In their 1987 paper Wilkinson and Schwartz address the priority of chronological age vs academic aptitude as determinants of cognitive complexity. This critique observes that the authors misrepresent their major reference and do not follow the precedent they cite for their methods. They then dichotomize their sample of gifted students into dualists and relativists by arbitrarily labeling the students' scores on an inappropriate measure. Contrary to their major premise, Perry never mentions chronological age and even offers data supportive of these authors' claims for aptitude. However, his model links students' cognitive growth primarily to their experience of diversity among authorities and peers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CopesL.Perry Network Newsletter. Institute for the Study of Educational Mathematics, 10429 Barnes Way, St. Paul, Minnesota 55075. (Semiannual, 1977)
2.
NoonanJ. (1938) The monetary policies of Andrew Jackson. (Unpublished paper)
3.
PerryW. G.Jr. (1968) Patterns of development in thought and values of students in a liberal arts college: a validation of a scheme. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 624 315)
4.
PerryW. G.Jr. (1981) Cognitive and ethical growth: the making of meaning. In ChickeringA. W. (Ed.), The modern American college. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Pp. 72–115.
5.
RyanM. P. (1984a) Conceptions of prose coherence: individual differences in epistemological standards. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 248–258.
6.
RyanM. P. (1984b) Conceptions of prose coherence: individual differences in epistemological standards. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1226–1238.
7.
WilkinsonW. K.SchwartzN. H. (1987) The epistemological orientation of gifted adolescents: an empirical test of Perry's model. Psychological Reports, 61, 976–978.
