How Can the Peer Leader Support Students Development

1
How Can the Peer Leader Support Students
Development to Perrys Commitment Stage? Joshua
Vaughan, Peer Leader, The City College of New York
Hypothesis On numerous occasions, in the
workshop settings, tutoring, or comments by
classmates, I have encountered a common
complaint. When confronted with a difficult or
incomprehensible professor, students tend to find
fault with the professor. Alleging the material
can be learned by the student alone, several
claims by students include, "He cant teach..."
"...This professor simply uses the textbook" or
the most popular,"...we dont even have to go to
class, as long as we cover the chapters we can do
fine on the tests." Is this viewpoint
accurate? It may be a misconception and a
characteristic of inexperience. Using William G.
Perrys theory of Cognitive Development will
serve as a basis to examine these student
misconceptions as components of Perrys
breakthrough theory.

• Experiment
• My intent was to test the students who appear to
  fit the characteristics of Perrys definition of
  either dualism or multiplicity. For this I used
  the students in my Chemistry 104 workshop and set
  up a seemingly random situation, in which I
  presented two Chemistry questions, similar in
  subject matter but with different emphases.
• First Question
• All the students in the workshop were asked to
  identify the strongest and weakest acids among a
  selection of six acids and bases. I changed the
  conditions of the acid solution among a variety
  including oxyacids, binary acids, and negligible
  bases. This question was key for challenging
  those who might be considered dualist learners
  since the answer is not static. In fact, the
  question of strong acids is directly affected by
  the conditions and the fellow acids being
  compared.
• Second Question
• -Calculate the pH of a .200 M solution of NaCN.
  The Ka (HCN) 4.9 10(-10)
• Question can be started and worked out by a
  series of different steps in varying orders to
  create one correct answer.
• This question is perfect to challenge multiplist
  thinkers
• When the problem has many possible procedures to
  follow, all of which if done correctly will lead
  to the correct answer.
• Allowing the students to work among themselves
  will generate newfound respect for one anothers
  opinions and methods, since they will soon notice
  the same conclusion can be met by a classmates
  alternative method.

• Conclusions
• To challenge dualist students I purposely
  assigned questions in which varying solutions,
  and varying perspectives could be obtained.
  Students change in perspective was due to the
  nuances in a given question. For instance, the
  first group of questions given to the students
  consisted of the identification of the strongest
  or weakest acids in a selection. However, the
  answer is dependent on the selection of acids
  available. As I changed the conditions of the
  problem the students noticed that the answer was
  subject to change. Much like real life, one
  answer is not always attained, instead an answer
  is only dependant on a given situation. This
  tactic will help the students analyze, compare,
  and contrast answers rather than expect a
  specific answer, moving away from the position of
  the stereotypic dualist student.
• To challenge multiplists I posed a problem to
  provide experiences that would distinguish
  between well-supported and weakly supported
  ideas. The given question had multiple routes to
  finding a solution, and alternative perspectives
  could be obtained. My assigned pH question given
  in workshop worked effectively to help students
  develop, evaluate, and defend opinions. It also
  encourages students to rethink positions based on
  changing evidence and encouraged probabilistic
  conclusions from numerous possibilities of
  correct tactics to get one universal answer,
  obtainable by any of the correct tactics. This
  engaged the students as a community of learners
  who explore and discover knowledge together.

• References
• College Student Intellectual Development
  William Perry's Theory . University of Colorado.
  6 April 2004 lthttp//www.csubak.edu/tlc/options/r
  esources/handouts/scholarship_teaching/perrystheor
  y.htmlgtgt
• Guide to Perry, William G. (and associates).
  (1970). Forms of Intellectual and Ethical
  Development in the College Years. NY Holt,
  Rinehart and Winston.
• Perry, William C. (1981). Cognitive and Ethical
  Growth The Making of Meaning in Chickering,
  Arthur (editor). The Modern American College. San
  Francisco Jossey Bass.

Discussion When testing Dualists- The questions
asked had a dual objective students learn the
basics of acid / base concept, and also discover
that the question of a strong acid is not based
on a memorized list instead every situation is
quite different. The answer is based on the
given conditions and the other acids or bases
compared. The students answers began to
fluctuate as new (i.e. more powerful acid)
choices became available. This clearly conveys
the students newfound understanding of the
relationship between acids and base strengths and
weakness, wherein the students discovered the
relative strengths are only subject to what they
are compared to. A seemingly strong acid can
become the weakest when applied to certain
conditions or comparisons. This exhibits a break
from the dualist point of view. When testing
Multiplists- This question again had a dual
objective, to teach the concept of acid/ and
bases in terms of pH, and to separate the
students from a multiplistic point of view. I
took no part answering this question and instead
served as only a guide in this multi-stepped pH
question. In turn this allowed the students to
orchestrate their own methods to answer the
question. Interestingly this tactic ultimately
caused great debate as the students clashed
within the group over a single method. Soon the
students observed many of the alternative methods
also produced the same answers, hence exhibiting
a break from the multiplist point of view.

• Literature Review
• In the 1960s and 70s William Perry developed a
  model for intellectual development among college
  students based upon the works of Piaget. Students
  progress through four major stages of
  development.
• Dualism (either/or thinking).
• Students in this stage believe there is a single
  right answer to all questions. Knowledge is
  perceived as absolute truth delivered by
  professors.
• Dualistic thinkers do not think independently,
  nor draw on their own conclusions, because the
  teacher is the solemn voice of fact.
• Dualistic thinking involves a swallowing and
  regurgitating method of learning in which
  students memorize facts, and later deposit this
  info onto an exam.
• Multiplicity (subjective knowledge).
• Students in this stage believe that knowledge is
  just an opinion, and students and faculty are
  equally entitled to believe in the veracity of
  their own opinions.
• They may rebel at faculty criticism of their
  work, in which a sense of arrogance and disregard
  to recognize the value in alternative
  perspectives.
• Relativism (constructed knowledge).
• Students at this level recognize that opinions
  are based on values, experiences, and knowledge.
• They can argue their perspective and consider the
  relative merit of alternative arguments by
  evaluating the quality of the evidence.
• In this sense knowledge is constructed through
  experience and reflection of previous theories
  and lessons acquired.
• These students view faculty as having
  better-informed opinions in their areas of
  expertise and as being able to teach students
  techniques for evaluating the quality of evidence
  underlying conclusions.
• The relativism stage is the stage most acquired
  for an intellectual.
• Commitment(Final Stage)
• Students in this stage understand that knowledge
  must be integration from others with personal
  experience and reflection
• Student makes a preferential commitment
• Challenges to Commitment Student experiences
  implications of commitment Student explores
  issues of responsibility Student realizes
  commitment is an ongoing, unfolding, evolving
  activity

Acknowledgments I thank AE Dreyfuss, Instructor
of the Peer-Leader Training Course my PLTL
coordinator, Maria Mukovoztchick, and my fellow
peer leaders, ad well as the wonderful students
in my Chemistry 104 workshop. I also would like
to thank The administration of the City College
of New York for supporting workshops in chemistry!