Self-Assessment of Cognitive Development of Japanese University
Students-Using Perry’s Developmental Model-

Yuki Ichimura
Kumamoto University
yichimura@st.gsis.kumamoto-u.ac.jp

Hiroshi Nakano
Kumamoto University
nakano@cc.kumamoto-u.ac.jp

Katsuaki Suzuki
Kumamoto University
ksuzuki@kumamoto-u.ac.jp

Abstract: Active attitudes towards learning and knowledge are keys to success in college education. ForJapanese university students, there is a significant gap between their college learning from the exam-prep
educations that they have had. By evaluating the students’ developmental stages using Perry's cognitivedevelopmental model, this study highlights the characteristics of the views and attitudes on complex
knowledge that freshman and sophomore students in Japanese universities have, in order to promote theirtransformation through the lessons.
Keywords: Higher Education, Cognitive Development, Developmental Education, Self-Directed Learning,

INTRODUCTION
The readiness to survive university education in thefreshman students is now crucial in Japan. Thereappeared to be a significant gap between the university
entrance preparation and the actual learning in thecurriculum of universities. At the beginnings of theacademic year in April, the freshman students start
their new learning journey, completely distinct fromthe one that they have experienced throughout in theirpast school lives. The most part of the university
admission in Japan assesses the students by one-time
exam test scores. OECD (2011) describes that "theexams emphasize memorizing and accumulating facts
and mastering procedures, rather than analyticalthinking, creativity or the capacity for innovation". Allof sudden after the entrance, the critical transformationis required for the freshman to survive in theuniversities, whose goal is what OECD (2011) pointed
out that the Japanese exam system lacks.
Having faced with the critical situations in ourinstructional settings, it was the purpose of this study
to assess the students' cognitive developmental level in
their thoughts and attitudes on the complex knowledge.

COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT FOR COLLEGELEARNING

Perry’s (1970) developmental model, that
illustrates and structures university students’ reform intheir views and attitudes toward complex knowledge,
would be suitable for a theoretical approach tacklingwith this issue. Perry’ model captures the intellectualand moral developmental stages of college students
towards their independence in learning, and this study
uses his model as the theoretical framework. It includes
four stages of Dualism, Multiplicity, Relativism, andCommitment (Seller et al., 2014) as follows:1) Dualism seeks correct answers, and learning
is memorizing.
2) Multiplicity views knowledge being based onopinion.
3) Relativism sees knowledge being dependingon the context and free to question
everything.
4) Commitment is ready to decide how you live
and commit to beliefs and works.
In the past research in relation to Perry’s model,
Zhang and Watkins (2001) compared cross-cultural
analysis between the Chinese and U.S. university
students’ cognitive development and learning styles.
The researchers discovered the differences in thedevelopmental patterns between the US students andChinese students through their research over the years.
They also found the differences in the relationships
between the cognitive development stages and learning
approaches. Whereas their study compared just two
countries and did not include Japanese university
students.
The current study asked a questionnaire, rephrasing
Suzuki’s (2018) Japanese translated version, as a selfevaluation chart for students to evaluate their own
stages. Comparison between the formative andsummative questionnaires across the semesters will

track their changes. In addition, our research interests
are to know what learning activities in the semesters
had or did not have impacts on the students if there wasany change in their cognitive level.

RESEARCH DESIGN
Around 130 university freshman and sophomore
students from the three private universities in theTokyo region responded to the questionnaire in theirfirst university lessons. The questionnaire has beenedited into a self-evaluation that is originally structured
by Seller et al. (2014) and translated into Japanese by
Suzuki (2018).
In this study, the students chose the closest choices
among four for each question asking their perspective
on knowledge, instructors’ role, goal of learning,expectations, assessment, and grades. Table 1 excerpts
Perry’s cognitive developmental stages summarized bySeller et al. (2014).
The same questions will be asked when the firstsemester ends. The result will highlight thecharacteristics of the Japanese students in their views
towards knowledge, relationship between instructors
and acceptance of assessments in their university life.

The summative questionnaire will also ask the impacts
and reaction of each instructional activities during thesemester, if they promote any changes. The students
will choose activities that they feel the most useful,relevant to their future, interested, changed their view.
They will be asked if they experience any changes intheir view on knowledge.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The formative Questionnaire highlighted the strong
preferences of objective test styles, including true/false
questions and multiple-choice questions. In relation toPerry’s model, this is categorized in the youngest stage,Dualism. In the same way, almost 65% responded thatthey expected to be graded by their efforts in theprocess of reaching the correct answers. It is the second
youngest level, Multiplicity. While the students arestill in the young stages in the test and grade
preferences, their response to the knowledge
perception is relatively matured, compared to the otherquestions. They chose Relativism perceiving thatknowledge is related to contexts and not always
concrete. Figure 1 shows the results from theformative stage from the first period of their course.

Table 1. Excerpts from Perry’s Stages of Cognitive Development by Seller et al. (2014)
Multiplicity

Relativism

Commitment

Knowledge is either
right or wrong, goodor bad.

When authorities do
not know the answer,
everyone has a right totheir own opinion.

Knowledge in relation
to context.
Everything is valid,
but not always equal.

I make a commitment,
and affirmation or adecision.

She is responsible forteaching me.

He is the authority on
the topic; he will
provide the answers.

She provides guidance
and many sources oflearning.

He allows me to form
my own opinion.

Goal oflearning

Leaning is masteredby memorizing.

I comprehend thematerial. Begin to see
the importance ofideas.

I apply and analyze
what I am learning.

I synthesize andevaluate theinformation.

Expectations

Please tell me what tolearn.

Help me understandhow different pieces
of information relate.

Do not give meanswers; let me
struggle to solve
problems

My answer is correct
as long as I can
support it withevidence.

TestMethod

I prefer true/false,
multiple choicematching.

I prefer short answer
and fill in the blank.

I prefer supporting
my answer withevidence.

I prefer making
commitment to achoice or an opinion.

If I get all the collectanswers, then I will
earn an A.

I hope my teacher
allows for effort,
especially if I
understand the processof getting the correct
answers.

My grades shouldreflect my ability tosupport my answers
with reasoning andevidence.

Grades are importantbut I learn for the sakeof learning andexpanding myknowledge.

Knowledge
Instructor
Perspective

Dualism

GradeFigure 1. Formative Questionnaire Results

The semester is still being continued, and final
results and analysis will be presented at the conference.
The summative results of one university freshman's
class remained the characteristics of the cognitive
developmental patterns that had been shown in theformative questionnaire. Although 50% of the classmembers chose Relativism (the 3rd) stage for theirknowledge perspective, over 63% of them chose
Dualism (the 1st) stage for assessment preference
question. That is, a half of the answers in theirknowledge perspectives viewed knowledge was notalways equal, depending on contexts, rather thanmerely good or bad choices.
On the other hand, they preferred true or false,
multiple-choice questions that are an objective methodof testing distinguishing either right or wrong. It could
be the influences of the test styles that they haveexperienced in the former education for long time.
Deeper analysis is still continued and will be presented.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS
We are to continue this research as a longitudinal
study, following students' development over the year.
It will give us insights for syllabus development,
stimulating the university students' promotion of their
cognitive development. Having the students selfevaluate their cognitive stages would make them
become aware of their views and the next stages
towards independent learners.

We would also like to propose this study to
instructors from other countries, especially who sharethe same style of university admissions andeducational systems. Through reaching out newly
entering university students with passive views on
knowledge and learning, we would like to address theneeds to fully equip them to commit their own learningand works through the learning in universities.

REFERENCES
OECD (2011), "Japan: A Story of Sustained
Excellence", in Lessons from PISA for the UnitedStates. Paris: OECD Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264096660-7-en.
Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethicaldevelopment in the college years. New York,NY : Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Seller, D., Dochen, C.W., & Hodgers, R. (2014).
Academic Transformation: The road to college
success ( 3rd Ed). Boston, MA : Pearson.
Suzuki, K. (2018). Think of the depth of your learning(Chapter 4). In K. Suzuki, & N. Mima (Eds),
Gakusyu Sekkei Manual [Learning DesignManual]. Kyoto: Kita-Oji Shobo, 33-44.
Zhang, L., & Watkins, D. (2001). Cognitive
Development and Student Approaches toLearning: An Investigation of Perry's Theory withChinese and U.S. University Students. Higher

Education, 41(3), 239-261. Retrieved fromhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3447975