of the Bureau of Study
Counsel at Harvard University:
 “In our daily counseling with students whose presenting concerns
centered on their academic work, we have been impressed by the
variety of the ways the students responded to the relativism which
permeates the intellectual and social atmosphere of pluralistic
university” (Perry, 1970, p. 4).
 The increase in college diversity reflected pluralism’s
increased permeation into society, particularly in college
students:
 “The increased mobility of the population at large, together with
the new mass media, make the impact of pluralism part of
experience in the society as a whole” (6).

3. The History cont.
 College students’ development include their response to
these societal shifts (pluralism), and the student can
either react positively or negatively to the societal
expectation:
 “Whether he responds productively rather than destructively may
be up to him in the end, but society may nourish the prospect of a
productive outcome through an understanding of the learning and
the courage the development entails” (Perry, 1970, p. 6)
 Considering these realities, Perry sought to learn about
the experiences of these students and their development:
 “It was in light of these considerations regarding present-day
liberal education and personal development that we set out to
learn about the experience of students other than those who
came to us for counsel” (6).

4. The Methodology of Perry‟s Research
 Narrowed down an initial outreach to 313 Freshman
from the 1954-1955 academic year. Wanted to
investigate development of young adults in college akin
to Piaget’s childhood stages.
 Perry Administered his A Checklist of Educational Views
(CLEV) in the Fall and Spring semesters:
 Identified 31 students to participate in interviews about their
college experience.
 Identified students who represented extreme dualistic thinkers,
extreme contingent thinkers, some in between the two, and others
who had drastic changes to their scores between semesters.

5. The Methodology cont.
 Perry was able to conduct 98 recorded interviews
with 17 existing as complete four year-records.
 Interviews asked students to comment on their experiences
each year (what they felt was significant not prompted).
 Interviews revealed a common sequence of challenges.
 Perry conducts a second study in which he:
 Obtains larger sample of students (resulting in 366
interviews and 67 complete four-year reports).
 Asks questions more directed at identifying a developmental
scheme.
 Allows the scheme to be tested for validity.

6. Perry‟s Findings
 There are some consistencies across the interviews:
 The content varied but the “underlying structures of
meaning making…and the sequence of development
were equivalent” (Perry‟s Intellectual Scheme, 1996, p.
6).
 Differences between answers were not simply
personality differences but rather difference in
developmental position (6).

7. Perry‟s Findings cont.
 Students perceive experiences:
 According to what they can readily make meaning of
 According to what they already know/accept as truth
 Students process experiences by either:
 Conforming an experience to fit their expectations
 Modifying their expectations to accommodate the
experience.
(Perry, 1970, p. 43-44)

8. Perry‟s Scheme Explained
http://youtu.be/sk0-ZXCmlB4

9. Perry‟s “Model”
 Dualism
 Answers can only be right and wrong and are usually obtained
by authority figures that are readily accepted as true.
 Multiplicity
 Acknowledgement of other perspectives and an increased
reliance on one‟s own experience – “all opinions are seen as
having comparable claims to correctness” (Pascarella & Terenzini,
2005, p. 35)
 Relativism
 Understand that knowledge occurs in context, and “students
recognize that not all positions are equally valid” (35).
 Commitments in Relativism
 Challenge and test knowledge (accepted truth) actively resulting
in their own determinations that exist in a pluralistic world – “The
individual makes commitment to ideas, values, behaviors, and
other people” (35).

10. Dualism
 Position 1: Basic Duality
 Students conceptions of knowledge, truth,
and morality result between “in-group vs.
out-group” (Perry, 1970, p.59).
 Student appears naïve/innocent and will
exercise simple obedience.
 Position 2: Multiplicity Pre-Legitimate Is that your final answer?
 Rebels against multiplicity “in defense of
growth rather than defense against it” (75).
 Students are aware of different
perspectives but they are also aware that
they have not grown enough to be receptive
to this diversity – they rebel but at the seem
time feel “frozen” (75). Freshmen college students
“are functioning intellectually
in the transition from Perry
stages 2 and 3” (Pascarella &
Terenzini, 2005, p. 163).

11. Multiplicity
 Position 3: Multiplicity Subordinate
 Students recognize that Authority is no longer
perceived as absolute.
 “uncertainty and complexity are no longer
considered mere exercises or impediments
devised by Authority but seen as realities in their
own right” (Perry, 1970, p. 89).
Do you see the Rabbit or
the Duck? Both maybe?
 Position 4: Multiplicity Correlate
 Students begin to understand the ambiguity in
Authority knowledge and begin to form ideas of
their own without fear of being regarded as
“wrong.”
 Student “demands that Authority justify itself by
reasons, and most fatally, by evidence. Unwittingly
Senior college students “are
he may then be caught in the necessity to do the functioning intellectually
same” (99). between stages 3 and 4”
(Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005,
p. 163).

12. Relativism
 Position 5: Relativism Correlate, Competing, or
Diffuse
 Students begin to see “all knowledge as contextual
and relativistic” (Perry, 1970, p. 109).
 Students utilize analytical thinking skills and critique
not only the ideas of others but there own. They
begin to see themselves as less an absorber of
knowledge, but as an analyzer. What do you see on each side of the
structure? Different abstractions on
the same cityscape?
 Position 6: Commitment Foreseen
 Student begins to consider acting as “agent and
chooser to aspects of his life in which he invests his
energies, his care and his identity” (135).
 Students may have difficulty with this stage as “the
discovery of relativism in ideas and values can
engender resistance to choosing among presumably
equal alternatives. Development may be delayed at
this stage” (Pascarella and Terenzini, 2005, p. 35).

13. Commitments to Relativism
 Position 7: Initial Commitment
 Students commit to deciding who they are
and who they will be.
 Position 8: Orientation in Implications
of Commitment
 Students determine how they will fulfill their
determinations in Position 7.
Pulled self apart, analyzed,
and reconstituted.
 Position 9: Developing
Commitments
 Student has “developed an experience of
„who he is‟ in his Commitments both in their
content and in his style of living them” (Perry,
1970, p154).

14. Barriers to transition
While developing, students may encounter barriers that hinder
progress into the next position:
 Temporizing
 Movement is postponed – static, “frozen” state.
 Escape
 Abandonment of responsibility due to feeling alienated.
 Tends to manifest after reaching Position 4.
 Retreat
 Temporary regression back dualism

15. Applications of Perry‟s Scheme
 Perry‟s Scheme is inclusive and can be
applied to inform a range of student
affair practices; from direct instruction
assessment to policy/initiative formation.
 Perry‟s Scheme is inclusive by nature and
can be applied to multiple students
regardless of whether or not they are in
different stages of development.
 Those who study Perry‟s Scheme of
Intellectual and Ethical Development can
self assess their own development and
identify ways to challenge themselves into
further stages of development. (Perry, 1970, p. 14)

16. Limitations of Perry‟s Scheme
 The overwhelming majority of the students
interviewed were males (only two were
female).
 While certainly applicable, to a degree, with
modern day colleges and universities, the
research was conducted in the post WWII era
(several generations of college students prior).
 The Scheme Intertwines intellectual and moral
constructs and assumes that the intellectual
precedes the moral.

17. Perry‟s Scheme in Practice
 Southern Illinois University Carbondale
 Professor Ann Gribbin utilized Perry‟s Scheme to assess the
developmental level of her Foundational Design Course
students.
“William Perry‟s scheme is useful to help explain the
cognitive development process of many college
students. His recommendations to support students at
their current level of development and challenge them
to higher positions can be applied to the pedagogy
used in beginning design courses. Instructors can
structure courses to support students in dualist positions
at the beginning of the semester and progressively
add challenges that will move students to learn to
evaluate their solutions in contextual relativism and to
acknowledge personal agency for their solutions”
(Gribbin, 2003, 7).

18. Gribbin‟s Four Strategies
 Strategy 1: “plan the semester as a progression
through the positions of Perry‟s scheme” (Gribbin,
2003, p.5).
 Early lessons focus on instructions that have students
arriving at the same answer
 Move students gradually into assignments that are less
defined and compel them to investigate and
experiment.
 Final semester assignments would then require students
to interpret and plan.

19. Gribbin‟s Strategies cont.
 Strategy 2: “be conscious of students‟ level of
development when presenting information and
explaining principles” (6).
 Ask students question that are appropriate for their
development level – a dualist may be fine with “right”
or “wrong,” but a multiplicity student in that same class
will find this frustrating.
 Try asking questions that will push the dualist student
toward thinking in the multiplicity stage without leaving
them in the dark; have them reflect.

20. Gribbin‟s Strategies cont.
 Strategy 3: “gear assessment of students‟ work to
their level of development” (6).
 Make assignments very objective early on in the
semester to help students build confidence in knowing
that they “doing it right” and how to “fix” what they
are “doing wrong.”
 With the clear firm foundation, the assignments can
have less specific criteria because students will have
tools to evaluate themselves.

21. Gribbin‟s Strategies cont.
 Strategy 4: “individualize work” (6).
 Utilize different strategies for different students. Have
tactics not only for engaging the dualist students but
also challenge the multiplicity and relativism students as
well (help them reach their personal best).

22. Conclusion
Perry‟s Scheme of Intellectual and Ethical Development remains an
effective tool for not only for comprehending young adult
development during the college years, but for instigating better
student affairs practices including faculty pedagogy:
“Student affairs staff use student development theory in
their everyday decision-making process. Questioning what
students will gain from a particular program or asking if a
certain service meets the students' needs should be a
common occurrence for staff in areas like residence life,

23. References
Gribbin, Ann. (2003). “Design and Critical Thinking: Applying Perry’s Theory of Intellectual
Development to Foundational Design Instruction.”Unstaked territory : frontiers of beginning design :
proceedings of the 19th National Coference on the Beginning Design Student, Oklahoma State
University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, April 3-5, 2003. Stillwater, OK: Oklahoma State University, College
of Engineering Architecture and Technology.
Pascarella, E; Terenzini, P. (2005). How college affects students : a third decade of research. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Perry, William G. (1970). Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College years. New
York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston.
Perry's Intellectual Scheme. (1999). New Directions for Student Services, (88), 5.
Weaver, Laurie A. (1995). “Faculty Use of Perry’s Intellectual Development Model.” retrieved from:
http://digitool.library.colostate.edu///exlibris/dtl/d3_1/apache_media/L2V4bGlicmlzL2R0bC9kM18xL2
FwYWNoZV9tZWRpYS8zMTE2MA==.pdf