Indicadores de Control de Compras

We are in the presence of critical thinking when a student comes to recognize the essential contestability of all knowledge claims. When that state of mind has been reached, the student understands not just that what she encounters in books and

elsewhere, including the views of her lecturers, is contestable, but that her own ideas are contestable, too.

The above understanding implies that students do not initially recognize the contestability of

knowledge, but that developing this awareness is a goal of education. As individuals start to recognize the contestability of knowledge, the need for critical thinking, for finding processes or criteria for judging such claims, becomes important. Models of cognitive/intellectual development attempt to describe intellectual development from initial acceptance of knowledge claims as fixed, external truths, to questioning them in increasingly complex ways. These models have some overlap and influence on

8

Barnett later clarifies that what he is describing here is not equivalent to Perry's position of "relativism"; however, the quote is relevant here as an introduction to developmental models as such, because it describes CT as a dynamic process as the student becomes more aware of the need for it

CT research (Moon, 2005). Perry's (1981) model especially, as used in higher education, has influenced other developmental models such as King and Kitchener's (1994) and Baxter Magolda's (1992) models (cited in Love & Guthrie, 1999e). These models emerged out of interviews conducted to gain insight into how individuals construct knowledge (Baxter Magolda, 2004).

Here I highlight the most important aspects as relevant to understanding CT. Perry's seminal work was originally developed as an extension of Piaget's developmental model into the college years, driven by the "need to comprehend how students came to understand the modern world through multiple frames of reference" in a society that was increasingly relativistic and diverse (Love and Guthrie 1999e p. 6). In general, all of the models based on Perry's, name different positions that students go through as they mature intellectually: from a lower level "dualistic" belief that knowledge is certain and lies with authorities, into an intermediate level of recognizing that knowledge is uncertain, a set of positions Perry calls "multiplicity", where "anything goes", and reach higher levels of recognizing how to evaluate information and justify decisions according to context, what is called "contextual

relativism" (Love and Guthrie 1999e). King and Kitchener (undated) call these broad three positions stages of pre-reflective, quasi-reflective, and reflective thinking. The most advanced positions of Perry's model deal with commitment to universal principles, which the individual can later continue to revise in context. They move from simplistic to more complex approaches to knowledge, going through

transitions between stages, with possibilities of regressing before moving forward (Perry, 1981). In King and Kitchener's model, a person has a "developmental range", where they usually operate at a certain level, and cannot go beyond the highest (called "optimal") level they have achieved, but operate within a range of levels (cited in Love & Guthrie, 1999c). A supporting environment is needed to encourage a person to operate at their "optimal level" (Love & Guthrie, 1999c).

Two important critiques of Perry's model echo debates in the field of CT. First, the model was criticized for focusing the study on male students from privileged backgrounds, therefore providing a biased view of intellectual development. CT has also been criticized for possible sex, culture and class biases. Second, some have claimed that Perry's latter stages of development constitute a moral, rather than a cognitive, maturity. This might be because the study of logic in philosophy is usually separate from the study of ethics (Durant, 1926/2010), but Perry (1981) is aware of this, as he calls it a model of cognitive and ethical development. In the coming sections, I will show that traditional conceptions of CT have

had a cognitive focus, while some alternative approaches to CT have an ideological, social justice focus (Johnson & Morris, 2010), in some ways mirroring the ethical orientation of Perry's advanced stages. Table 2.1. Perry's Scheme of Cognitive and Ethical Development (edited from Perry 1981 p. 79-94)

Position/Transition Description (in Perry's words p. 79)

Position 1: Basic Duality

Authorities know, and if we work hard, read every word, learn Right Answers, all will be well

Transition 1 But what about those Others I hear about? And different opinions? And

Uncertainties? Some of our own Authorities disagree with each other or don't see mto know, and some give us problems instead of Answers.

Position 2: Multiplicity prelegitimate

True Authorities must be Right, the others are frauds. We remain Right. Others must be different and Wrong. Good Authorities give us problems so we can learn to find the Right Answer by our own independent thought.

Transition 2 But even Good Authorities admit they don't know all the answers yet!

Position 3: Multiplicity Legitimate but Subordinate

Then some uncertainties and different opinions are real and legitimate temporarily even for Authorities. They're working on them to get to the Truth

Transition But there are so many things they don't know the Answers to! And they won't for a long time

Position 4a:

Multiplicity (diversity and uncertainty)

Where authorities don't know the Right Answers, everyone has a right to his own opinions; no one is wrong!

Transition (and/or) But some of my friends ask me to support my opinions with facts and reasons

Transition Then what right have They to grade us? About what?

Position 4b: Relativism subordinate

In certain courses Authorities are not asking the Right Answer; They want us to think about things in a certain way, supporting opinion with data. That's what they grade us on

Transition But this "way" seems to work in most courses, and even outside them Position 5:

(Contextual) relativism

Then all thinking must be like this, even for Them. Everything is relative, but not equally valid. You have to understand how each context works. Theories are not Truth but metaphors to interpret data with. You have to think about your thinking. Transition But if everything is relative, am I relative too? How can I know I'm making the Right

Choice? Position 6:

Commitment foreseen

I see I'm going to have to make my own decisions in an uncertain world with no one to tell me I'm Right.

Transition I'm lost if I don't. When I decide on my career (or marriage or values) everything will straighten out.

Position 7: Evolving commitments

Well, I've made my first Commitment!

Transition Why didn't that settle everything?

Position 8: Evolving commitments

I've made several commitments. I've got to balance them - how many, how deep? How certain, how tentative?

Transition Things are getting contradictory, I can't make logical sense of life's dilemmas. Position 9: Evolving

commitments

This is how life will be. I must be wholehearted while tentative, fight for my values yet respect others, believe my deepest values right yet be ready to learn. I see that I shall be retracting this whole journey over and over - but, I hope, more wisely.

Perry's model has been used as the basis of other developmental models, often conducted with a broader, more inclusive base of students. Some of these models (e.g. King & Kitchener, 1981; Baxter Magolda, 1992, cited in Love & Guthrie, 1999a, described in section 2.3.2.2 here) have found that college students do not necessarily reach the highest levels of cognitive development, but the developmental models at least allow us to recognize some degree of improvement in their thinking. Having briefly described developmental models which have influenced (traditional) understanding of CT, I now turn to literature that directly tackles CT.