Using the LEP (Leadership
Environment Preferences)
Assessment to Validate
Perry’s Theory of Intellectual
and Ethical Development
Laura Sensenig
Gwendolyn Williams
Michael Montgomery
April 20, 2009
Nine Positions
1) Basic Duality
2) Dualism (Multiplicity Pre-Legitimate)
3) Early Multiplicity (Multiplicity Subordinate)
4) Late Multiplicity (a. Multiplicity Coordinate b. Relativism
Subordinate)
5) Contextual Relativism
6) Commitment Foreseen
7) Initial Commitments
8) Orientation in Implications of Commitment
9) Developing Commitments
(Perry, 1981 as cited in Rapaport, 1982)
Four Frames
• Dualism- (Moore: Position 2)
• Multiplicity- (Moore: Position 3)
• Relativism- (Moore: Position 4)
• Commitment in Relativism- (Moore: Position 5)
(King, 2006)
Transitioning
(Thoma, 1993)
Hypothesis / Predictions
• Freshmen : learning methodologies reflect
more basic and co-dependent structures of
cognitive thinking such as dualism and early
multiplicity. (Positions 2-3)
• Seniors : learning preferences reflect more
mature cognitive positions such as late
multiplicity and/or relativism. (Positions
3-4)
Learning Environment Preferences
(LEP)
• An objective, recognition-task instrument developed by
William S. Moore, Center for the Study of Intellectual
Development (1987).
• Initially designed and validated based upon the
qualitative research done on Perry’s intellectual and
ethical development model (1981)
• According to the preliminary longitudinal studies
(Moore, 1989), there is a predicted upward trend in
cognitive performance from the freshmen year to the
senior year.
• The LEP addresses five domains which include course
content, the roles of instructors and peers, classroom
atmosphere and activities, and course evaluation.
Methodology
• Survey Monkey: distributed via email. Friday, April 3rd
through Friday, April 10th. Data sent to Dr. Moore @ CSID for
analysis/scoring.
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=r5z0BTzUdFt_2fO7Yj_2bhOxuQ_3d_3d
Students

CLASS:
8 Freshmen, 8 Seniors

GENDER:
7 Male, 9 Female

RACE:
7 White
3 Asian (Indian/S.Asian, Vietnamese)
2 Hispanic/Mexican-American
1 each: African-American, biracial, international (Malay), N/A

MAJOR:
4 HOD (two combined with Comm. Studies / English)
3 PolySci (one combined with Econ)
3 Psychology, each combined with Spanish/Geology/English
1 each: English, Bio, Chem, MCB, ChemEng, Pre-nursing
Results
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Freshmen
Senior
Perry Position
CCI Position
(Scored by William S. Moore, CSID)
Results
Perry Position - Male/Female
3.1
3
2.9
2.8
2.7
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.2
Freshmen
Senior
Female
Male
(Scored by William S. Moore, CSID)
Results
Major - Sciences v. Non Science
3.1
3
2.9
2.8
2.7
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.2
Freshmen
Senior
Science Majors
Non-science
(Scored by William S. Moore, CSID)
Results
Race/Ethnicity Comparison
3.1
3
2.9
2.8
2.7
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.2
Freshmen
Senior
White
Minority
(Scored by William S. Moore, CSID)
Transitioning
Senior
Freshman
(Thoma, 1993)
Conclusions
•Freshmen: fell within 2nd/3rd position
•Seniors: fell near the 4th position
•No one scored above 4th position (Perry)
•Frosh vs. Senior: removing outliers, “practically
significant” difference -- therefore Perry’s theory
*is* generalizable
•Several students scored “0” on Position 4related questions
Limitations
•SurveyMonkey, vs. “in person” administration? Also, length of test 30 minutes? Fatigue? What if tested mid-year, rather than late spring?
(seniors/stress)
•“Race/ethnicity” - typed into box, not pre-filled (e.g., “biracial”,
Vietnamese, Malay)…
•Non-longitudinal.. Also, limited sample - size, and Vandy-only
•Complicated scoring/relation to questions
•Confusing questions? Open to (mis)interpretation?
•Only top three learning preferences considered-- not the questions
themselves-- when scored
•LEP - quantifying a qualitative method (based off essay prompts)…
can the info from the latter, be translated via the former?
Questions / Suggestions
• MID versus LEP: Would the former have been better
(essay prompts, “leaning” to/from stages)
• Choice of major - does high/low consensus matter?
What about gender (seniors, frosh)? Race/Ethnicity?
Sample size…
•Vandy vs. large university? Commuter? LAC? Other
institutions…
•Commuter/non-traditional students: would they score
beyond Position 4?
•Set syllabus/course, to consciously promote & address
cognitive ability/issues (Perry)
References
•
Chickering, A., Reisser, L. (1993). Education and Identity, (Second Edition). San-Francisco, Jossey- Bass.
•
Evans, N, J., Forney, D. S., Guido-DiBrito, F.(1998). Student Development in College: Theory Research and Practice.
San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
•
King, Patricia. (2006). “William Perry’s Theory of Intellectual and Ethical Development.” New Directions for
Student Services Vol. 1978, Issue 4, pp. 35-51.
•
Moore, William S. (1989). The Learning Environment Preferences: Exploring the Construct Validity of an
Objective Measure of the Perry Scheme of Intellectual Development. Journal of College Student Development. v30
n6 pp. 504-514.
•
Perry, William, G. (1999). Forms of Ethical and Intellectual Development in the College Years: A Scheme. San
Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
•
Perry, William, G. ( 2005). Different Worlds in the Same Classroom: Students’ Evolution in Their Vision of
Knowledge and Their Expectations of Teachers in ASHE Reader on College Student Development Theory, eds,
Wilson, M., Wolf-Wendel, L. Pearson Custom Publishing, pp. 473-481.
•
Perry, William, G. Jr. (2005). Sharing in the Cost of Growth in ASHE Reader on College Student Development
Theory, eds, Wilson, M., Wolf-Wendel, L. Pearson Custom Publishing, pp. 483-486.
•
Rapaport, William. (1982). “Unsolvable Problems and Philosophical Progress.” American Philosophical
Quarterly. Vol. 19, pp. 289-298.
•
Thoma, George, A. (1993). “The Perry Framework and Tactics for Teaching Critical Thinking in Economics.”
Journal of Economic Education Spring: 128-136.