Evaluating the Validity of an Epistemic Belief Questionnaire: Evidence Based on Internal Structure, Content, and Response Process
Abstract Views:
55 times
PDF-Full Text Downloads:
34 times
Abstract
The development of epistemic beliefs is regarded as an important goal of education. Three studies were conducted with preservice teachers in Australia to evaluate the validity of a new instrument that has the potential to measure sophistication of epistemic beliefs in a theoretically grounded manner. Two surveys gathered evidence on internal structure and content, and an interview study collected evidence on response process. Findings indicate that the original model and instrument required modifications. The modified instrument exhibited better internal structure. Interview data show that the instrument prompted respondents to think about the target constructs. However, the interview data also show that there are nuances in respondents’ beliefs about scientific knowledge which were not captured by the written questionnaire.
Pengembangan keyakinan epistemologi (ilmu pengetahuan) pada siswa dianggap sebagai salah satu tujuan penting pendidikan. Artikel ini memaparkan hasil tiga studi pada guru- guru magang di Australia mengenai validitas sebuah instrumen baru yang mengukur perkembangan keyakinan epistemologi. Dua studi survei menyajikan bukti tentang konten dan struktur internal, dan sebuah studi wawancara memaparkan bukti mengenai proses merespons. Survei pertama menunjukkan bahwa model original dan instrumennya perlu dimodifikasi. Survei kedua menunjukkan bahwa instrumen hasil modifikasi memiliki struktur internal yang lebih baik. Data wawancara menunjukkan bahwa instrumen tersebut memaksa para responden untuk memikirkan konstruk yang disasar. Namun, data wawancara juga menunjukkan adanya nuansa dalam keyakinan responden tentang pengetahuan ilmiah yang tidak terungkap melalui kuesioner tertulis tersebut.
Downloads
References
Anfara, V. A., Brown, K. M., & Mangione, T. L. (2002). Qualitative analysis on stage: Making the research process more public Educational Researcher, 31, 28-38.
Bendixen, L. D., & Feucht, F. (Eds.). (2010). Personal Epistemology in the Classroom: Theory, Research, and Implications for Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bhaskar, R. (1978). A Realist Theory of Science. Hassocks, Sussex: Harverster Press.
Clarebout, G., Elen, J., Luyten, L., & Bamps, H. (2001). Assessing epistemological beliefs: Schommer’s questionnaire revisited. Educational Research and Evaluation, 7(1), 53-77.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3-21.
Debacker, T. K., Crowson, H. M., Beesley, A. D., Thoma, S. J., & Hestevold, N. L. (2008). The challenge of measuring epistemic beliefs: An analysis of three self-report instruments. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76(3), 281-312.
Greene, J. A. (2007). A model of the development of epistemic and ontologic cognition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Maryland.
Greene, J. A., Azevedo, R., & Torney-Purta, J. (2008). Modeling epistemic and ontologic cognition: Philosophical perspectives and methodological directions. Educational Psychologist, 43(3), 142-160.
Greene, J. A., Torney-Purta, J., & Azevedo, R. (2010). Empirical evidence regarding relations among a model of epistemic and ontologic cognition, academic performance, and educational level. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(1), 234-255.
Hallet, D., Chandler, M., & Krettenauer, T. (2002). Disentangling the course of epistemic development: parsing knowledge by epistemic content. New Ideas in Psychology, 20(2-3), 285-307.
Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2002). On the form of a personal epistemology. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal Epistemology: The Psychology of Beliefs about Knowledge and Knowing (pp. 169-190). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hofer, B. K. (2000). Dimensionality and disciplinary differences in personal epistemology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(4), 378-405.
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(1), 88.
Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (Eds.). (2002). Personal Epistemology: The Psychology of Beliefs about Knowledge and Knowing. Mahwah: New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
House, E. R. (1991). Realism in research. Educational Researcher, 20(6), 2-9.
Kardash, C. M., & Howell, K. L. (2000). Effects of epistemological beliefs and topic-specific beliefs on undergraduates' cognitive and strategic processing of dual-positional text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 524-535.
Kitchener, K. S., & King, P. M. (1981). Reflective judgment: Concepts of justification and their relationship to age and education. Journal of Applied Developmental Research, 2, 89-116.
Kitcher, P. (2001). Science, Truth, and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kuhn, D. (2000). Metacognitive development. Current directions in psychological science, 9(5), 178-181.
Kuhn, D., Cheney, R., & Weinstock, M. (2000). The development of epistemological understanding. Cognitive Development, 15(3), 309-328.
Kuhn, D., & Pearsall, S. (2000). Developmental origins of scientific thinking. Journal of Cognition and Development, 1(1), 113-129.
Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245-1260.
Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331-359.
Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 831-880). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lutz, D. J., & Keil, F. C. (2002). Early understanding of the division of cognitive labor. Child Development, 73(4), 1073-1084.
Magolda, M. B. B. (2008). Three elements of self- authorship. Journal of College Student Development, 49(4), 269-284.
Magolda, M. B. B., King, P. M., Taylor, K. B., & Wakefield, K. M. (2012). Decreasing authority dependence during the first year of college. Journal of College Student Development, 53(3), 418-435.
Patton, M. Q. (1999). Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. HSR: Health and Services Research, 34(5), 1189-1208.
Perry, W. G. (1970/1999). Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 498-504.
Schommer, M. (1993). Epistemological development and academic performance among secondary students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 406-411.
Schraw, G., Bendixen, L. D., & Dunkle, M. E. (2002). Development and validation of the Epistemic Belief Inventory. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal Epistemology: The Psychology of Beliefs about Knowledge and Knowing (pp. 103-118). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Teo, T. (2013). Examining the psychometric properties of the epistemic belief inventory (EBI). Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 31(1), 72-79.
Wood, P., & Kardash, C. M. (2002). Critical elements in the design and analysis of studies of epistemology. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal Epistemology: The Psychology of Beliefs about Knowledge and Knowing (pp. 231-260). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wu, M., & Adams, R. (2007). Applying the Rasch Model to Psycho-social Measurement: A Practical Approach. Melbourne: Educational Measurement Solutions.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Articles published in ANIMA are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license. You are free to copy, transform, or redistribute articles for any lawful, non-commercial purpose in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to ANIMA and the original Author(s), link to the license, indicate if changes were made, and redistribute any derivative work under the same license.
Copyright on articles is retained by the respective Author(s), without restrictions. A non-exclusive license is granted to ANIMA to publish the article and identify itself as its original publisher, along with the commercial right to include the article in a hardcopy issue for sale to libraries and individuals.
By publishing in ANIMA, Author(s) grant any third party the right to use their article to the extent provided by the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.
