Sex Roles

, Volume 40, Issue 9–10, pp 745–766 | Cite as

A New Way of Assessing Ways of Knowing: The Attitudes Toward Thinking and Learning Survey (ATTLS)

  • Kathleen M. Galotti
  • Blythe Mcvicker Clinchy
  • Kathryn H. Ainsworth
  • Beth Lavin
  • Annick F. Mansfield
Article

Abstract

In four studies, college students (both male andfemale, predominantly white) filled out a 50-item surveyconsisting of statements illustrating“separate” (critical, detached) and“connected” (empathic) ways of knowing (Belenky, Clinchy, G oldberger,& Tarule, 1986). The instrument showed acceptableinternal reliability. Scores on the two scales wereuncorrelated, supporting the view that the twoepistemological positions are independent. Females consistentlyrated connected knowing (CK) statements higher thanseparate knowing (SK) statements, while males showed aslight, but non-significant difference favoring SK statements. When participants were dividedinto groups using a joint median split of the two ratingscores, females were disproportionately likely to beplaced in the High CK-Low SK group. CK and SK scores were unrelated to performance on avariety of cognitive tasks, but were related to somemeasures of preference, suggesting that ways of knowingmay function more as approaches or styles rather than basic abilities.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Anderson, R. C., & Pitchert, J. W. (1978). Recall of previously unrecallable information following a shift in perspective. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17,1–12.Google Scholar
  2. Baxter Magdola, M. B. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender-related patterns in students' intellectual development.San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  3. Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1985). Epistemological development and the politics of talk in family life. Journal of Education, 167,9–27.Google Scholar
  4. Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B.M., Goldberger, N.R., & Tarule, J.M. (1986/1997). Women's ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind(2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  5. Buczynski, P. L. (1993). The development of a paper-and-pencilmeasure of Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger and Tarule 's (1986) conceptualmodel of women's Ways-of-Knowing Instrument. Journal of College Student Development, 34,197–200.Google Scholar
  6. Claxton, C. S., & Murrell, P. H. (1987). Learning styles: Implications for improving education practices.ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4. Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education.Google Scholar
  7. Clinchy, B. McV. (1989). The development of thoughtfulness in college women: Integrating reason and care. American Behavioral Scientist, 32,647–657.Google Scholar
  8. Clinchy, B. McV. (1990). Issues of gender in teaching and learning. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 1,52–67.Google Scholar
  9. Clinchy, B.McV. (1995). A connected approach to the teaching of developmental psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 22,100–104.Google Scholar
  10. Clinchy, B.McV. (1996). Connected and separate knowing: Toward a marriage of two minds. In N. Goldberger, J. Tarule, B. Clinchy, & M. Belenky (Eds.), Knowledge, difference, and power: Essays inspired by Women's ways of knowing.New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  11. Clinchy, B. (1998). A plea for epistemological pluralism. In B. McV. Clinchy & J. F. Norem (Eds.), The gender and psychology reader.New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Clinchy, B. McV., Belenky, M. F., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1985). Connected education for women. Journal of Education, 167,28–45.Google Scholar
  13. Galotti, K. M. (1998). Valuing connected knowing in the classroom. The Clearing House, 71,281–283.Google Scholar
  14. Galotti, K. M., Komatsu, L. K., & Voelz, S. (1997). Children's differential performance on deductive and inductive syllogisms. Developmental Psychology, 33,70–78.Google Scholar
  15. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Globerson, T., & Zelnicker, T. (Eds.) (1989). Human Development: Volume 3: Cognitive style and cognitive development.Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  17. Knight, K. H., Elfenbein, M. H., Messina, J. A. (1995). A preliminary scale to measure connected and separate knowing: The Knowing Styles Inventory. Sex Roles, 33,499–513.Google Scholar
  18. Kogan, N. (1983). Stylistic variation in childhood and adolescence: Creativity, metaphor, and cognitive styles. In J.H. Flave ll & E.M. Markman (Eds.),Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3.Cognitive Development.New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  19. Lyons, N. (1983). Two perspectives on self, relationships, and morality. Harvard Educational Review, 53,125–145.Google Scholar
  20. Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme.New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  21. Perry, W. G. (1981). Cognitive and ethical growth: The making of meaning. In A. Chickering (Ed.), The modern American college.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  22. Philbin, M., Meier, E., Huffman, S., & Boverie, P. (1995). A survey of gender and learning styles. Sex Roles, 32,485–494.Google Scholar
  23. Pillemer, D. B., Goldsmith, L. R., Panter, A. T., & White, S. H. (1988). Very long-term memories of the first year in college. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning.Memory, and Cognition, 14,709–715.Google Scholar
  24. Raven, J. C., Court, J. H., & Raven, J. (1985). Manual for Raven' s Progressive Matrices and Vocabularly Scales, Section 1: General Overview.London: H. K. Lewis & Co., Ltd.Google Scholar
  25. Rayner, S., & Riding, S. (1997). Towards a categorisation of cognitive style s and learning styles. Educational Psychology, 17,5–28.Google Scholar
  26. Riding, R. J. (1997). On the nature of cognitive style. Educational Psychology, 17,29–49.Google Scholar
  27. Severiens, S., & Ten Dam, G. (1997). Gender and gender identity differences in learning styles. Educational Psychology, 17,79–93.Google Scholar
  28. Spearman, C. (1927). The abilities of man.New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  29. Stanton, A. (1996). Reconfiguring teaching and knowing in the college classroom. In N. Goldberger, J. Tarule, B. Clinchy, & M. Belenky (Eds.), Knowledge, difference, and power: Essays inspired by Women' s ways of knowing.New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  30. Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking styles.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1997). Are cognitive style s still in style ? American Psychologist, 52,700–712.Google Scholar
  32. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics(3rd. ed.). New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  33. Turkle, S., & Papert, S. (1990). Epistemological pluralism: Styles and voices within the computer culture. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 16,128–157.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kathleen M. Galotti
  • Blythe Mcvicker Clinchy
  • Kathryn H. Ainsworth
  • Beth Lavin
  • Annick F. Mansfield

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations