Printer Friendly

Reflective judgment: seminarians' epistemology in a world of relativism.

In a culture marked by pluralism and relativism are evangelical Christian leaders with their faith-based conclusions intellectually strong? How do their assumptions about revealed knowledge affect their ability to solve important ill-structured (ambiguous and controversial) issues of life and ministry? The reflective judgment model and its semi-structured interview (RJI), based on 20 years of research, were used to assess the problem-solving ability of students preparing for ministry. The 38 male students were enrolled in an accredited seminary with an epistemology of revealed knowledge. Differences between entering and graduating students' RJI mean scores were not statistically significant, nor were their mean scores significant between religious and secular dilemmas. Further, students' scores did not decrease significantly as their references to faith increased. Recommendations for higher education are offered to help seminarians develop reflective judgment so they can adequately respond to ill-structured problems.


In the postmodern Western world, the discipline of epistemology, with its focus on the nature of knowledge and how beliefs are justified, is changing. Evangelical epistemology considers God's revelation as the foundational source of truth, including special revelation of the scriptures and general revelation in His world. This revelation is certain, valid and authoritative in religious matters, defining beliefs and informing conduct (Erickson, 1983; Grudem, 1994). Kirk and Vanhoozer (1999) write of "an epistemological predicament" (p. 3) that relates to theology and the preparation of leaders for ministry. In this predicament, the long-standing foundationalism, which fits well with revealed knowledge, is challenged. In foundationalism, truth is analogous to a building with some beliefs being foundational and not needing justification. In contrast, W.V.O. Quine (1961) presents the analogy of knowledge as a web with each belief supported by its ties to its neighboring beliefs and to the whole. There are no beliefs that cannot be revised, and there are many kinds of connections among beliefs in the web. Quine's view of truth relates to our postmodern world with its strong affinity for skepticism and relativism. Rorty (1979) criticizes foundationalism and argues that knowledge should be thought of pragmatically, as that which is good for us to believe. With this movement away from foundationalism, how do evangelical students preparing for ministry relate to this world of relativism and pluralism?

The evangelical bent toward anti-intellectualism of the last century or more (Hatch, 1985; Guinness, 1994; Noll, 1994) likely has influenced students' epistemology and their thinking abilities. Students need to develop their capacity to think on high levels in this postmodern world, become mature in their thinking, and value the life of the mind as the scriptures encourage (Proverbs 4:7 and 16:16; I Corinthians 13: 9-12; Matthew 22:37). Noll (1994) states,
the links between deep Christian life, long-lasting Christian influence,
and dedicated Christian thought characterize virtually all of the high
moments in the history of the church. On the other side of the picture,
the history of the church contains a number of sobering examples of what
happens when a spirituality develops with no place for self-conscious
thought. The path to danger is not always the same, but the results of
neglecting the mind are uniform: Christian faith degenerates, lapses
into gross error, or simply passes out of existence. (pp. 43-44)

Sire (2000) speaks of "fulfilling our call to glorify God by thinking well" (p. 9). Students must integrate their faith and theology into their consideration of secular issues, of life dilemmas. Referring to God's special revelation and general revelation, Noll (1994) explains, "In a mirror reaction to the zealous secularists of the twentieth century, evangelicals have gone back to thinking that we must shut up one of God's books if we want to read the other one" (p. 199). Do students demonstrate how best to understand the wisdom of scripture in relation to knowledge about the world?

With an epistemology of revealed knowledge, students may have difficulty integrating scripture into problems of our world and dealing with issues that are not black and white. Specifically, how adequately are they solving ambiguous, controversial, complex problems of life and ministry? These ill-structured intellectual problems in ministry include, for example, leadership issues, contextualization of the biblical message, role of the church in society, interpretation of a scripture passage when biblical scholars differ, relationship of God's providence to biotechnology, mode and age of baptism, and training of laity. These ill-structured problems do not have a clear right or wrong answer, all the information necessary to solve them is not available, and the evidence is subject to multiple interpretations. Do students resort to dogmatism, relativistic theology, or poor leadership because of the inability to adequately make these difficult decisions? How adults make and defend decisions about these issues is related to their epistemic assumptions.

To understand these assumptions of students in higher education, consider the reflective judgment model (RJM) of King and Kitchener (1994). The model describes the development of a person's epistemic cognition or the ability to understand the nature of ill-structured problems and to construct solutions for them. "Making interpretive judgments about ill-structured problems involves constructing beliefs, a task that requires people to wrestle with questions about the limits, certainty, and criteria for knowing, factors that comprise 'epistemic cognition'" (King & Kitchener, 2002, p. 38). The RJM possesses two foundational ideas: One, true reflective thinking occurs when adults think about problems that involve real complexity and uncertainty. Two, epistemic assumptions affect how individuals assess and resolve these ambiguous, ill-structured issues. Although there may be ways of knowing that do not emphasize mental reasoning, the RJM deals with epistemic cognition in the intellectual domain rather than other constructs that may be related, such as, general intelligence and reasoning (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997), inductive reasoning (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997; King & Kitchener, 1994), and Piaget's formal operations (King & Kitchener, 1994; King, 1977; Kitchener & Kitchener, 1981).

The 20 years of research on the RJM, including a 10-year longitudinal study, indicate that people's epistemic assumptions change over time in a slow, steady ordered manner, from adolescence through adulthood (King & Kitchener, 2002). This developmental sequence is described in the seven distinct but related sets or stages of epistemic assumptions. The stages are explained in three levels: prereflective (stages 1-3), quasi-reflective (stages 4-5), and true reflective judgment (stages 6-7).

At the first level of the RJM, people hold prereflective epistemic assumptions, believing there is objective reality that is known or will be known by authorities with absolute certainty. Generally, beliefs are not examined and do not need to be justified. These assumptions deny that ambiguous, controversial issues exist, and thus, all are treated as black and white issues. Ministry leaders with prereflective thinking would defer to an authority figure such as a district superintendent or a prominent person in the church to provide an answer to a controversial problem. Power could rule or this person would look only for an inner feeling or a concrete sign from God, bypassing the use of mental capacities, which are a natural means God provided to solve problems.

At the second level, quasi-reflective, individuals recognize that claims to knowledge contain elements of uncertainty caused by missing information or poor methods of obtaining the evidence. They have difficulty thinking about discrepant evidence and consider all opinions of equal value because the answer to the ill-structured problem seems unknowable. Belief precedes evidence. Knowledge is examined and justified only within its own context. Between different views comparisons and contrasts may be made but there is no synthesis or adjudication. Relativism easily dominates. Ministry leaders with these beliefs would recognize an open-ended problem but would regard possible solutions as largely a matter of individual choice. Or, they would be able to see the different perspectives of board members or other leaders on an issue, and present strengths and weaknesses of each view as evidence, but they would not be able to use criteria to choose among the views.

At the third level, true reflective judgment, adults make judgments that are most reasonable and with reasonable certainty. People actively construct a resolution to a dilemma by listing alternative solutions with supporting evidence for each and then making a decision by weighing the evidence and using overarching criteria to judge solutions. Criteria include the weight of evidence, the coherence of an argument, the credibility of experts, the plausibility and utility of a solution, and the significance of the consequences. These reflective thinkers are willing to reevaluate their judgments when new data or methodologies are available. In summary, the RJM outlines the development of epistemic assumptions underlying how a person understands and deals with ill-structured problems in life and ministry.

In light of the current epistemological debate with its movement away from foundationalism (which fits well with revealed knowledge), in light of the evangelical bent toward anti-intellectualism, and in light of an epistemology of revealed knowledge that must be integrated into complex, ill-structured problems of our world, is it possible for seminary students to develop reflective judgment so they adequately can solve controversial problems? Three hypotheses were posed. The first hypothesis was that student level, entering or graduating, would have no affect on the RJI scores of evangelical seminary students, when controlling for verbal ability. In an evangelical seminary it was expected that the graduating seminarians would not score significantly higher than the entering seminary students, when controlling for verbal ability.

The second hypothesis was that the religious content of a controversial issue would not affect seminary students' RJI scores, when controlling for verbal ability. It was expected that students' scores on the dilemma with religious content would not be significantly lower than responses to the two dilemmas with secular content, when controlling for verbal ability.

The third hypothesis was that there would be a negative relationship between students' reflective judgment and their faith. That is, students' RJI scores would decrease significantly as the extent to which they referred to their faith increased when they discussed the dilemmas. It was expected there would be a negative correlation between students' RJI scores and references to their faith, theology, or church's teachings.



Participants were enrolled in an accredited seminary in eastern United States sponsored by a Protestant evangelical denomination with a theology of general and special revelation (Erickson, 1983; Grudem, 1994). From the Master of Divinity program, 19 entering male Caucasian or Asian students and 19 graduating male Caucasian or Asian students were selected as part of a stratified (student level and ethnicity) random sample. These students, with an age range of 23-49 years and a mean age of 31.6 years, represented a variety of evangelical church denominations.


Reflective Judgment Interview (RJI). The RJI, a semi-structured interview of approximately one-hour, assessed a student's functional level of reflective thinking. Each participant was asked a standard set of questions with follow-up probes as appropriate: What do you think about these statements? How did you come to hold your point of view? On what do you base that point of view? Can you ever know for sure that your position is correct? Why or why not? When people differ about such matters, is one opinion right and one wrong? How is it possible that people have such different points of view about this issue? How is it possible experts could disagree about this subject? Students discussed orally three of the four standard dilemmas of the RJI: the safety of chemical additives to foods, the subjectivity of news reporting, and the creation-evolution dilemma. Both validity and reliability were positive and acceptable. For an extensive review of the psychometric properties of the RJI, see Wood (1997).

Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale--Revised. The vocabulary subtest and the similarities subtest of the verbal section were used to control for verbal ability. Sattler (1990) reported the reliability of both subtests was .91, and the validity of the two subtests also was positive: Together they had a .87 correlation coefficient with IQ or general intelligence as measured by the full scale WAIS-R. This edition of the WAIS was used because this research replicated an earlier study.

Impact of Faith Questionnaire. In this written questionnaire designed by the investigator, each participant stated whether during the interview he silently or orally referred to biblical verses or passages, to theology, to scriptural principles, or to the teachings of his church. Scale choices were 0 (no reference to my faith), 1 (low reference), 2 (moderate reference), and 3 (high reference). This questionnaire has only been used in this study and the study replicated, so validity has not been established.


Each participant completed the WAIS-R, the RJI, the Impact of Faith questionnaire, and a demographic information form. The investigator, a certified reflective judgment interviewer, conducted the interviews. The order of presentation of the three RJI dilemmas was randomized among participants to compensate for interviewee fatigue. Responses were tape recorded and transcribed verbatim with a blind coding system. Two certified raters independently scored responses to the dilemmas using the scoring rules developed by Kitchener and King (1985). Rated scores were compared and transcripts with discrepant ratings were rated independently a second and third time, if needed.


Interrater reliability measured by Pearson product-moment correlations between the two Reflective Judgment raters was acceptable. Correlations were all higher than .80 at the .001 level. The certification of the interviewer and both raters helped provide reliability among the findings of reflective judgment in this study.

First and Second Hypotheses

In response to the first hypothesis, there were no significant statistical differences between entering and graduating students' RJI mean scores, when controlling for verbal ability. The RJI mean score across dilemmas for entering graduate students was 4.58, with a range of 2.61 to 6.17, and for graduating students was 4.98, with a range of 3.22 to 6.11 (see Table 1). Both groups of students appear to have similar ability in reflective judgment.

In response to the second hypothesis, when controlling for verbal ability, there was no significant statistical difference in RJI scores between responses to a religiously oriented dilemma and two dilemmas with secular content. The RJI mean scores of both groups of students for each dilemma were chemical additives, 4.44; creation-evolution, 4.59; and news reporting, 5.29 (see Table 2). The religious or secular nature of the content of the dilemmas apparently did not make any significant difference in students' reflective judgment.

To address the first and second hypotheses, a repeated measures group by dilemma ANCOVA was computed on the RJI scores of the three dilemmas for the participants. The RJI scores from each of the three dilemmas were the dependent variables (within-subjects variables), the student level was the independent variable (between-subject variable), and verbal ability was the covariate. The multivariate test of significance for the repeated measures ANCOVA indicated no significant multivariate effects (see Table 3). The tests of within-subjects effects revealed no significant differences. Tests of between-subjects effects indicated a significant effect for verbal ability, the covariate, F(1.33) = 22.74, p<.001. This confirms the appropriateness of controlling for verbal ability (see Table 4).

The repeated measures ANCOVA requires the assumption of normality of the dependent variable within each group. RJI scores for the three dilemmas all exhibited normality for all groups. In addition, the assumption of equality of covariance matrices was met, Box's M=26.02, F(18, 3573)=1.20, p=.25. The condition of sphericity, however, was violated, Mauchly's W=0.79, p = .02. Therefore, a more conservative adjustment of degrees of freedom was used according to the Greenhouse-Geisser epsilon (Stevens, 1996).

Third Hypothesis

Participants' RJI scores and their Impact of Faith questionnaire scale choices were analyzed by three Pearson product moment correlations, one for each dilemma. There was not a significant negative correlation between RJI scores and the extent to which students referred to faith as they discussed the three dilemmas, chemical additives r = .27, p = .10, news reporting r = .40, p = .01, and creation-evolution r = -.24, p = .14. That is, graduate students' RJI scores did not decrease significantly as their references to faith increased.


First Hypothesis

The findings of this research did support the hypothesis that student level would have no effect on the RJI scores of evangelical seminary students. Graduating students did not have significantly higher reflective judgment scores than entering students. There was no significant difference between the two groups of students' mean RJI scores across all three dilemmas: students entering the Master of Divinity program, 4.58, and students ready to graduate, 4.98. For these graduating students, the seminary experience did not significantly help them develop reflective judgment. This finding presents an important challenge to the seminary to help students develop reflective thinking.

The RJI mean score across dilemmas for the entering students was 4.58 and the mean scores of the entire sample for the chemical additives and creation-evolution dilemmas were 4.44 and 4.59, respectively. Thus, many students indicated their most commonly used set of assumptions as level two, stage 4. They believed "there is an objective reality but it can never be known without uncertainty.... The individual is the ultimate source and judge of his or her own truth" (Kitchener & King, 1981, p. 96). Blamires (1978) wrote, "Secularism asserts the opinionated self as the only judge of truth" (p. 107). This stage clearly lacks the objectivity, certainty and authority of revealed knowledge.

Some students talked about more than individual opinion as a basis for responding to a dilemma. The RJI mean score across dilemmas for the graduating students was 4.98, and the mean score of both groups of students for the news reporting dilemma was 5.29; both indicate level two, stage 5 assumptions. "Reality exists only subjectively.... Knowledge claims are limited to subjective interpretations from a particular perspective" (Kitchener & King, 1981, p. 97). The epistemology underlying stages 4 and 5 is relativism and does not fit well with the authority of revealed knowledge. Possibly these students are mirroring their postmodern culture of relativism.

Although not indicated in the mean scores, the range of students' scores indicated some responded to dilemmas with prereflective assumptions. In fact, 6 of the 38 students responded to the chemical additives dilemma and 4 responded to the creation-evolution dilemma with level one assumptions. This may be an illustration of anti-intellectualism that has characterized evangelicals generally for many decades (Hatch, 1985; Guinness, 1994; Noll, 1994) and demonstrates "an ultra-simplistic view of the Bible and its interpretation" (Noll, p. 124). In calling us to fulfill the Great Commandment to love God with our minds, Guinness (1994) contended, "God has given us minds, but many of us have left them underdeveloped or undeveloped. God has given us education, beyond that of most people in human history, but we have used it for other ends" (pp. 133-134). In contrast, although reasoning does not produce a right relationship with God, Erickson (1983) seemed to value both revelation and reason: "Reason is essential even in the utilization of authority" (p. 157). Guinness argued,
God has not spoken definitively to us about everything.... Thus, if it
is an error for some Christians to make relative what God has made
absolute, it is equally an error for others to make absolute what God
has left relative. (p. 145)

The epistemology of level one does seem to fit with revealed knowledge, yet it is inadequate to recognize and resolve ill-structured problems, according to the RJM.

Although the mean scores did not indicate true reflective judgment, the range of RJI scores indicated some students did respond to one or two dilemmas with level three thinking, stages 6 and 7. Kitchener and King (1981) stated, "At the highest stage (7), by contrast, reality is understood as existing objectively, but the process of inquiry is seen as being fallible" (p. 92). Thus, "knowledge statements must be evaluated as more or less likely approximations to the truth and that they must be open to the scrutiny and criticisms of other rational people. This form is termed 'reflective judgment'" (p. 92). Ten students out of the entire sample responded to the chemical additives dilemma with reflective assumptions. Sixteen students likewise responded to the news reporting dilemma, while only 10 indicated reflective judgment on the creation-evolution dilemma. Clearly, these students moved away from simplistic responses and dealt with the complexity of the issues. They agreed with Sire (2000), "Reason has a role to play with regard to revealed truth" (p. 40), and "truth is often the result of a conflict between claims to truth" (p. 43). They understood Grudem's (1994) idea of "degrees of certainty" of knowledge (p. 120). According to the RJM, these students most adequately responded to the open-ended problems.

It is important to compare the results of other studies using the RJM. In research among undergraduate male students at a conservative Christian college for clergy preparation, RJI scores of freshmen were lower (3.65) than seniors (4.01) but these differences were not statistically significant (Dale, 1995). Both classes of students scored significantly lower on the creation-evolution dilemma than they did on the chemical additives to foods problem. As well, the more students referred to their faith or God's revealed knowledge, the lower their scores on the creation-evolution dilemma. King and Kitchener (2002) reported that reasoning of many college seniors is characteristic of stage 4, and many college-educated adults do not recognize uncertainty and may look to authorities for firm unqualified answers to dilemmas.

Concerning research results with graduate students, King and Kitchener reported,
graduate students have consistently earned the highest RJI scores: mean
scores for early level graduate students tended to fall at stages 4 and
5, and scores for advanced level graduate students clustered between
stages 5 and 6. The average RJI score for all graduate students was 4.76
(n = 196, 12 samples, 7 studies). It is noteworthy that the consistent
use of Stage 5 reasoning (e.g., acknowledging the basis for different
perspectives on a controversial issue) was first observed among graduate
students, and Stage 6 reasoning has only been consistently observed
among advanced doctoral students. (King & Kitchener, 2002, p. 47)

Mean RJI scores in the present study were 4.58 for entering students and 4.98 for graduating students. It appears both groups had scores virtually the same as the early level graduate students in other studies. This suggested Christian students' epistemology of revealed knowledge might not affect their development of reflective judgment.

Although there were a range of responses to the dilemmas, it is important that the entering and graduating students were not significantly different in their thinking. This challenge to the seminary to help students develop in reflective judgment should be embraced. Several authors identified instructional strategies to promote the development of epistemic cognition. The most comprehensive of these projects have been undertaken by Kroll (1992), Kronholm (1996), Lynch, Kitchener, and King (1994), and Lynch, Wolcott, and Huber, (2000). Two main assumptions undergird these projects:"students' understanding of the nature, limits, and certainty of knowledge affects how they approach the process of learning, and that their epistemic assumptions change over time in a developmentally related fashion" (King & Kitchener, 2002, p. 55). Strategies where students are passive recipients of knowledge ignore students' epistemic assumptions and their role in interpreting information and thus, are not as effective as strategies where students are active in constructing their knowledge claims about the world. Professors should allow students to wrestle with the ill-structured issues that are present in every discipline, and instead of announcing their own solutions, professors can explain how they reached their conclusions, thus modeling higher levels of thinking. Educators who encourage students to build on their prior experiences and who provide feedback and contextual support help students develop in reflective judgment.

Second Hypothesis

The findings of this research did support the hypothesis that the religious content of a dilemma would not affect seminary students' RJI scores, when controlling for verbal ability. Since there was no significant statistical difference in RJI mean scores between religious and secular dilemmas when controlling for verbal ability, the content did not seem to make a difference in students' reflective judgment. Whether solving religious or secular dilemmas, students responded with epistemic assumptions of level two, stages 4 and 5. The Bible and theology content of seminary curriculum might not hinder students from developing reflective judgment.

RJI scores of the two groups of students were similar to each other on the news reporting and chemical additives, but there was greater disparity on the creation-evolution dilemma. The group of entering graduate students had a lower creation-evolution dilemma mean score, 4.19, than the graduating students, 4.99, but the analysis indicated no statistically significant difference, p = .22 at .05 level. Further analysis of the creation-evolution RJI scores indicated power = .31 which means there is only 31% surety there is not a Type II error. There may not be enough power to detect the statistical significance because of the small sample size, but there could be a practical significance. Entering students may have relied more on their faith than on their reflective thinking, and graduating students may have been more reflective on dilemmas that challenged their faith. This could be an area for future research.

King and Kitchener (2002) stated, however, "Intense study in a discipline may provide the leading edge for the development of more complex epistemic cognition and true reflective thinking" (p. 47). The findings of DeBord (1993) support this idea, and Wood's (1997) findings suggest that this is especially true among graduate students. Thus, seminarians should score higher on the creation-evolution dilemma than the other dilemmas, but these seminarians did not. Further, because of three or more years of study in Bible and theology, students ready to graduate should score higher on this dilemma than entering seminarians.

Third Hypothesis

The findings of this research did not support the hypothesis that there would be a negative relationship between students' RJI scores and their faith. The RJI scores did not decrease significantly as their references to faith increased. This was not expected because students' faith was based on an epistemology of revealed truth of the Bible.

Consider whether these seminarians integrated their faith into secular issues. That is, did they integrate God's special and general revelation, reconciling what the Scriptures declare and our knowledge about the world? Since there was not a significant negative correlation between students' references to their faith and their RJI scores, it appears students are learning to integrate their faith, and students' faith did not hinder their reflective judgment. This finding along with the finding that the religious content of a dilemma did not make a significant difference in RJI scores seems to indicate that it is possible for seminary students with an epistemology of revealed truth to develop reflective judgment. This provides confidence for the seminary to develop students' reflective judgment.

Further, the percentage of students referring moderately or highly to their faith while discussing the two secular dilemmas increased from entering to graduating students. On the creation-evolution dilemma, 100% of entering and graduating students reported an Impact of Faith questionnaire scale choice of 2 (moderate) or 3 (high). On the chemical additives dilemma, 42.1% of entering students and 52.7% graduating students indicated 2 or 3 scale choice. On the news reporting dilemma, 52.7% of entering students and 68.4% of graduating students reported scale choice of 2 or 3. This positive finding indicated these students may be learning to integrate their faith into areas not explicitly discussed in the scriptures, that is, into secular issues. The reasons for this integration cannot be determined from this research, but three possibilities may be suggested. That is, presentation of varying perspectives through the strong ethnic diversity (52%) of the student body, a required internship experience, and the content of several required courses challenged students to integrate their knowledge of scripture and the world. Courses include, for example, Church as a Social and Cultural Institution, Person as a Social and Cultural Being, and Church in the Urban World. Encouraging the development of this ability of students is a worthy goal.

In summary, this research offered insight into the impact of revealed knowledge on the development of reflective judgment. It also addressed integrating faith into secular problematic issues. Although a few students indicated prereflective thinking and a few demonstrated reflective thinking, the majority functioned with quasi-reflective assumptions, and thus were similar to graduate students in other studies and mirrored the relativism of Western culture. It is important that the entering and graduating students were not statistically different in their thinking. For these students ready to graduate, seminary did not significantly help them develop reflective judgment. Students resolved both religious and secular dilemmas with the same epistemic assumptions, and they were integrating their faith into secular issues. Students' faith and the content of a religious dilemma did not affect their level of thinking on the RJM. The seminary should embrace the challenge to help students develop in reflective judgment while they are in the Master of Divinity program so that graduates better respond to ill-structured problems of life and ministry.
Table 1 RJI Means by Group Across Dilemmas

Group M SD Kurtosis Skewness

Entering students 4.58 .79 1.32 -.43
Graduating students 4.98 .87 -.71 -.61

Note. n=entering 19, graduating 19 students.

Table 2 RJI Means by Dilemma and Group and Total Sample

Dilemma M SD

 Entering students
Chemical additives 4.36 1.20
Creation-evolution 4.19 .98
News reporting 5.18 .98

 Graduating students
Chemical additives 4.53 1.16
Creation-evolution 4.99 1.23
News reporting 5.41 .96

 Total sample
Chemical additives 4.44 1.17
Creation-evolution 4.59 1.17
News reporting 5.29 .93

Note, n=19 entering, 19 graduating, 38 total sample

Table 3 Multivariate Test of Significance for Graduate Students

Multivariate effect Wilk's Lambda F p power

Reflective judgment 0.25 0.78 0.9
Reflective judgment* IQ 0.4 0.68 0.11
Reflective judgment* class 1.42 0.26 0.29

Table 4 Between- and Within-Subjects Tests of Significance for Graduate

Effect F p power

 Between subjects
IQ 22.74 <.001 0.99
Group 2.69 0.11 0.35
Error 0.32

 Within subjects
Reflective judgment 0.38 0.69 0.11
Reflective judgment* IQ 0.40 0.67 0.11
Reflective judgment* group 1.52 0.23 0.31
Error 50.54


Blamires, H. (1978). The Christian mind: How should a Christian think? Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Publications.

Dale, J. L. (1995). Reflective judgment in a conservative Christian college for clergy education (Doctoral dissertation, University of Denver, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56, 1289A.

DeBord, K. (1993). Promoting reflective judgment in counseling psychology graduate education. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Missouri-Columbia.

Erickson, M. J. (1983). Christian theology (Vol. 1). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.

Guinness, O. (1994). Fit bodies fat minds: Why evangelicals don't think and what to do about it. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

Grudem, W. (1994). Systematic theology: An introduction to biblical doctrine. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.

Hatch, N. O. (1985). Evangelical colleges and the challenge of Christian thinking. The Reformed Journal, 35(9), 10-18.

Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67, 88-140.

King, P. M. (1977). The development of reflective judgment and formal operational thinking in adolescents and young adults. Dissertation Abstracts International, 38, 7233A.

King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (2002). The reflective judgment model: Twenty years of research on epistemic cognition. In B. K. Hofer, & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 37-61). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, Publisher.

Kirk, J. A., & Vanhoozer, K. J. (Eds.). (1999). To stake a claim: Mission and the western crisis of knowledge. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.

Kitchener, K. S., & King, P. M. (1981). Reflective judgment: Concepts of justification And their relationship to age and education. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 2, 89-116.

Kitchener, K. S., & King, P. M. (1985). Reflective judgment scoring manual. (Available from K. S. Kitchener, School of Education, University of Denver, Denver, CO 80208).

Kitchener, K. S., & Kitchener, R. F. (1981). The development of natural rationality: Can formal operations account for it? In J. A. Meacham & N. R. Santilli (Eds.), Social development in youth: Structure and content. Contributions to human development, (Vol. 5, pp. 160-181). Basel, Switzerland: Karger.

Kroll, B. M. (1992). Teaching hearts and minds: College students reflect on the Vietnam War in literature. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Kronholm, M. M. (1996). The impact of developmental instruction on reflective judgment. Review of Higher Education, 19(2), 199-225.

Lynch C. L., Kitchener, K. S., and King, P. M. (1994). Developing reflective judgment in the classroom: A manual for faculty. Report of FIPSE Project #P116B00926. Available from Cindy Lynch, HCR75, Box 91, New Concord, KY 42076.

Lynch, C. L., Wolcott, S. K., & Huber, G. E. (2000, September). Tutorial for optimizing and documenting open-ended problem solving skills [On-line]. Retrieved September 28, 2000, from

Noll, M. A. (1994). The scandal of the evangelical mind. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Quine, W. V. O. (1953). From a logical point of view. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Sattler, J. M. (1990). Assessment of children (3rd ed.). San Diego, CA: Author.

Sire, J. W. (2000). Habits of the mind: Intellectual life as a Christian calling. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Wood, P. K. (1997). A secondary analysis of claims regarding the reflective judgment interview: Internal consistency, sequentiality, and intra-individual differences in ill-structured problem solving. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 12, pp. 243-312). Edison, NY: Agathon Press.


Alliance Theological Seminary


DALE, JANET L. Address: Alliance Theological Seminary, 350 North Highland Avenue, Nyack, NY 10960. Title: Associate Professor of Christian Education and Discipleship. Degrees: BA, Columbia International University; MA, Wheaton College; PhD, University of Denver. Specializations: Curriculum Leadership, Christian Education, Bible and Religious Education.

This research was funded in part by a generous grant from The David C. Cook Church Ministries. The author is grateful for this assistance and for the work of the research team: Cindy Lynch, PhD, Reflective Judgment rater and consultant, and Margaret Miller, PhD, statistician and consultant. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Janet L. Dale, Alliance Theological Seminary, 350 North Highland Avenue, Nyack, NY 10960. Email:
COPYRIGHT 2005 Rosemead School of Psychology
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2005, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Dale, Janet L.
Publication:Journal of Psychology and Theology
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Mar 22, 2005
Previous Article:Male spirituality and the men's movement: a factorial examination of motivations.
Next Article:Journal file.

Related Articles
The Economics and Ethics of Private Property.
Do not marry Muslims.
Expanding horizons for Christians in psychology.
The false dilemma of modernity.
Who's Bad?

Terms of use | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters