Association of American Colleges and Universities, October 2000

Models of Intellectual and Identity Development

Lee Knefelkamp, Columbia University

I. Trends in the student development literature:

• There is an increasing emphasis on studying students both in the context of their intellectual development and their identity development simultaneously (see the Spring/Summer 2000 issue of Diversity Digest and the articles by Patricia King and Lee Knefelkamp as examples).
• There is an increasing emphasis in studying students' intellectual complexity and its relationship to how they conceptualize issues of racial, cultural, and social diversity in addition to how they conceptualize issues of complexity of an academic discipline or use of critical thinking capacities in learning. New models have emerged from the intercultural communications literature which rely heavily on theories of college student intellectual and identity development (see Milton J. Bennett's work: "A Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity" which seeks to integrate notions of cognitive structure with approaches to learning, and with the development of intercultural competencies).
• Theorists who have been associated with different areas of student development theory (such as intellectual development as distinct from racial-identity development) are increasingly using similar terminology when describing points of fusion of cognitive and identity development. For example: Janet Helms (a most influential theorist in the area of racial identity development–especially white identity development), has now added the notion of cognitive "schema" when she describes students at different phases of racial identity development and how the schema differ by phase and are related to the ways in which they interpret their own and others' identity development. The use of the term "schema" has previously been associated with cognitive developmental models (see particularly Perry's "Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years: A Scheme").
• In turn, cognitive theorists are borrowing terms from identity models. William Cross's model of the "psychology of nigrescence" has made popular the term encounter. Initially used to describe a student's encounter with the realities of race, it is now paired with the cognitive constructs of assimilation or accommodation in the face of diversity in knowledge.
• These important trends do not connote a fusion of models, rather they signal a greater sophistication in studying the issues of diversity in education. Leading theorists and researchers in this area are suggesting that the cognitive schema or structures used in understanding diversity and complexity within academic disciplines are akin to those used to understand other, more psychological or sociological aspects of diversity.
• The popular term "ways of knowing" is now most commonly used to indicate not just the internal schema or structures of the learner, but also pedagogical approaches and their relationship to helping students both to advance in complexity and to expand their capacities to learn in a wide variety of ways. (see Carol Schneider's chapter in Education and Democracy).
• A uniting theme in the most recent work is the use of notions of construction–that cognitive schema are constructions and that they facilitate or inhibit the individual's construction of self and of others. In this context, it is important to delineate the differences between naïve constructions and those that are more deliberately pernicious. (see again, the Spring/Summer 2000 issue of Diversity Digest).

II. Illustrations of patterns found in the research:

CHARACTERISTICS ASSOCIATED WITH THE INTELLECTUAL POSTIONS OF DUALISM/RECEIVED KNOWLEDGE:

Students focus on what to learn/right and wrong answers. There is a strong emphasis on memorization and the acquisition of facts and information. Knowledge itself is seen as facts and information. The learning experience revolves around the taking in or receiving knowledge from those instructor/authorities who know truth. The responsible student seeks to learn/memorize/reproduce the knowledge presented. There is little, if any, understanding of multiple perspectives. The primary concept of the self is externally determined and roles and behaviors are validated and assigned by authority figures. At this phase students are often ethnocentric in their intercultural understanding and are highly influenced toward identity conformity with a particular familial or cultural group. This may also take the form of denial of differences or the minimization of differences. Such students often prefer a high degree of structure and clarity in the classroom and in assignments. They are uneasy with multiple perspectives and uncertainty. Courses are often seen as separate groupings of knowledge with little connection to one another. A high degree of separation exists between general education and the major. Confusion arises if experts/disciplines/courses are not in agreement.

CHARACTERISTICS ASSOCIATED WITH EARLY MULTIPLICITY/SUBJECTIVE KNOWING:

Students focus on how to learn/the right way to find right answers. The "right way" is often quite subjective and can be ethnocentric. Students have a new interest in methodology and can begin to compare and contrast ideas, perspectives, approaches. Instructors become sources of ways of knowing, approaches to finding truth and creating new knowledge. The responsible role of the student now includes the required effort to learn how to learn effectively—-and, eventually, in different contexts. Focus on the development of self and identity usually involves exploring some now legitimate possibilities of identity characteristics and roles; although this often produces confusion in thinking about identity issues as well as about knowledge itself. There is an increased identity dissonance with the awareness of multiple internal and society diversity factors—-especially after encounters/contact with students who are somehow different. This phase is often associated with periods of resistance or periods of immersion in dominant or other cultures. Students experience periods of identity confusion and disintegration. Later there is an adaptation to diversity within and without. Students are often preoccupied with the question of how to remain true to themselves and at the same time stay connected to the multiple groups/cultures of affinity to which they belong.

These students often see value in experiential learning activities, projects, simulations, work in groups. They can see the value in essay exams where perspective and evidence use are important. Research papers make sense. They seek patterns/webs of connection in their learning. They often benefit from learning communities and team projects. Some courses are seen to have relationship with each other and since they are seeking patterns in learning and across knowledge domains, these students often benefit from thematically related courses or projects.

CHARACTERISTICS ASSOCIATED WITH LATE MULTIPLICITY/PROCEDURAL KNOWING:

Students focus on how to think and on academic/discipline based procedures. There is an emphasis on analysis of models and comparative approaches to knowledge. "Interdisciplinary" is a concept that now has meaning and purpose. The instructor is seen as a source for models of thinking and as a coach whose own role is to help students think for themselves. There is a recognition of multiple aspects of the self and a dawning realization that one's own development may not result in all aspects of the self being in calm synthesis. Students in this phase can acceptance aspects of internal and societal diversity; they are much more likely to invoke a "both/and" approach to understanding similarities and differences among others than to invoke an "either/or" approach. They can experience (and not minimize) multiple aspects of a national culture (and cultural groups). High value is placed on collaborative learning. Data analysis from multiple points of view now makes sense. Case studies are valued. Service learning projects can now be experienced and understood as mutual learning opportunities. Students begin to find relationships between general education and courses in the major. Interdisciplinary studies have strong appeal, as does experiential learning.

CHARACTERISTICS ASSOCIATED WITH CONTEXTUAL THINKING/CONSTRUCTED KNOWING:

Students focus on how to make difficult judgments in complex situations or contexts. Instructors are sources of expertise in making such judgments. Knowledge is seen as constructed and related to time, circumstance, standards within a discipline, culture, perspective. Multiple perspectives are valued, but there is a clear ability and responsibility to make determinations between thoughtful perspectives and those that do not meet thoughtful criteria. The self is seen as dynamic and changing, though it has a clear core stability. Personal and cultural constructions of the self are experienced and articulated. Students can adapt to differences and often seek to expand intercultural competencies and knowledge. They can understand the implications of theory or data analysis for use in practice. Learning in and out of class is seen as valuable. Larger uses of liberal education come to mind. There is often an awareness of the responsibility to use knowledge well. While difference or diversity may still be unsettling....even challenging....it is no longer feared.

III. Common phases of developmental models:

• Identity construction models. Regardless of the particular theory and its contextual characteristics, most identity construction models follow this general pattern: 1) A pre-encounter phase during which identity differences or racial or cultural aspects of identity are not considered. 2) The encounter phase when an incident or situation requires that identity differences be considered. 3) An immersion/emersion phase most often characterized by the student's immersion in a new identity or identification with a particular cultural group to exclusion of others—-followed by a gradual recognition of the need to connect with multiple aspects of the self, multiple cultures of affinity and identity. 4) The internalization phase during which the student begins to consolidate and accept multiple aspects of a complex identity. 5) The internalization/commitment phase in which one embraces the complex identity.
• Intercultural models. Most of these models show movement from a more ethnocentric world view that denies differences.....or strongly defends against them.....or minimalizes them............to a more ethnorelative world view which recognizes, acceptance, adapts to differences and diversity and seeks to integrate intercultural awareness and capacities as aspects of the self.
• Cognitive/Intellectual Models. Most indicate a developmental range that spans a narrow, authoritarian, dichotomous perspective with a constructed, complex and contextual perspective.