Review Essay

Transforming Educational Practice:
Addressing Underlying Epistemological Assumptions

Sheryl Lyn Welte

The purpose, content, and meaning of the undergraduate curriculum has been vigorously debated throughout the history of American higher education. From the antebellum debates over the classical curriculum at Yale and William and Mary to the biting critiques recently leveled against "relativism" in higher education (Bloom, 1987), the undergraduate curriculum has served as an historic theater for defining, producing, and legitimating knowledge. . . .

The recent introduction--and, in numerous cases, incorporation--of emerging modes of inquiry, perspectives, and pedagogical techniques into the undergraduate curriculum suggests that the purpose, content, and meaning of the undergraduate curriculum is in the midst of major reexamination and change. (Haworth & Conrad, 1990, p. 3)

The undergraduate curriculum at Miami University is no exception. Marcia B. Baxter Magolda, in her Knowing and Reasoning in College: Gender-Related [End Page 199] Patterns in Students' Intellectual Development, provides readers with an in-depth and personal (re)examination of this liberal arts institution:

Originally, I had planned to offer a specific plan for the redesign of educational practice. . . . After hearing students' stories, I no longer view the central task to be simply redesigning educational practice. Rather, transforming educational practice seems to be required. In my mind, transformation not only includes alterations in educational practice but also addresses the underlying assumptions on which practice is based. Historically, educational practice has been dominated by positivist assumptions; the result has been an objective pursuit of knowledge that is then generalized to other times and contexts . . . In recent years, many educators have argued for social constructivism, which posits that multiple realities arise from negotiations among learners about the meaning of experience. (pp. xiv-xv)

These different underlying assumptions, held by both educators and students alike, are at the heart of Baxter Magolda's study. According to Haworth and Conrad (1990), "the recent clashes between stakeholders voicing traditional [positivist] and emerging [social constructivist] knowledge claims have provoked a fundamental reexamination of how knowledge is defined, approached, and taught [and learned] within the academy" (p. 11). Baxter Magolda provides readers with a new framework for understanding different ways of knowing, as well as advice about how to define, approach, and teach knowledge:

The dominance of objectivism has fostered separation in educational practice: between teacher and student and between knowledge and experience (Palmer, 1987). This separation hinders students' ability to construct their own perspectives. The objectivist view of knowledge also separates curricular from cocurricular knowledge. . . . Transforming educational practice requires eliminating separation in favor of connection. Constructing one's own perspective requires encouragement, which often comes from interactions between teacher and student, between knowledge and experience, and between curricular and cocurricular life. Relational knowing necessitates a shift in assumptions to the social constructivist approach. (p. xv)

Baxter Magolda organizes her book in two parts. Part 1 defines the different ways of knowing which emerged from her student interviews, and Part 2 discusses the implications of these different ways of knowing for academic and student affairs. Designed to help educators, both faculty and student affairs professionals alike, to promote complex knowing during college, this book emphasizes the importance of relational knowing. That is, educators must believe that knowledge is socially constructed and then practice that belief. [End Page 200]

This review is organized similarly, moving from an explanation of the different ways of knowing, to a discussion of implications for educational practice, and finally, to a consideration of how Baxter Magolda has furthered our understanding of students' ways of knowing. Baxter Magolda's accessible and personal style enables and encourages readers to consider the importance and impact of ways of knowing on learning and teaching. This review offers a critical--and, I hope, constructive--look at Baxter Magolda's discussion of types of knowers versus ways of knowing.

A Gender-Inclusive Study

Although Baxter Magolda's interpretations and theories are primarily grounded in the students' stories, her work is also influenced by others who have thought and written about college students' ways of knowing. In particular, Baxter Magolda was informed and inspired by William Perry's (1968, 1970) work, Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years, and subsequently by Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule's (1986) work, Women's Ways of Knowing: The Development of Self, Voice, and Mind. She was fascinated by the similarities between Perry's research on men's intellectual development in the 1950s and 1960s and Belenky et al.'s research on women's ways of knowing in the 1980s. In particular, she was "intrigued about the degree to which gender similarities and differences existed" (p. 8). Kitchener and King (1990) did a longitudinal study of both men and women which described the nature of knowledge slightly differently than either Perry or Belenky et al.; however, this study did not address gender as a central theme. Hence, Baxter Magolda believed she "had discovered an important gap in the existing research in this field. . . . I specifically planned to reveal gender similarities and differences in order to create a more comprehensive picture of students' ways of knowing" (p. 8).

Following the tradition and method of both Perry and Belenky et al., Baxter Magolda recognizes the importance and uniqueness of each student's voice. Consequently, she does not attempt to describe the students' experiences collectively, nor does she attempt to limit her interpretations to previously established epistemological frameworks. On the contrary, much of her book relies on the students' words and the students' interpretations. It is important "to view ways of knowing from the students' frame of reference rather than those of the literature. Although there were not major differences between the two, the flavor of my students' stories was not entirely captured by previous labels" (p. 12). In addition, this design was intended to invite and enable the readers to "join the students in their experiences, and me in interpreting them" (p. xiv). [End Page 201]

Four Ways of Knowing

Four types of knowing emerged from the yearly interviews Baxter Magolda held with 101 students: absolute, transitional, independent, and contextual. Part 1 of the book describes each of these ways of knowing and their characteristic reasoning patterns, mostly in the students' own words. Using the categories of role of learner, role of peers, role of instructor, evaluation, and the nature of knowledge, Baxter Magolda helps us to consider ways of knowing both in and out of the classroom, i.e., both in curricular and cocurricular learning. The nature of knowledge category, which she defines on a continuum of certainty to uncertainty, is the foundation for her categories. Coming to see knowledge as uncertain is equated with epistemological development; i.e., the more the student views knowledge as uncertain, the more complex his or her ways of knowing are becoming.

Baxter Magolda's interpretation of the students' stories resulted in the development of the epistemological reflection model (p. 30). The model, based on the students' perceptions of the nature of knowledge, describes the four ways of knowing and their development throughout the college experience (p. xii).

In absolute knowing, knowledge is certain or absolute; it is obtained from the instructor/authority. The student's role is to obtain knowledge from the instructor. The instructor's role is to communicate knowledge appropriately, ensuring that students understand it. The peers' role includes asking questions, sharing materials, and explaining what they learn to each other. Evaluation should be a tool to show the teacher what they have learned.

In transitional knowing, knowledge is partially certain and partially uncertain, and thus the students' role is to understand rather than to acquire knowledge. Students expect teachers to employ methods aimed at helping them understand and apply knowledge. They expect peers to take an active role in exploring material. Evaluation should measure their understanding of the material.

In independent knowing, knowledge is uncertain because everyone has his or her own beliefs. Thus, students attempt to think for themselves and to share their viewpoints with others. The goal is to create their own perspectives. Students expect the instructor to promote independent thinking and an exchange of opinions. The role of peers is to share their views and serve as a source of knowledge. Evaluation of students' work should reward independent thinking.

In contextual knowing, knowledge is judged on the basis of evidence in context. The role of the learner is to exchange and compare perspectives, think through problems, and integrate and apply knowledge. The role of the instructor is to promote not only application of knowledge in context, but also evaluative discussion of perspectives. The student and teacher critique [End Page 202] each other. The role of peers is to enhance learning via quality contributions. Evaluation should accurately measure competence. The student and teacher work toward goals and measure progress together.

Types of Knowers versus Ways of Knowing

Although Baxter Magolda describes four different ways of knowing, she tends to refer to the students as different types of knowers as opposed to students with different ways of knowing (i.e., students with one way of knowing versus students with multiple ways of knowing). While this may be merely an issue of semantics, I believe the distinction is a vital one with serious ramifications for interpreting and implementing her study. Thus, it is imperative that Baxter Magolda be clearer about which of these positions she is describing.

Describing students as types of knowers suggests that students have only one way of knowing, a way of knowing which transcends contexts. While Baxter Magolda recognizes the fluidity of students' reasoning patterns within ways of knowing, her categories imply that students can be defined as one type of knower. On the other hand, describing students as having ways of knowing suggests that students may possess and demonstrate different ways of knowing, ways of knowing which are affected by context.

My current research on students' ways of knowing suggests that some students do indeed possess and demonstrate different ways of knowing during one period of time (Welte, 1995). My study was designed to explore what happens to students' ways of knowing in different teaching contexts over the course of one semester. To begin to answer this question, I followed two students in all of their classes for an entire semester. I attended the students' classes to help me understand the different teaching contexts which the students were experiencing, and we met weekly to discuss how they were coming to know things in these different contexts. These two case studies suggest that these students simultaneously possess multiple ways of knowing; they cannot--and should not--be categorized as merely one type of knower. The predominance of one way of knowing over another is largely dependent on the teaching context. It is important to note that while two case studies do not allow me to make statistical inferences, they do enable me and others to make naturalistic generalizations. That is, these case studies provide full and thorough knowledge of the particulars of these students' experiences which make it possible to recognize similarities both in and out of context (Erickson, 1986; Stake, 1978).

While I might support the idea that students have a preferred, or modal, way of knowing (i.e., a way of knowing with which they are most comfortable or in which they are most fluent), the students I followed in my research [End Page 203] study and also those I teach in my own classroom clearly possess and use more than one way of knowing simultaneously. Ways of knowing appear to be highly context dependent. Different disciplines, for example, seem to engender different ways of knowing. Thus, it is very possible for students, during the same semester and even the same day, to demonstrate absolute ways of knowing in their mathematics class and independent or contextual ways of knowing in their education class. Different pedagogical practices are another factor which engenders different ways of knowing. One history teacher may present history as a body of facts which exists separate from the student/knower. Another history teacher, however, may view history as interpretive and as socially constructed, and will thus require students to discuss and develop their own interpretations of historical events.

Junctures of Students' and Teachers' Ways of Knowing

Although Baxter Magolda recognizes that ways of knowing are context bound, she does not do justice to this essential issue. In particular, she spends little time discussing the role of teachers' ways of knowing in creating, and possibly defining, the context. In her discussion of the book's guiding assumptions, Baxter Magolda does address this coming together of ways of knowing by stating that

students' own ways of seeing the world come into contact with professors' and peers' frames of references in various contexts. The meaning that students make of these experiences depends partially on their original view of the world, partially on the other views they encounter, and partially on the context in which the experience takes place. (p. 20)

She does not, however, return to this important issue in her discussion of how educators can and should develop students' ways of knowing. The focus is almost solely on the students' ways of knowing and on educators being "responsive" to those ways of knowing, as opposed to educators being cocreators of students' ways of knowing.

The omission of this important concept--that ways of knowing and their development are interdependent, intersubjective, and interdependent (Lyons, 1990)--is particularly odd and somewhat disturbing, given Baxter Magolda's own discussion of this phenomenon in her earlier work on epistemology (1992), prior to the completion of this study. Lyons provides us with critical insights into the dynamics at work in epistemological development, in particular the interacting epistemologies of students and teachers, which Baxter Magolda ignores. Lyons (1990) says that her own work "keeps at bay a simplistic rendering or a reductionist categorization of either teachers' or students' epistemological perspectives as a non-linear relationship emerges in the intersubjectivity of teachers and students as knowers and [End Page 204] potential constructors of knowledge" (p. 174). Baxter Magolda's work needs to keep these things at bay as well.

Lyons suggests that, to understand epistemological development, it is essential that we (teachers, student affairs professionals, and researchers) consider both students' and teachers' ways of knowing, and how their ways of knowing come together. While my own research suggests that we need to understand the student's stance towards the self as knower, the student's stance towards the teacher as knower (based on instructional practices, both implicit and explicit), and the student's stance towards knowledge of a discipline/subject matter in the interactions of learning, we cannot fully, or at least more fully, understand epistemological development without understanding both the teacher and the student. Unfortunately, Baxter Magolda's almost exclusive focus on students presents a somewhat limited and inaccurate understanding of their epistemological development, suggesting that students enter classrooms with a way of knowing to which teachers respond and try to develop.

In contrast, Lyons paints a very different picture of epistemological development. "Like a set of dynamic objects that are interacting with one another, although each is distinct in its own right, students and teachers come together in a special relationship in learning, having a clear epistemological basis" (p. 173). Although Lyons, by her own admission, realized that "this conceptualization of nested knowing is a tentative one, in need of elaboration and verification, it is useful at this stage to mark an important domain" (p. 173). Lyons points out that the different epistemological configurations created when students' and teachers' ways of knowing come together (e.g., a student using absolute ways of knowing with a teacher using contextual ways of knowing; a student using transitional ways of knowing with a teacher using absolute ways of knowing) will result in just as many different outcomes in terms of student learning and teacher pedagogy (p. 174).

The interactive, intersubjective nature of teachers' and students' ways of knowing suggests that both students' and teachers' epistemologies must be considered in reshaping pedagogy and, hence, in transforming learning. We cannot hope to transform educational practice by merely focusing on the students' ways of knowing, for the students' ways of knowing are often a direct response to the teachers' ways of knowing and are at least developing in the context of their teachers' instructional practices.

Developing Complex Ways of Knowing

Given Baxter Magolda's major focus in Part 2 of her book on how to transform educational practice (i.e., how educators can help students develop more complex ways of knowing), I am even more surprised by her lack of attention to the juncture of students' and teachers' ways of knowing. [End Page 205] Baxter Magolda does, however, offer educators much practical advice for helping students to develop more complex ways of knowing--or, I should say, to become more complex knowers. The theme of relational knowing is central throughout the second half of her book. With the help of students' advice, Baxter Magolda discusses how to promote the development of a distinctive, individual student perspective and voice in both curricular and cocurricular settings. She addresses three overriding principles: validating the student as knower, situating learning within the students' own experience, and defining learning as constructing meaning collaboratively with others. While I agree with all three of these principles, I have concerns about what is really being validated. Are students being validated as knowers, or are their ways of knowing being validated? There is an important distinction here which needs to be considered.

Confirming Students' Ways of Knowing
or Students as Knowers?

Although Baxter Magolda talks about confirming or validating students as knowers in her more summative comments (a stance with which I agree), she devotes an entire chapter, "Teaching Responsively to Different Ways of Knowing," to the subject of confirming students' ways of knowing. "This chapter focuses on 'matching' the classroom environment to students' ways of knowing, or providing appropriate confirmation" (p. 227). While I agree with Baxter Magolda's contention that "reconnection involves a balance between joining students 'where they are,' so to speak, and encouraging them to consider more complex ways of thinking" (p. 224), I have concerns about joining students in their absolute ways of knowing, as well as about ignoring the interactive nature of students' developing ways of knowing. My own research and experience suggest that any confirmation of students using absolute ways of knowing confirms that they are not knowers. For students using absolute ways of knowing, knowledge is certain; experts possess it; students are in no way part of the construction of knowledge; they are merely recipients or masters of knowledge created and defined by others.

I fully support Baxter Magolda's call for creating conditions that make the challenging and questioning less threatening; however, I do not believe that confirming students as absolute knowers will achieve this end. Even Baxter Magolda states that "too much support renders evaluating their assumptions unnecessary" (p. 224). When teaching students who demonstrate absolute ways of knowing, I argue, any confirmation, any support, makes it impossible for them to reevaluate their assumptions; they cannot see themselves as capable of such knowing.

Baxter Magolda also claims that "too much challenge results in students [End Page 206] avoiding evaluating their assumptions" (p. 224). This is a valid concern with which I struggle. In a study of his own teaching, O'Loughlin (1990) described what happens epistemologically to absolute knowers in contact with a teacher who does not support or accept absolute knowing. He described the plight of students who are used to learning didactically when they encounter teachers who support and accept only constructive or contextual knowing. These students, when exposed "to ways of knowing that are designed to allow them to experience the possibility of empowerment that comes from constructing their own understanding," responded by:

• showing tremendous fear and anxiety

• avoiding risk-taking

• resisting new ideas and wanting to cling to old ideas

• crying out for direction and guidance

• complaining about ambiguity and uncertainty

• worrying about grades now that the rules have changed

• complaining that the teacher is arbitrary or unfair

• devoting lots of energy to reading the teacher's mind in order to succeed

• trying desperately to please the teacher to get a "good grade"

(O'Loughlin, 1990, p. 5)

My own experiences as a teacher--and as a student--support O'Loughlin's findings and consequently convince me to question Baxter Magolda's position on requiring a balance between supporting and challenging students' ways of knowing. Although students' "beliefs about themselves, about their knowing, and about the sources of authority and knowledge appear to be quite deep-seated and resistant to change" (O'Loughlin, 1991, p. 5), this resistance may be necessary for change and development to take place. For it is the very thing they are resisting, i.e., being validated as a knower, which is what we are striving to achieve.

In addition, my belief that learning is inherently and fundamentally uncomfortable and disorienting, albeit to different degrees, suggests and encourages different responses than those which Baxter Magolda describes and prescribes. Perhaps more time and energy should be devoted to helping students accept their discomfort and grow from it, as opposed to helping them to maintain or return to a comfortable state. Thus, I propose that we not support the students' ways of knowing (especially if they are using absolute ways of knowing), but rather create a supportive environment. That is, I propose we create an environment which supports the students' development as a knower: an environment which is helpful, personal, and explicit; an environment which is explicit about its expectations of students--i.e., that students see themselves as knowers, and thus take responsibility for and play an active role in their own and others' learning. [End Page 207]

Baxter Magolda's Contribution

In Chapter 12, "Becoming Responsive to Ways of Knowing," Baxter Magolda summarizes her major findings for educational practice in both curricular and cocurricular settings:

• "Validating students as knowers is essential to promoting students' voices" (p. 376).

• "Situating learning in the students' own experience legitimizes their knowledge as a foundation for constructing new knowledge" (p. 378).

• "Defining learning as jointly constructing meaning empowers students to see themselves as constructing knowledge" (p. 380).

• "The relational component evident in all of these three findings is essential to empowering students to construct knowledge" (p. 382).

While I agree with and am excited by Baxter Magolda's findings, they do not offer me significantly new understandings of students' ways of knowing. Belenky et al. (1986), especially in their chapters "Toward an Education for Women" and "Connected Teaching," addressed these same issues, finding that women needed to be confirmed as knowers, recognized as people with valuable experience, and invited into the process of creating knowledge:

None of the women we interviewed wanted a system in which knowledge flowed in only one direction, from teacher to student. . . . Many women expressed--some firmly, some shakily--a belief that they possessed latent knowledge. The kind of teacher they praised and the kind for which they yearned was one who would help them articulate and expand their latent knowledge . . . assist [them] in giving birth to their own ideas, in making their own tacit knowledge explicit and elaborating it. (p. 217)

Baxter Magolda's attention to both curricular and cocurricular ways of knowing and learning is this book's strength; it is an area which has not received much attention in the literature on epistemological development. I am impressed with Baxter Magolda's commitment to developing complex ways of knowing both in and out of the classroom and in recognizing that the integration of academic and cocurricular aspects of the college experience can assist students in the development of voice, which in turn, can help students develop more complex ways of knowing. Given my emerging research finding that some students can possess and employ different ways of knowing at the same time in different contexts, I would have liked much more discussion about how the development of voice and ways of knowing in one context (e.g., cocurricular) influence the development of voice and ways of knowing in another context (e.g., academic). Again, my own research suggests that developing ways of knowing in one domain may have [End Page 208] little, if any, impact on developing ways of knowing in another domain. However, more research in this area is necessary.

Timing of Interviews

My own research on two students' ways of knowing suggests that some students change their ways of knowing, not only from year to year as Baxter Magolda's study informs us, but from semester to semester, from course to course, from day to day, and even from class to class. The case of Julia, for example, shows evidence of several different ways of knowing both within and across teaching/learning contexts, including absolute and contextual knowing in her history class, and independent and contextual knowing in her teacher education class (Welte, 1995). Consequently, I am concerned about the limitations of yearly interviews.

While the longitudinal nature of Baxter Magolda's study, as well as the number of participants, offers important trends in students' ways of knowing, I am not convinced that there is epistemological development, although I certainly recognize that it is a possibility. Knowing what I do from my own research--that some students may have many different ways of knowing at the same time--I have serious questions about what these yearly interviews actually reflect and represent. My sense is that they cannot depict the complexity or multiplicity of students' ways of knowing, for they tend to report only one perspective at one point in time.

One theory I have about the progression Baxter Magolda describes from simpler to more complex ways of knowing is that students move from taking courses which support and accept simpler ways of knowing (e.g., introductory lecture classes in which no questioning is allowed), to courses which support and accept more complex ways of knowing (e.g., advanced level seminars in which discussion is required). This theory suggests that the change in context causes the change in ways of knowing over time, as opposed to any ontogenetic development (i.e., development over the lifespan). And it is possible, I believe, to change the context to support more complex ways of knowing earlier in one's college career.

To achieve this end, however, requires more than just a change in curricular and cocurricular practice; the underlying assumptions on which the practice is based must be changed as well. Educators must define learning as jointly constructing meaning, seeing both students and teachers as learners. And educators must put these beliefs into practice by supporting and accepting students as coconstructors of knowledge. This epistemological perspective is the key to achieving Baxter Magolda's educational transformation. Without these socially constructed beliefs about knowledge, in particular the beliefs that students are knowers and cocreators of knowledge, I [End Page 209] believe that it is impossible to help students to develop more complex ways of knowing.

Personal Transformation

Listening to students' stories over the course of this five-year study transformed Baxter Magolda's own ways of knowing from a more objectivist persuasion (which contends that knowledge is objective, quantifiable, generalizable, and reduced to cause-effect relationships, thus enabling her to use categories from the literature) to that of social constructivism (which recognizes that knowledge is subjective, context-bound, and jointly shaped by relationships, thus compelling her to draw on a combination of students' and her own perspectives). In an attempt to reconcile students' stories with her quantitative computer printout, Baxter Magolda realized that "the stories were richer than [her] statistical operations" (p. 11). Consequently, "I began to view [the ideas of naturalistic inquiry] as closer to my thinking than the quantitative research assumptions with which I was so familiar" (p. 14). She continues:

Viewing ways of knowing as complex, socially constructed entities leads to the assumption that these processes can best be understood through the principles of naturalistic inquiry. Because students' ways of knowing and their experiences jointly shape each other, ways of knowing are context bound. The fluidity of reasoning patterns indicates multiple realities rather than one single truth about students' perspectives. Naturalistic methods maintain the richness of the students' stories that is lost to a degree when the stories are quantified. (p. 21)

Baxter Magolda's attention to her own epistemological transformation is impressive and quite helpful. She shares a poignant story about how she came to realize that pedagogical techniques, like rearranging the furniture, are not enough to ensure relational knowing. To transform education, one must rearrange one's assumptions about the educational process:

Our ideas about education are so ingrained in our own experiences and ways of knowing that not only are they unspoken, but they are also often unconscious. . . . I already used small-group techniques, was on a first-name basis with students, and solicited student input regarding class assignments. I viewed my approach as particularly progressive in light of the admonishment that I had received from a few colleagues that I was not properly asserting my authority with students. Yet reflection on my own teaching throughout the years of interviews has made it clear that my assumptions were no different from those of the colleagues whose criticism I disdained. Although my interpersonal style increased comfort in my classroom, I still valued my voice over that of my students, my judgment about the best content over my [End Page 210] students' experiences, and my ability to make meaning over my students' less experienced learning perspectives. . . . Rearranging these long-held assumptions about education is crucial in light of the data provided by the students in this study. (pp. 271-272)

Baxter Magolda's willingness and ability to share her personal epistemological transformation is a vital part of this book. She recognized that this transformation influenced her writing of this book and the assumptions which guided the book. I hope it will encourage others to reflect on their own teaching (as well as their own research), in particular, the epistemological assumptions which underlie their practice. It has certainly encouraged me to do so.

Easier Said Than Done

Baxter Magolda concludes her book by reemphasizing her central message. "The stories in this book have convinced me that incorporating the relational component is the key to transforming education. Acknowledging that knowing is relational and acting on that assumption entail uniting experience and knowing, teaching and learning, students and their peers, and curricular and cocurricular education" (p. 393). While I agree wholeheartedly with Baxter Magolda's message, I am not as optimistic as she is that educators hoping to assist learners will develop and encourage more socially constructed ways of knowing. As she herself said, our underlying assumptions are not only unspoken but also often unconscious.

Identifying and understanding our assumptions is a challenging task in itself. The goal of changing these assumptions is truly daunting. My own experiences as researcher, teacher, and student suggest that many teachers and students do not want to change these underlying assumptions. They do not see knowledge as being socially constructed, and they certainly do not see the student as a knower. On the contrary, they view knowledge as defined and objective; it is the job of the teacher to transmit this knowledge to the unknowing students. In addition, it is much easier to view the educational process as a banking transaction. That is, the teacher has the knowledge, the students want it; and the teacher deposits the knowledge into the students' heads in a concrete and measurable transaction.

And so we return full circle to Haworth and Conrad's (1990) claim that "the undergraduate curriculum [is a] theater for defining, producing, and legitimating knowledge" (p. 3). For Baxter Magolda, "Understanding college students' intellectual development is at the heart of effective educational practice. . . . Effective educational practice requires gaining access to students' ways of knowing to avoid misinterpreting their approach to learning" (p. 3). But for many educators and students, the educational process is [End Page 211] solely about the content to be learned, as opposed to the process of learning. Baxter Magolda has taken a position in this age-old debate, advocating for the prioritizing of learning (as defined by jointly constructing knowledge) and developing more complex ways of knowing, as opposed to covering more content (which Baxter Magolda found most students forget).

As long as educators have different purposes for the undergraduate curriculum, knowledge will be defined, approached, and taught differently. And thus, students will develop different ways of knowing. Since I believe that each teaching/learning context affects students' ways of knowing, I also believe that each teacher can make a difference in helping students to develop more complex ways of knowing. For while students may be expected and allowed to be absolute knowers in one educational setting, they may be expected and encouraged to be contextual knowers in another educational setting. In our efforts to transform educational practice, it is imperative that we, as educators, consider our students' ways of knowing, our own ways of knowing, as well as the coming together of our ways of knowing with our students' ways of knowing. Hopefully, Baxter Magolda's stories, the students' and her own, will help all of us to reflect on our underlying assumptions and achieve this end.

Sheryl Lyn Welte is a doctoral student in educational psychology at Michigan State University in East Lansing. She is currently living in Dhaka, Bangladesh, where she is continuing her research on social and cultural influences on the development of women college students' epistemologies.

References

Baxter Magolda, B. M. (1992). Students' epistemologies and academic experiences: Implications for pedagogy. Review of Higher Education, 15 (3): 265-287.

Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women's ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.

Bloom, A. (1987). The closing of the American mind. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 119-161). New York: Macmillan.

Haworth, J. G., & Conrad, C. F. (1990). Curricular transformations: Traditional and emerging voices in the academy. In C. F. Conrad & J. G. Haworth (Eds.), Curriculum in transition: Perspectives on the undergraduate experience (pp. 3-19). Needham Heights, MA: Ginn Press.

Kitchener, K. S., & King, P. M. (1990). The reflective judgment model: Ten years of research. In M. L. Commons and others (Eds.), Adult development: Models and methods in the study of adolescent and adult thought. New York: Praeger.

Lyons, N. (1990). Dilemmas of knowing: Ethical and epistemological dimensions of teachers' work and development. Harvard Educational Review, 60, 159-180.

O'Loughlin, M. (1991, April). Undergraduate and graduate student teachers' developing understandings of teaching and learning: Report of a one-year journal study and follow-up interviews. In J. Shulz (Chair), Evolving beliefs about teaching: Contradictions and complexities of preparing to teach. Symposium conducted at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.

Palmer, P. (1987, September/October). Community, conflict, and ways of knowing. Change, 20-25.

Perry, W. G. (1968, 1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Stake, R. (1978). The case study method in social inquiry. Educational Researcher, 7 (2), 5-8.

Welte, S. L. (1995). What happens to college students' ways of knowing in the context of their teachers' instructional practices? Unpublished manuscript.

[an error occurred while processing this directive].