In the late 1960s, William G. Perry and his colleagues at Harvard conducted a landmark longitudinal study of how students' thinking develops across their time in higher education and that this development followed a recognisable pattern.

Perry described a journey through nine positions

Position one, basic duality

Students at this position assume there is only one correct answer, which is exactly right, and that every other answer is wrong, so multiplicity is not perceived. The position is rarely seen in higher education. The single answer is believed to come from an authority such as the teacher, and perhaps AI.

Position two, dualism

This is the lowest position commonly seen in higher education. Students want to know only what they need for an assessment and see knowledge as a collection of facts and defined processes. They rely passively on the teacher to supply the right answer and try to memorise facts, definitions and a single method for reaching solutions. These characteristics are particularly prevalent in the first years of higher education, and fit Freire’s banking model of learning.

Position three, multiplicity

Students begin to realise that there are many different viewpoints but cannot yet work out which is more valid. This brings a sense of disequilibrium into how they make meaning. They are frustrated because they know right-or-wrong thinking is not enough, yet they lack the capacity for sophisticated analysis. This corresponds with Elder and Paul’s challenged thinker, who sees problems in their thinking but cannot address them systematically.

Position four, pure relativism

Students start to see that evidence is needed to build and justify a valid argument. They treat teachers as a source of ways to think and look to authorities to show them how to think independently. Position four marks the shift from receiving knowledge to evaluating and constructing arguments, and the first critical thinking skills and dispositions emerge. Application stays foundational and surface level, and students find it hard to judge quality on their own. Critical thinking may also be performative, with students showing that they think how they believe they are expected to.

Position five, contextual relativism

Students see knowledge as something to be evaluated within a context, and they can engage in critical self-reflection and look for solutions. Moore describes the move from position four to five as arguably the most significant transition in the Scheme, because students become self-consciously active makers of meaning. They are comfortable with multiplicity, apply analytical tools systematically and show confident professional scepticism as a genuine intellectual habit. They look to teachers to help them develop good judgement. This matches Elder and Paul’s practising thinker.

Position six, commitment within relativism

At this point students begin to see that they will need to make commitments within a relativistic world. They keep their capacity for critical analysis while orienting themselves towards choices they will take responsibility for. Perry’s final positions generally address making informed commitments, and positions six to eight typically relate to students in their fourth year of higher education.

Position seven, initial commitment

Students make a first commitment in an area such as a career, a set of values or a relationship, and they start to take ownership of that choice. They do this while still holding the critical analysis developed in the earlier positions. The commitment is informed rather than simply handed down by an authority.

Position eight, living with the implications of commitment

Students explore what their commitments mean in practice, including the responsibilities, tensions and trade-offs involved. They continue to refine and revisit their thinking while maintaining their critical capacity. This position is also typically linked to seniors in the fourth year of higher education.

Position nine, developing and living with long-term commitments

This position is associated with post-graduation professional contexts, where people make and live with long-term career and ethical commitments. It resonates with Elder and Paul’s master thinker, who consistently monitors and refines their thinking e.g, law, medicine, accounting education, and beyond, require graduates who can exercise judgement, not just apply rules. Regulators and employers are increasingly explicit about this..