ATENEO DE MANILA UNIVERSITY

EPISTEMIC RESPONSIBILITY IN A CONSTRUCTIVIST

LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO

THE FACULTY OF THE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF ARTS IN EDUCATION

BY

YU-MING STANLEY GOH, S.J.

QUEZON CITY, PHILIPPINES

MARCH 2014

ii

ABSTRACT

This study aimed to measure how epistemic responsibility and its individual

characteristics of knowledge maximisation, flexibility-adaptability and contact

maximisation can be related to constructivist learning in a college classroom. An

instrument to measure epistemic responsibility was constructed and used in

conjunction with another instrument that measured perceptions of constructivist

learning environments to measure the perceptions of both aspects among 64

college students. It was found that perceptions of epistemic responsibility could be

reliably measured and that it was significantly related to perceptions of

constructivist learning environments in this study.

iii

CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………….. vi

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………

Background of the Study……………………………………...

Theoretical Framework……………………………...………..

Conceptual Framework………..……………...………………

Statement of the Problem……………………………………..

Hypothesis……………………………………………………

Assumptions ……………………..…………………...………

Scope and Limitations of the Study………………………......

Significance of the Study.…………………………………….

Definition of Terms…………………………………………...

1

1

2

5

16

17

17

18

18

20

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE………………………………………

Virtue Epistemology: Responsibility for Knowledge………...

Constructivism: The Enterprise of Building Knowledge……..

The Epistemically Responsible Individual……………………

23

23

29

34

iv

iv

Theoretical Studies in Epistemology and

Epistemological Beliefs………………………………………..

Studies in Constructivist Learning Environments…………….

Asian Studies in Epistemology and Constructivist Learning

Environments………………………….……………………….

Summary………………………………………………………

36

50

53

59

III. METHODOLOGY………………………………………...………

Research Design………………………………………………

Research Setting…………………………………...…….……

Research Subjects……………………………………..………

Research Instruments…………………………………………

Data Gathering Procedure…………………………….………

Data Analysis and Statistical Treatment……………………...

60

60

61

62

64

78

79

IV. PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND

INTERPRETATION OF DATA…………………………………..

83

V. SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSION

AND RECOMMENDATIONS………………………...………….

Summary…………...………………………………………….

Research Findings……….……………………………………

107

107

111

v

v

Conclusion…………………………….………………………

Recommendations…………………………...…………………

117

118

REFERENCES………………………………………………....…………

APPENDICES…………………….………………………………………

A. Constructivist Learning Environment Survey Items……….

B. Pilot Test …………….………………………………..……

C. Epistemic Responsibility Survey Items…………………….

D. Final Test…………...…………………….………….……..

E. Descriptive Statistics of All Items of Pilot Test…………..

F. Descriptive Statistics of All Likert Scale Items of Final

Test………………………………………………………...

G. Inter-Item Correlation and Covariance Matrices of Pilot

Test Items…….……………………………………..………

H. Paper on Epistemic Responsibility and Constructivism

presented at the Philosophy of Education Society of

Australasia Conference 2013…….……………….…………

120

127

128

130

132

133

135

140

142

146

vi

vi

TABLES

Table Page

1. Comparison between aspects of Epistemic Responsibility and

Constructivist Learning Environment …………………….……

15

2. Upper Year Student Population of Ateneo De Manila

University and Research Subjects for Testing………….………

63

3. Table Of Specifications for the Epistemic Responsibility

Survey……………...……………………………………………

66

4. Summary of Data for Contact Maximisation, Flexibility-

Adaptability and Knowledge Maximisation in AdMU Students

AY 2013-2014 from Pilot Test…………………………………

68

5. Summary of Reliability Coefficients for Contact Maximisation,

Flexibility-Adaptability and Knowledge Maximisation Before

and After the Retention and Rejection of Items……….……….

71

6. Summary of Mean Inter-Item Correlation and Covariance for

Contact Maximisation, Flexibility-Adaptability and Knowledge

Maximisation Before and After the Retention and Rejection of

Items…………………………………………………………….

73

7. Researchers’ Interpretation Scale for ERS And CLES Scores… 77

8. Researchers’ Interpretation Scale for Correlation Scores…...…. 81

vii

vii

9. Summary of Data of Contact Maximisation, Flexibility-

Adaptability and Knowledge Maximisation in AdMU Students

AY 2013-2014 in Final Test……..……………………………...

84

10. Pearson Correlation Coefficients (R) between the Three

Aspects of Epistemic Responsibility………..…………………..

88

11. Frequencies for the Content Analysis of Question B, Grouped

by Category…………………………………………………......

90

12. Summary of Perceptions of Constructivist Learning

Environments in AdMU Students AY 2013-2014 from Final

Test……………………………………………………………...

93

13. Frequencies for the Content Analysis of Question C, Grouped

by Category…………………………………………………......

98

14. Summary of the Pearson Correlation Coefficients (R) Between

Epistemic Responsibility and Constructivist Learning

Environments from the Final Test……………………………...

101

1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

No study into the practice of teaching and learning would be complete without

considering epistemological issues that emerge during the interaction that occurs

among teachers, students, and the knowledge with which both work. There is a

need to understand the relationship between the student and his or her perceptions

of knowledge (Hofer and Pintrich 1997, 89) so that the teachers responsible for

their learning can achieve their educational aims more effectively.

It is with this in mind that it seems apt to re-examine the epistemological

groundings of constructivist teaching and learning methodologies given the

increased interest and application of these and other student-centred teaching and

learning methodologies at present (Applefield, Huber and Moallem 2000, 36).

Given the ubiquity of Constructivism in all areas of education, there exists a

tendency to accept it uncritically as a “good” method of teaching and learning.

However, the danger of it becoming “a general term of approbation with but little

content and an incoherent epistemology” (Fox 2001, 23) gives impetus to seek an

2

alternative way of understanding how knowledge is actually constructed and

construed within the constructivist framework. It is hoped that with a clearly stated

epistemological grounding, a more coherent understanding of the learner‟s role in

the constructivist classroom can be gained and the theoretical bases of

Constructivism revitalised and rethought for greater effectiveness in the future.

Theoretical Framework

The framework to be used in this study blends philosophical exposition about

epistemology (Fumerton 2006, 12-14) with an analysis of the current state of

Constructivism within the field of education. In particular, virtue epistemology

(Greco 2010, 75-78), a branch of the philosophical study of the theory of

knowledge will be used as the theoretical grounding for the examination and re-

evaluation of Constructivism.

Epistemology has to do with the explication of the concept of knowledge and

how it is formed and internalised by the individual. Fumerton (2006, 1) describes

the study of epistemology as the study of the questions that “involve the concepts

of knowledge, evidence, reasons for believing, justification, probability, what one

ought to believe”. The study of knowledge as it occurs in the individual presents a

tantalising means of examining how and why a learner would want to learn. It is

3

the role of the individual and his or her relationship with knowledge that will be

the focus of this study, that is, how the returning of the locus of responsibility of

knowledge to the individual as described by virtue epistemology advocates

(Zagzebski 1996, 152) can be seen as compatible with constructivist learning

environments.

Knowledge, in the estimation of virtue epistemology theorists, is about

allowing learners “to develop the skills and abilities required to understand the

relationships obtaining among items of knowledge and the reasons and evidence

that supports them, in order to discover or create new items of knowledge” (Siegel

2008, 460). The learner is thus brought to the centre of the educative process.

This is consonant with the constructivist view of education and knowledge

acquisition that emphasises “knowledge construction rather than knowledge

transmission and the recording of information conveyed by others. The role of the

learner is conceived as one of building and transforming knowledge” (Steffe and

Gale 1995, 12). Constructivism is also focused on breaking with the “foundations

of empirico-realism, which claims to encode reality in terms of substances and

phenomena which are independent of the observers involved” (Larochelle and

Bednarz 1998, 5). This is a project that is echoed in virtue epistemology that

4

focuses more on the inner traits of a person rather than actions or empirical contact

with reality (Zagzebski 1996, 15).

Virtue epistemology provides a means of examining the knowledge

construction process that would occur in and around the learners in the college

classroom. Constructivism in its various forms1

has been, at various times,

criticised for its lack of recognition of the role of the curriculum on the learning of

the student (Fox 2001, 24-25); for its denial of the possibility of a concrete reality

that exists outside the learner (von Glasersfeld 1989, 126); and for its anti-realist

and almost relativistic stance that makes assessment and evaluation difficult

(Olssen 1996, 286). These criticisms point to two problems with the conceptions

of knowledge that this study will seek to address: first, the unstable and fluid

conception of knowledge and truth in constructivism that hints at a relativistic

view of reality (Fox 2001, 28); and second, the lack of emphasis on the role of the

individual‟s character and motivation (Olssen 1996, 290) in the knowledge

building process. By exploring the inner traits of the individual‟s want to gain

knowledge, the study will attempt to ground the efficaciousness of Constructivism

1 There are two major „schools‟ of educational constructivism – social and radical constructivism. Social constructivism comes from the sociological concept that states that learning occurs through an individual‟s

engagement with a group that collaboratively creates meaning for itself (Gergen 1995, 21). Radical

constructivism on the other hand goes a step further by positing that reality is inherently unstable and the

individual actively seeks to construct meaning and thus knowledge based on the perceived contact with

reality (von Glasersfeld 1995, 5).

5

in an alternate epistemology that would move it away from the potential

relativistic turn that it has taken and towards the possibility of seeing

Constructivism as learners gaining stable truths through discovery and exploration.

Conceptual Framework

It is with this turn towards the individual‟s role in learning that the view of

knowledge in virtue epistemology comes into its own. By shifting the locus of

knowledge building to the traits and characteristics of the individual and away

from the rational-analytic conception of knowledge as being justified true belief, a

way is opened for a greater personal involvement in the knowledge building

process that Constructivism imputes to the learners. This too is consonant with the

theory of knowledge espoused by Giambattista Vico (Vico 1968, 103-105), often

hailed as the Proto-Constructivist who saw science as being at the service of

understanding human nature (Lilla 1993, 39) and whose epistemology supports the

possibility of stable truths. Though sometimes called upon to support the side of

the radical constructivists because of his emphasis upon the human knower as

being an active participant in the construction of knowledge (von Glasersfeld 1989,

123), Vico‟s early description of the individual‟s relationship with knowledge and

6

his rejection of scepticism and radical rationalism would give an alternative view

of Constructivism that would in turn meld well with virtue epistemology.

Common descriptions of Constructivism in education focus on two main

features – that knowledge is actively constructed and not passively received by the

learner; and that knowledge is not an entity independent of the learner who comes

to know through a process of adaptation and organisation of lived experiences

(Matthews 1992, 276). The importance of the individual gaining knowledge and

understanding through coming to know the world around is emphasised (Brooks

and Brooks 1999, 23) in Constructivism. As a theory of knowing and

understanding, three central principles of constructivism are often mentioned:

1. Knowledge is not passively accumulated, but rather, is the result of

active cognising by the individual;

2. cognition is an adaptive process that functions to make an individual's

behaviour more viable given a particular environment; and

3. cognition organises and makes sense of experiences. (Wood 1995, 332)

Brought into the context of the classroom, the need to create an environment

that gives sufficient space for active cognising and adaptation means that the roles

of teachers and students become dramatically transformed (Taylor, Fraser and

White 1991, 48). The classroom is a social environment within which students are

exposed to experiences through the intervention of teachers that lead to learning;

the constructivist classroom brings this one step further by having teachers

7

mediate and facilitate learning through the creation of an engaging environment in

which students can build knowledge effectively (Taylor, Fraser and Fisher 1997,

128).

In their work in conceptualising a means of monitoring constructivist

approaches to teaching and learning, Taylor, Fraser and Fisher (1997, 130)

proposed five dimensions that are integral to the development of constructivist

learning environments. The dimensions described are Personal Relevance,

Uncertainty, Critical Voice, Shared Control, Student Negotiation. It is these

dimensions that form a basis for the possible comparison between epistemic

responsibility and constructivism as they focus on how the classroom environment

affects or can be affected by individual learning preferences and actions.

Personal Relevance focuses on the relationship between knowledge gained in

the classroom and its relevance to situations outside it. Uncertainty assesses the

opportunities for learners to explore new knowledge through new or unfamiliar

methodologies. Critical Voice refers to the climate within the class that allows the

learner to negotiate teaching and learning approaches with the teacher. Shared

Control focuses on how the learners and teachers are able to share the control of

the learning environment, especially with regards to learning goals and assessment.

8

Student Negotiation has to do with the extent to which opportunities exist for

students to share and negotiate ideas in class.

This study will make use of virtue epistemology as a backdrop for the

examination of the particular virtue of epistemic responsibility as a means of

explaining how learners perceive knowledge and how that perception would affect

their motivation to put themselves in situations where learning can occur. It is

from this examination of epistemic responsibility that three aspects of epistemic

responsibility in the individual emerge, namely: (1) Knowledge Maximisation, (2)

Flexibility-Adaptability, and (3) Contact Maximisation. The philosophical and

pedagogical discussions related to epistemology and constructivism indicate that

an epistemically responsible individual would demonstrate tendencies towards

maximisation of contact with reality, flexibility and adaptability to different

learning situations, and would tend towards maximisation of knowledge in general.

Epistemic responsibility can be seen to be the primary virtue because it is this

inner drive for knowledge that creates the possibility for both the other intellectual

virtues as well as the successful building of knowledge (Code 1984, 42). As such,

getting a clearer sense of what an epistemically responsible individual is would

require an examination of what an epistemically virtuous person would look like.

9

In their examination of the intellectual virtues, Roberts and Wood (2007, 72)

describe an epistemically virtuous person as follows.

The epistemically virtuous person values, cherishes, seeks, and

appreciates intellectual goods. She wants to know important truths and to

understand how things work; among the things she wants to understand is how

the „„whole‟‟ of reality works, so she is internally driven towards „„wisdom‟‟,

and thus considerations in the neighbourhood of theology. She craves insight,

or what we have called „„acquaintance‟‟, in these matters; she wants to „„see

for herself‟‟ in some kind of striking, relatively unmediated way; she is not

satisfied with operating on mere hearsay or induction or inference, but for

some things wants contact with reality.

In describing the intellectually responsible individual, it should be noted that

all the descriptions of the intellectual virtues, epistemic responsibility as well as

the epistemically virtuous person all point to internal or intrinsic traits over

extrinsic or external factors. After all, it is the orientation of the individual towards

the end of knowledge as a good2 that would drive the virtuous person towards

knowledge. Three aspects of an epistemically responsible individual emerge from

these descriptions, namely Knowledge Maximisation, Contact Maximisation and

Flexibility or Adaptability. These aspects are driven by the innate epistemic

responsibility of an individual who sees knowledge as an important good in itself

(Fairweather 2001, 64) and who will act in a knowledge building and truth seeking

manner whenever possible.

2 Virtue theory has its roots in Aristotle‟s ideas of how a person who is virtuous would always seek what is

good or more conducive to human flourishing than something that is not. These would constitute the „ends‟

or telos of the actions that drive a virtuous person. (Aristotle 1985, 1097a-1098a)

10

Knowledge Maximisation

This aspect of the epistemically responsible individual can be described as the

key aspect that grounds the others. An individual who demonstrates knowledge

maximisation will, all things being equal, seek to maximise knowledge in all

situations. When there is a choice involved, such an individual would choose to

act or think in such a way as to maximise knowledge. The individual is thus shown

to be intrinsically oriented towards knowledge and is personally responsible for its

increase (Code 1984, 43). Knowledge Maximisation is similar to what some

theorists describe as the virtue of “love for knowledge”, which is a deep

motivation for all truths, especially those that are valued3 by the individual

(Roberts and Wood 2007, 156).

It can be difficult to clearly define what constitutes the “maximisation” of

knowledge and it may be apposite to examine the motivational component in

epistemic responsibility to fully understand how and why an individual would

seek to maximise knowledge. A person can be said to be motivated epistemically

if he or she has a desire for truth and knowledge and that this desire influences the

person‟s conduct (Fairweather 2001, 70). This motivational component of

3 Roberts and Wood also state that a lover of knowledge is able to distinguish between trivial knowledge

and knowledge of things of value. To avoid a “weird intellectual pathology” or just amassing trivial and

eclectic knowledge, the lover of knowledge would value propositional knowledge along with knowledge

that is worthy and relevant. The ability to discern value is part of the virtue of the love of knowledge and

the building up of rationality as a whole (2007, 156-161).

11

epistemic responsibility also comes with a reasonable measure of success in that

all other things being equal, a person who is motivated in such a way would be

more likely to acquire knowledge than others who are not (Fairweather 2001, 73).

Given this motivation, a person would not only seek the best means to acquire

knowledge but would choose options that would have the potential to maximise

knowledge. In practical terms, person who is faced with a situation where there is

a choice between two situations where differing amounts of knowledge can be

gained would choose the situation where more knowledge, or at least the potential

for it, is gained. This in turn implies metacognitive awareness4 of what constitutes

knowledge and a recognition of what constitutes a maximisation of knowledge and

the tasks and strategies (Flavell 1987, 22) that would be required to reach there. It

is not a simple matter of choosing to study over other activities.

For example, between reading a book on philosophy or playing a video game,

a knowledge maximising individual would assess what knowledge ends he or she

has and which of the two actions would allow for the maximisation of knowledge.

In some instances, the video game could bring about better learning in the

individual and it is up to the epistemically responsible learner to choose in the

4 Metacognitive awareness includes knowledge of strategies, tasks and the self. What this means is that an

individual who is metacognitively aware has awareness of what kind of knowledge he or she desires, the

tasks and strategies that would enable him or her to gain that knowledge, as well as a knowledge of the self

and preferences (Pintrich 2002).

12

light of this. In the context of the classroom, the epistemically responsible

individual would choose to act to maximise knowledge, listening and working as

the teacher requires in a traditional classroom or acting in line with the principles

of constructivism when in that situation. This leads to the second attribute of the

epistemologically virtuous or responsible individual – adaptability.

Flexibility–Adaptability

The need to be flexible or adaptable is emphasised by the constructivist need

for active and imaginative responses to reality (Pompa 1990, 160) and is also

related to the first attribute of Knowledge Maximisation. In order to maximise

knowledge over a variety of situations, an epistemically responsible person would

have to be sufficiently flexible to marshal whatever resources, cognitive or

otherwise, to experience or learn what is necessary. The need to be flexible and

adaptable flows from the motivation to acquire knowledge and it also follows that

a person thus motivated would seek all means necessary to reach the good that is

knowledge (Roberts and Wood 2007, 310).

Flexibility, especially in relation to constructivist theorists, refers to a person

being able to make use of his or her skills and prior knowledge in a multitude of

ways and in different situations for the purpose of gaining knowledge (Pepin 1998,

13

173-174). Adaptability is more attitudinal and has to do mainly with a person‟s

ability to respond to the environment around him or her, and to make adjustments

to his or her perspectives and approaches to situations of potential learning and to

adopt the attitude that would maximise knowledge (Pompa 1990, 80).

The individual would recognise that knowledge comes in different forms and

would be able to respond to situations, people and objects effectively. For example,

an individual thus motivated would be able to switch from being a receptive

learner in a traditional classroom to being collaborative and learning from the

interaction with others when faced with it. The ability to successfully change

approaches where necessary helps in creating further situations where learning,

and subsequently knowledge, can be maximised.

Contact Maximisation

The definition of knowledge as being cognitive contact with reality

(Zagzebski 1996, 270) means that a person who would seek knowledge as a good

in itself would also seek to maximise this cognitive contact with reality. What this

means is that the individual would take an active role in bringing his or her

cognitive powers to bear on the experiences and situations that are encountered

and would also actively seek out situations where this would occur. This ”practical”

14

orientation of the epistemically responsible person would cause him or her to

make use of both prior knowledge as well as new skills to ensure that knowledge

is gained (Pepin 1998, 177-178) and to be willing to make use of them in a broad

range of situations and activities.

The attitude of an individual who is maximising contact with reality can be

compared to an extroverted person. However, instead of seeking out the company

of other people like an extrovert would, the epistemically responsible individual

would make choices that would enable him or her to maximise experiential contact

with people, things or situations that would have the greatest potential for

knowledge. As in the case of Knowledge Maximisation, a contact maximising

individual would “love knowledge” and would not be averse to experimentation,

trial and error methods or “muddling around” in his or her quest to organise

experiences to gain a contextual knowledge of reality (Roberts and Wood 2007,

161). An example of this would be a learner who chooses to learn through

experiencing instead of reading about this because the experiential experience

presents a more cognitively “real” knowledge encounter that would in turn have a

higher potential for learning and knowledge (Dearden 1998, 269).

As presented in table 1, these aspects of epistemic responsibility align well

with the three tenets of constructivism described above (Wood 1995, 332). The

15

motivational nature of Knowledge Maximisation would correspond to active

nature of the learner within constructivist learning environments. The aspect of

Flexibility-Adaptability corresponds to the adaptive nature of cognition that

constructivists describe. Lastly, the contact maximising nature of the epistemically

responsible person aligns well with the need for a learner within the constructivist

environment to organise and make sense of real experiences.

TABLE 1

COMPARISON BETWEEN ASPECTS OF EPISTEMIC

RESPONSIBILITY AND CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING

ENVIRONMENTS

Epistemic responsibility Constructivist learning environment

Knowledge maximisation Personal relevance

Flexibility-Adaptability Critical voice; negotiation

Contact maximisation Shared control; personal relevance

The move towards identifying such traits of epistemic responsibility in

students or learners would require recognition of the nature of the intellectual

virtues as a whole. Intellectual virtues are “acquired bases of excellent intellectual

functioning” (Roberts and Wood 2007, 60) and are made up of both internal

characteristics like cognition and the will to learn, as well as skills in an individual

that allow them to function well intellectually (Roberts and Wood 2007, 59). The

16

metacognitive nature of most forms of epistemological reflection (Hofer 2001,

354) point to the possibility that learners would be able to reflect on and describe

their relationship with knowledge and the traits that affect this. Furthermore, the

active nature of the aspects of epistemic responsibility described mean that one

may be able to relate evidence of the presence of epistemic responsibility with the

observation of one or more of the aspects in an individual.

Specifically, the parallels between the aspects of epistemic responsibility,

constructivism as an educational theory and the various aspects of constructivist

learning environments can be illustrated in table 1.

Statement of the Problem

This study aims to measure how epistemic responsibility and its individual

characteristics of Knowledge Maximisation, Flexibility-Adaptability and Contact

Maximisation can be related to constructivist learning in a college classroom.

Specifically, the study aims to answer the following questions:

1. What are the perceptions of college students regarding epistemic

responsibility?

2. What are the perceptions of college students regarding constructivist learning

environments?

17

3. What relationship, if any, is there between the perceptions of college students

regarding Epistemic Responsibility and Constructivist learning environments?

Hypothesis

The research hypothesis was that there is no relationship between perceptions

of epistemic responsibility and constructivist learning environments with college

students.

Assumptions

The study is undertaken with the following assumptions:

1. The perceptions of epistemic responsibility and its related aspects can be

reliably observed and measured.

2. College students will be able to articulate the perceptions related to the aspects

of epistemic responsibility when guided to it.

3. Epistemic responsibility is a relatively stable trait in learners that may be

related to constructivist teaching and learning methodologies.

4. Constructivist approaches to teaching and learning are sufficiently similar5 for

them to be referred to as a single entity.

5 The similarities which the various forms of Constructivism exhibit can best be described as having family

resemblances as described by Wittgenstein (Biletzki and Matar 2011). The boundaries between them are

18

Scope and Limitations of the Study

The study explored the relationship between epistemic responsibility and

constructivist learning environments. It may, however, serve to begin the

discourse into the possibility of epistemic responsibility as a means of assessing

the learning and motivations of college students who undergo constructivist

teaching and learning methodologies.

The exploration into the relationship between epistemic responsibility and

constructivist learning environments remained at the level of learners‟ perceptions

of the two concepts as the instruments that were used to measure them were

largely designed to measure perceptions and not more substantive characteristics.

The subjects of the study also came from a single, relatively homogenous

source – undergraduate students from the Ateneo de Manila University taking core

Philosophy courses in their Junior or Senior years. The findings and data

generated from this study will thus also be limited to samples from this population.

Significance of the Study

The link between virtue epistemology and Constructivism has not been

studied substantively in any form of which the writer is aware. The creation of a

inexact and fluid though the ideas of knowledge being actively constructed by learners and how knowledge

is usually external to the individual can be counted as part of these family resemblances.

19

valid and reliable instrument for the measurement of epistemic responsibility

would pave the way for future studies into this alternate epistemological

grounding for Constructivism.

The study also joins the growing interest in the examination of

epistemological beliefs of college students that began with explorations into

epistemological beliefs and students‟ ability to understand content (Schommer

1990, 501), the exploration into beliefs about the origin and acquisition of

knowledge through personal epistemology (Hofer and Pintrich 1997, 98) as well

as the link between Constructivism and personal epistemology (Wong, Khine and

Chai 2008, 447-448). What distinguishes this study from the preceding ones is the

examination of the personal attributes and traits of college students through the

study of epistemic responsibility.

20

Definition of Terms

The following terms and definitions will be employed in this study:

College Students

In this study, college students refer to students who are officially enrolled as

full-time students in four-year degree programmes in a recognised degree-granting

university.

Constructivism

Constructivism is a broad term that likens the acquisition of knowledge to the

process of building or constructing something. When applied to education and

learning, it is centred around the central claim that “knowledge is acquired through

a process of active construction” (Fox 2001, 24). It is a view of learning that prizes

knowledge construction in the individual over knowledge transmission and

recording of information given by others (Applefield, Huber and Moallem 2000,

37). Learning thus takes on a decidedly active face and with it comes the equally

active stance on learning that constructivist teaching and learning methodologies

tend to emphasise. Learning by inquiry, discovery and through collaborative

methods are all teaching methodologies used in constructivist learning

21

environments as described by Taylor, Fraser and Fisher (1997) and it is within

these constructivist learning environments that the epistemic responsibility will be

measured.

Constructivist Learning Environment

The constructivist learning environment is described by Taylor, Fraser and

Fisher (1997, 128) as a social environment in which students are exposed to

experiences that allow them to construct knowledge that would in turn lead to

learning. In such a learning environment, the teachers would mediate the learning

of the students through the creation of an engaging environment where knowledge

building can occur effectively. Such environments should also allow for students

to explore how knowledge is relevant, uncertain and should give them the ability

to have a critical voice, share control and negotiate their learning (Taylor, Fraser

and Fisher 1997, 131).

Epistemic responsibility

From the virtues described by various theorists, the epistemic virtue of

responsibility for knowledge was judged to not only have been closest to the

general tenets of Constructivism but was also a virtue that was desirable in

22

learners as a whole. Epistemic responsibility emphasises the „active nature of the

knower as well as the element of choice in the knower‟s activity‟ (Greco and Turri

2011). For a learner to achieve excellence in this virtue, he or she should value

knowledge and actively seek it out while being conscious of the choices that are

available to him or her with regards to knowledge. The epistemically responsible

learner would act in a way that would maximise knowledge in all situations.

23

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

In this chapter, the conceptual and theoretical bases of virtue epistemology

and their relationship with constructivism will be presented. From there, the

epistemically responsible person and related traits will be described. Following

this, empirical studies on epistemological beliefs and constructivist learning

environments in international and Asian contexts will be presented.

Virtue Epistemology: Responsibility for Knowledge

Virtue epistemology came as a response to perceived inadequacies of more

“traditional” approaches to epistemology that posit that knowledge is made up of

true convictions that are supported by sufficiently good reasons (Fumerton 2006,

14). Epistemological theorists commonly count justified true beliefs1 as the basis

for knowledge and in the “traditional” view, knowledge exists outside the

individual and the latter “knows” when the personal beliefs are justified as truth

based on propositions that occur, empirically or otherwise, as such justified beliefs

1 Epistemological theorists usually state that knowledge is justified true belief. Propositions need to be true

in order to be known; a person has to have a belief in the possibility of the proposition; and the true beliefs

need to have some reliable evidence for it to be considered justified (Fumerton 2006, 14)

24

become indisputable (Sosa 1991, 167). The gaining of knowledge thus does not

require an individual to make more than a mental assent or acceptance of the belief.

This suggests that in the “traditional” structuring of knowledge, a person does not

need to have particular traits, preferences or motivations to gain knowledge. Just

being in the right place at the right time or performing particular knowledge-

gaining tasks would result in the justification necessary to gain knowledge.

What “traditional” epistemology lacks is a propositional attitude or a mental

state that predisposes the individual towards knowledge. Virtue epistemology

addresses this deficiency by recognising that knowledge building requires reliable

belief forming faculties that drive a person towards obtaining truths (Sosa 1991,

189). This brand of virtue epistemology was a response to the normative nature of

justification that had held sway in epistemological discourse for most of the

twentieth century. Virtue epistemology theorists responded with the claims that

epistemic properties could be reduced to natural ones that were non-epistemic by

nature (Zagzebski and Fairweather 2001, 5). Knowledge thus becomes more of a

result of a character trait in the person rather than a result of an act of the mind.

This led to further reflection about the individual’s responsibility and motivation

to get the truth and the recognition of the fundamental importance of the

normative properties of the individual in the pursuit of knowledge (Greco 2010,

25

76). Knowledge being true belief would arise as a result of particular

characteristics or intellectual virtues that a person would demonstrate, bringing the

focus of knowledge building back to the individual and his or her character traits.

Defining virtue epistemology would entail being clear about what a virtue

could mean and in so doing demonstrate how these could drive an individual

towards knowledge. Linda Zagzebski (1996, 137) in her seminal work on virtue

epistemology, Virtues of the Mind, defines a virtue as “a deep and enduring

acquired excellence of a person, involving a characteristic motivation to produce a

certain desired end and reliable success in bringing about that end.” She goes on to

describe the two main elements of a virtue: a motivation element and an element

of reliable success in bringing about the end of the motivation. A motivation is a

disposition emerging from a person’s character that initiates or directs actions

towards a particular end (Zagzebski 1996, 168). Having a virtue also entails the

person being reliably able to bring about the end that is the aim of the motivational

component of the virtue itself. When applied to epistemological categories, the

motivation for knowledge includes the desire for true beliefs and the avoidance of

false ones, leading a person to act in a way that would be most truth-conducive

(Zagzebski 1996, 181). An intellectual virtue within such a context can thus be

26

defined as a disposition which drives a person towards true beliefs while having

the capacity to do so.

With the particular emphasis on the personal dimension that virtue

epistemology brings and how an individual would tend to choose to act in a way

that would justify beliefs, there is an associated need to examine why the

individual would want to justify beliefs and build knowledge. Taking Zagzebski’s

(1996, 270) definition of knowledge as being “a state of cognitive contact with

reality2 arising out of acts of intellectual virtue,” one can see the parallels in both

descriptions of virtue epistemology in the relative importance of the action of the

individual in bringing about knowledge in themselves. It is thus key to recognise

what drives this need to build knowledge. Where does the motivation component

of intellectual virtue that Zagzebski describes come from?

The very idea of intellectual virtues, according to Zagzebski (1997, 270), as

being the source of deep motivations to achieve cognitive contact with reality

paints a picture of an individual who is aware of his or her relationship with the

world and is willing make an effort to understand it better. The orientation towards

knowledge that intellectually virtuous persons exhibit presupposes not just an

aptitude for learning but “a drive or concern or will to understand, to discover

2 Zagzebski in the same section describes cognitive contact with reality in broad terms to include

understanding and certainty. This also points any form of contact, sensory or purely rational, that would

enable a person to gain a sense of the world around.

27

truth, to ground their beliefs ever more firmly” (Roberts and Wood 2007, 70). It is

this will or drive to learn that is of interest in this study along with the examination

of how this drive can cause learners to want regardless of the situation that they

find themselves in.

Motivation or the will to learn seems to lie at the heart of the intellectual

virtues and it would not be inapt to claim that intellectually virtuous individuals

would tend to hold themselves accountable or responsible for their own efforts at

gaining knowledge. It is here that a case for the consideration of epistemic

responsibility as a key intellectual virtue can be made. Code (1984, 38) makes use

of the concept of “responsibility” to allow an emphasis on the active and creative

nature of the knower in bringing about knowledge, highlighting the role of the

individual’s disposition in building knowledge. In particular, she notes that

epistemic responsibility should be the primary virtue as it drives a person towards

the best means of substantiating beliefs and knowledge claims while rejecting

knowledge as a monolithic impersonal structure. This responsibility is also rooted

in realism in that an intellectually virtuous person would find value in knowing

and understanding things contextually, as they are in the world and not as abstract

concepts (Code 1984, 42-43). Also, epistemic responsibility drives a person to

coexist among others within an epistemic community where members exercise

28

their intellectual virtues in a mutually beneficial relationship of knowledge

building.

Although very much based on the individual’s perception and actions with

regards to knowledge, the discussion of virtue epistemology and epistemic

responsibility has broader implications for education. An epistemically responsible

person is one who finds value in knowing and understanding things as they are

(Code 1984, 44) and does so for its own sake and not for any other instrumental

reason. Individuals would thus be motivated to act in such a way as to maximise

their success in knowledge and understanding – a manifestation of epistemic

responsibility that, for both Code and Zagzebski, represent the fundamental

intellectual virtue upon which the rest of the intellectual virtues3

proceed.

Furthermore, recognising that knowledge is not gained through a single individual

act but is often mediated and aided by the actions of others (Zagzebski 1999, 109)

emphasises the social aspect of knowledge building within the virtue epistemology

context. Using an epistemically responsible individual as an exemplar for an

effective learner, one can see that to learn well, the person needs to be responsible,

knowledge-seeking and willing to work with others in the knowledge building

3 The other intellectual virtues described by both Code and Zagzebski include courage, intellectual honesty,

open-mindedness, wholeheartedness, love of knowledge and conscientiousness. The latter takes a cue from

Dewey’s attitudes for good thought which also include curiosity, flexibility and orderliness (Dewey 1933,

30-32).

29

enterprise. From the point of view of an educator, creating the conditions for

epistemically responsible individuals to operate would be key to maximising the

potential of such learners (Ortwein, 2012) but even more important would be

efforts in inculcating the intellectual virtues, and in particular that of epistemic

responsibility, in learners themselves.

What this presents is not just the challenge in recognising how the intellectual

virtues, especially epistemic responsibility, can be developed in learners but in

creating the conditions for teachers and administrators to recognise the possibility

of this alternative to the “normal” analytic and justificatory epistemology that

holds sway over most educational institutions. The active and responsible learners

thus described would fit well into many of the student-centred pedagogical

systems that are practiced at present though this study will focus on its

applicability as an alternate epistemological grounding for constructivism.

Constructivism: The Enterprise of Building Knowledge

Constructivism stands for many things in many disciplines but for the

purposes of this study, the constructivist pedagogical approach to teaching and

learning will be the main focus in the discussion about epistemology and how the

epistemically responsible individual can relate to the world and knowledge. At the

30

core of Constructivism lies the notion that learners actively construct their own

knowledge and understanding from their experiences (Fosnot 2005, 11), putting

the individual at the centre of the knowledge building and learning enterprise.

With the active construction of knowledge occurring within the individual, it also

stands to reason that “all forms of knowledge are inevitably reinterpreted

according to the postulates, ends, and sociocognitive experiences of the person

who takes an interest in them” (Larochelle and Bednarz 1998, 4).

The active and adaptive nature of the constructivist epistemological paradigm

thus fits well with virtue epistemology both on the level of virtue with the

motivational and success component as well as on the cognitive level where the

learner is seen to be a sense-making individual who seeks contact with real

experiences.

Noted radical constructivist theorist Ernst von Glasersfeld (1995, 9) describes

knowledge as “something that is far more important to us, namely what we can do

in our experiential world, the successful ways of dealing with the objects we call

physical and the successful ways of thinking with abstract concepts.” While

recognising the importance of knowledge to the individual that also takes

Zagzebski’s success and motivational components of the epistemic virtues into

account, von Glasersfeld (1995, 114, 117) goes a step further by holding that

31

knowledge is completely subjective and not dependent on “truth” or “facts” but

based on the viability of an observer’s experience.

Thus, when taken to an epistemological extreme, Constructivism can hold that

the knowledge that is internal to the knower is distinct from the external reality

that may exist but is in fact unknowable because the mediated forms of knowledge

are but representations of reality (von Glasersfeld 1989, 124). While not directly

contradictory to the tenets of virtue epistemology and epistemic responsibility, this

instability of knowledge can affect the motivations of a learner whose success at

gaining knowledge is continually mitigated by the shifting targets of truth. For

epistemic responsibility to be used as an epistemological framework for

Constructivism, a more stable conception of knowledge that moves away from the

relativism and social solipsism4 is needed.

One possible path is to re-examine Constructivism from its historical roots so

as to circumvent the relativistic turn that it has taken of late. Giambattista Vico

was a noted critic of the enlightenment who rejected Cartesian rationalism and

how knowledge for Descartes was only about obtaining the metaphysical and

4 Social solipsism (as used in Fox 2001, 28) is an idea in the sociology of knowledge that states that reality and knowledge only exist through communication and interaction with groups (Thornton 2004). In socially

solipsistic groups, there is no concept of an external reality outside the communicative sphere leading to a

rejection of the possibility of objective realities outside the social group. Educators who bring a radical

form of constructivism into the classroom can sometimes reject external truths in favour of only valuing

concepts that emerge from the classroom.

32

mathematical means of understanding the world (Pompa 1990, 76). In his major

work the Scienza Nueva (The New Science), Vico made a distinction between

verum (the true) and certum (the certain) in his quest for a more stable sense of

scienza (knowledge) that does not depend on the speculative principles of

metaphysics (Berlin 1981, 111). Verum, for Vico, points to the universal and

unchanging truths of the world that form the grounds for the certum which are the

fruits of an individual’s conscious search for truth (Pompa 1990, 73).

Vico (1730, in Pompa 1990, 78) maintains a creative theory of knowledge and

states that “human truths are those of which we ourselves create the elements”,

recognising that ideas evolve and that while truths remain stable, human

knowledge as certum is an experiential process that constantly develops (Berlin

1981, 113) and is “derived largely from our experience of ourselves as agents in

our own world” (Pompa 1990, 160). Vico’s vision of knowledge that can have

some stability while being a product of experiential “imaginative insight” (Berlin

1981, 117) that allows for a personal interpretation of reality points to the

possibility of an individual who seeks knowledge that is experienced subjectively

yet stable in its truthful unchanging nature.

While Vico has been used as support for radical constructivism in that humans

can only know what they experience (von Glasersfeld 1995, 37), this reading of

33

Vico does not take into account the notion of God at the centre of the verum that

he brings to his theory of knowledge (Pompa 1990, 79). The concept of verum is

predicated upon the idea of a transcendent God who creates all things and that

humans are limited in their ability to apprehend this reality fully (Berlin 1981,

115). When a person comes into contact with reality, the experiences that he or she

has are “truths mediated in idea” (Pompa 1990, 167) that brings the individual

closer to the objective verum through the building up of a personal certum.

Additionally, Vico makes the case for the person being more than just an observer

who comes to the certum through active imagining and “normal human action”

(Berlin 1981, 116).

Using the Vichean roots of Constructivism allows one to address the problems

related to truth and knowledge in constructivist college classrooms. In particular,

the idea that learning occurs through the active imagining of the individual in

contact with reality is related to Zagzebski’s concept of intellectual virtue.

Furthermore, the latter adds a motivational component to the learner’s willingness

to come into contact with and actively engage with the reality that would in turn

build knowledge.

The contextualisation of the learner within a classroom setting is particularly

important in this study of Constructivism and how it is linked to the learner. The

34

activities and preferences of learners cannot be looked at independently of the

areas in which teaching and learning occur. The use of student perceptions of

classroom environments as variables in studies has “established consistent

relationships between the nature of the classroom environment and student

cognitive and affective outcomes” (Taylor, Fraser and White 1991, 46). By

examining student perceptions of learning and knowledge within a constructivist

classroom environment, one would be better able to look for direct relationships

that may exist between a learner’s conception and perception of knowledge and

how it affects and is affected by the Constructivism that is practiced in the

classroom.

The Epistemically Responsible Individual

The discussion of virtue epistemology and Constructivism leads to the

beginnings of a portrait of an epistemically virtuous learner. The need for contact

with reality for the building of knowledge as described by Zagzebski (1996, 270);

the creation of knowledge through the experiential and imaginative interpretation

of the world as described by Vico ( (Pompa 1990, 160); as well as the inclination

towards knowledge over other choices as suggested by Code (1984, 40) all point

to particular aspects of an individual who is motivated to engage with the world

35

around him or her to build knowledge. This provides a starting point for the

description of the aspects of epistemic responsibility.

Locating the intellectual virtues in the individual can be difficult due to their

structural diversity and resistance to the “one-size-fits-all” analysis that many

epistemological theorists try to bring into the study of the theory of knowledge

(Roberts and Wood 2007, 84). Also, given the focus on character traits that drive

the individual towards knowledge, it would be more useful to examine the

epistemically virtuous person as a whole so as to gain an insight into the

orientation of such a person.

In her description of epistemic responsibility, Code (1984, 39) notes that an

epistemically responsible person would be internally driven to find the best means

of substantiating beliefs and knowledge claims contextually within the real world.

By broadening the scope of epistemology to include considerations of credibility

and trust as well as how knowledge provides genuine choices about how to know

the world and its inhabitants (Code 1994, 3), Code firmly places the locus of

knowledge on the individual and his or her character traits that would drive the

learning. Epistemic responsibility also includes an element of answerability5 and

5 The notion of answerability comes from the description given by G.E.M. Anscombe (1957) who stated

that a person is answerable for what he or she does when the person can rightly be asked for the reasons for

his or her act. For Anscombe, answerability or the mere ability to give a reason for an action is the most

basic form of responsibility.

36

openness to assessment or judgement for the provenance of one’s knowledge

(Hieronymi 2008, 363) that in turn indicates a flexible and reflective approach to

learning that considers knowledge as something that one accepts based on contact

with reality.

Theoretical Studies in Epistemology and Epistemological Beliefs

Most of the studies related to epistemology in educational research have

centred on the concepts of personal epistemology and epistemological beliefs.

These studies focus on “how individuals come to know, the theories and beliefs

they hold about knowing, and the manner in which such epistemological premises

are a part of and have an influence on the cognitive processes of thinking and

reasoning” (Hofer and Pintrich 1997, 88). Most of these are based on earlier

studies by cognitive psychologist William Perry who sought to study college

students’ beliefs about the nature and source of knowledge6 in the 1960s (Duell

and Schommer-Aikins 2001, 420). As such, most of the recent studies have gone

6 William Perry’s (1970) study resulted in a scheme of intellectual development that had both a sequence as

well as details of how an individual would transition from one level to another (Hofer and Pintrich 1997,

91). He identified four broad levels that an individual would go through as they develop intellectually:

dualism, which is seeing the world in absolute right and wrong terms; multiplicity, where the individual begins to recognise diversity and uncertainty; relativism where the individuals see themselves as potential

meaning-makers; and commitment where the individual is able to commit to particular points of view

within the relativistic framework. Perry’s scheme takes into account the growing movement towards

student-centred learning that occurred during that time while providing a cognitive developmental scheme

that takes epistemology into account.

37

along these lines and are based on the measurement of intellectual development in

adolescents and college students as well as examining the links between

epistemological beliefs and cognitive processes7 (1997, 90). Hofer and Pintrich

(1997, 90-91) also argued that the research had little agreement with the actual

constructs being studied as well as whether the epistemological beliefs could be

linked to disciplinary beliefs and other areas of cognition and motivation.

In a separate paper, Hofer (2001) states that while interest has increased in the

realm of epistemological research in education, lack of conceptual or

methodological clarity have hampered its entry into the areas where it could have

the greatest impact – educational psychology as well as teacher training curricula.

She suggests that research in epistemological beliefs in the educational context

should aim towards “an identifiable set of dimensions of beliefs, organized as

theories, progressing in reasonably predictable directions, activated in context,

operating as epistemic cognition”(2001, 377).

Despite the plurality of ends of the various studies into epistemological beliefs,

there remains potential for their use in improving student learning (Hofer 2001,

7 Hofer and Pintrich (1997, 90) specifically describe six interrelated areas of epistemological research: a) refining and extending William Perry's model of intellectual development (1970); b) developing more

simplified measurement tools for Perry’s model; c) exploring gender-related patterns in knowing; d)

examining how epistemological awareness is a part of thinking and reasoning processes; e) identifying

dimensions of epistemological beliefs; and, f) assessing how these beliefs link to other cognitive and

motivational processes.

38

378). Hofer (2001, 377) suggests some directions in research into how

epistemological beliefs can be developed as well as the classroom tasks or

experiences that could enhance the development of both epistemological beliefs as

well as the reflection about them. There is also an acknowledgement that the shifts

in educational thinking with regards to the constructivist approach to teaching and

learning would provide new avenues for research into epistemology and education

(Hofer and Pintrich 1997, 133).

Alongside the theoretical developments that have occurred in the study of

epistemological beliefs and learning came a wide variety of efforts to measure

these beliefs and their relationship with learning. The methods vary as much as

the theories though it was noted that the “measures draw heavily upon the specific

theory upon which they are based and consequently measure quite different

aspects of epistemological beliefs” (Duell and Schommer-Aikins 2001, 420). The

variety reflects the breadth of the theoretical to epistemological research in

education that was also described by Hofer and Pintrich (1997).

In their review of instruments aimed at measuring epistemological beliefs,

Duell and Schommer-Aikens (2001, 421) describe several conceptual issues that a

research should consider in choosing an appropriate measure for epistemological

beliefs. They suggest a research ask the following questions:

39

1. Is the theory behind the instrument credible to the researcher?

2. Does the instrument measure the epistemological dimension(s) relevant

to the researcher’s project?

3. Is the researcher comfortable with the format of the instrument? and

4. Among the instruments of choice, which one has the strongest evidence

of validity and reliability?

They go on to make a distinction between models that are uni- and

multidimensional. The difference between the two lies in the relationship between

the dimensions or descriptors of epistemological beliefs within the model. A

unidimensional theory has the assumption that if one dimension develops, the

others would develop as well. A multidimensional theory on the other hand

suggests that if one dimension develops, the others may not necessarily develop

(Duell and Schommer-Aikins 2001, 421). This distinction, as well as the

considerations that they suggest, is important in the considerations behind the

creation of the instrument to measure epistemic responsibility in this study and the

descriptions of the models and instruments that follow would help inform how the

instrument for epistemic responsibility would be conceived.

In the review of the extant means of measuring epistemological beliefs, two

studies stood out in their conceptual and methodological relevance to this present

study. Schommer’s work on beliefs about knowledge and learning (1990) built on

Perry’s model by “flattening” the various levels of intellectual development and

positing that personal epistemological beliefs are made up of a group of

40

independent and variable beliefs. A person’s intellectual development thus

becomes less linear and more able to explain the variability in a person’s beliefs

about knowledge as he or she develops. A related study by Schraw, Bendixen and

Dunkle (2002) built upon Schommer’s framework for epistemological beliefs and

developed an instrument that was both shorter and, in the view of the researchers,

more able to elicit valid responses about the respondent’s specific views of

knowledge. Both these studies have been referred to in most subsequent studies on

epistemological beliefs and are examined in greater detail below.

Schommer’s study proposed epistemological beliefs as made up of

independent dimensions that reflect the complex nature of such beliefs that

prevent it from being described fully in the developmental model (like that of

Perry) that had been in use until the time of her study (Schommer 1990, 498).

Schommer (1990, 499) proposed a set of five independent dimensions of

epistemological beliefs:

(a) "Knowledge is simple rather than complex" (Simple Knowledge), (b)

"Knowledge is handed down by authority rather than derived from reason"

(Omniscient Authority), (c) "Knowledge is certain rather than tentative"

(Certain Knowledge), (d) "The ability to learn is innate rather than acquired"

(Innate Ability), and (e) "Learning is quick or not at all" (Quick Learning).

Schommer performed two experiments to test her theory – the first being a

survey administered to college students to confirm her conceptualisation of the

41

dimensions and the second a follow-up study to examine the relationship between

epistemological beliefs and comprehension. Apart from suggesting that

epistemological beliefs are indeed made up of independent factors, the study also

showed how beliefs lead to particular learning or comprehension strategies. She

noted that students who believed that knowledge is certain rather than tentative

would tend to make absolute conclusions about what they know just as those who

believe in quick learning would tend towards oversimplifying their conclusions

(Schommer 1990, 502).

The study also showed a relationship between personal epistemological beliefs

and students’ characteristics in that the longer a student was in school, the less

likely a student was to believe that knowledge is certain or handed down by

authoritative sources. Furthermore, Schommer (1990, 503-504) states that the

generalisability of the findings “lends credence to the important influence of

epistemological beliefs” and that further studies in this field would allow

educators to guide students to become more thoughtful and independent learners.

Schraw, Bendixen and Dunkle (2002, 263) made use of Schommer’s

framework to “measure adults’ beliefs about Certain Knowledge, Simple

Knowledge, Quick Learning, Omniscient Authority, and Innate Ability,” which

are factors derived from Schommer’s study and instrument. In conceptualising the

42

Epistemic Belief Inventory (EBI), the researchers aimed to create a more efficient

instrument (that had less than half the number of items as the original) while

improving on the reliability and validity to measure the factors of epistemological

belief (Schraw, Bendixen and Dunkle 2002, 264).

Although similar to Schommer’s instrument in concept, the pared down

version that Schraw, Bendixen and Dunkel constructed was shown to have a better

predictive validity as well as better test-retest reliability than Schommer’s original

survey (Schraw, Bendixen and Dunkle 2002, 271) while demonstrating similar

findings with regards to the relationship between epistemological beliefs and

comprehension. For instance, the role of Certain Knowledge (in the EBI) and

certainty of knowledge (in Schommer’s study) were shown to operate in similar

ways as subjects who showed high beliefs in certainty tended to come to simplistic

and absolute conclusions (Schraw, Bendixen and Dunkle 2002, 269).

One outcome of this study points to the need to ground the epistemic beliefs

described here in verbal interviews to examine how beliefs in knowledge can

affect reasoning processes and thinking (Schraw, Bendixen and Dunkle 2002, 273).

This conclusion not only gives a good methodological suggestion on how to

proceed in the study of epistemology in education, it also shows the general

direction that epistemological studies have taken thus far. There has been a strong

43

cognitive focus in the investigations into epistemological beliefs that do not

sufficiently take the individual’s traits, characteristics and motivations into

account, hence the need for the current study into epistemic responsibility.

In assessing the means of measuring epistemological beliefs, a study

examined the need for alternatives to pen-and-paper questionnaires. As

epistemological beliefs are part of meaning-making process in individuals, the

researchers posited that responding to standardised problems or questions limits

the expression of these beliefs (Wood, Kitchener and Jensen 2002, 277). The

authors suggested the use of a reflective model along with ill-structured problems

that would elicit epistemic assumptions in an individual (Wood, Kitchener and

Jensen 2002, 279).

By making use of ill-structured problems and pre-defined interview questions

aimed at eliciting assumptions about the respondent’s views about the nature of

knowledge and how they came to their response to the problem, (Wood, Kitchener

and Jensen 2002, 281), the authors were able to identify differences in reflective

judgement and other epistemological beliefs among undergraduate students. They

found domain-specific traits in students of some disciplines like the social sciences

that led to increased levels of reflective judgement as opposed to other disciplines

like mathematics or computer science (Wood, Kitchener and Jensen 2002, 284).

44

Through their study, the authors recognised the benefits of large-scale

assessment techniques like questionnaires in describing aspects of epistemological

beliefs but noted the limitations of such objective “pen-and-paper” forms of data

collection (Wood, Kitchener and Jensen 2002, 291). The ability to allow

individuals to make meaning through the ill-structured problems provides a greater

insight into the epistemological beliefs and judgements of the respondents. This

method of assessing and measuring the epistemological beliefs of learners

especially in the university setting would also provide researchers with data that

could lead to teaching strategies aimed at improving both problem solving as well

as awareness of knowledge issues to aid in learning (Wood, Kitchener and Jensen

2002, 292).

Buehl and Alexander (2005) give a different perspective on the measurement

and testing of epistemic beliefs. They affirm that epistemological beliefs “are often

considered a lens through which individuals interpret information, set standards,

and decide on an appropriate course of action” (Buehl and Alexander 2005, 700).

What they did notice, however, was the lack of studies into the relationship

between epistemological beliefs and motivation as they maintain that students’

beliefs about knowledge can influence their motivation to acquire and work with

knowledge (Buehl and Alexander 2005, 701).

45

In their study, 482 undergraduate students were given an instrument that

measured domain-specific epistemological beliefs as well as motivational beliefs

about their competency. These students were also given a test for mathematics and

history that was administered in two parts, before and after the epistemological

belief instruments. The results were correlated and factor analysed (Buehl and

Alexander 2005, 706-715). It was found that domain-specific epistemological

beliefs were related both to performance in the particular subjects as well as in the

motivation to perform well and learn in these subjects in the future.

In their discussion of the results, Buehl and Alexander noted that the results

offer support for their initial hypothesis of the relationship between motivation and

epistemological beliefs. Buehl and Alexander (2005, 720) found that students

operate with complex epistemological belief systems and that entails specific

beliefs that vary according to domain and this in turn affects their performance in

tasks within those domains. They also found that epistemological beliefs were

interrelated yet independent, noting that “while beliefs coexist and potentially

exert an influence on one another, they may also develop along separate

trajectories” (Buehl and Alexander 2005, 722). Epistemological beliefs, as

described by the authors, offer a complex yet insightful means of examining the

approaches that students take to knowledge building and gives credence to the

46

efforts to show how epistemological issues can be related to classroom instruction

(Buehl and Alexander 2005, 723).

The significance of this study lies in the connection between motivation and

epistemological beliefs. Although the authors focused on domain-specific

epistemological beliefs instead of general ones that are the focus of this study on

epistemic responsibility, their conclusions offer support for the linking of

epistemological issues with motivation. It is this link that gives further support to

the effort to locate the connection between “students’ beliefs about academic

knowledge and their desire to acquire such knowledge as well as the way they go

about acquiring knowledge” (Buehl and Alexander 2005, 723) that also lies at the

centre of this study.

In a study on the issue of measurement of epistemological beliefs, Moschner

et al. (2008) give an overview about how such beliefs can be measured with a

focus on the applicability of such measures to elementary school students. In

particular, they make a case for the connection between epistemological beliefs

and learning strategies and how the measurement of the former can give insights

into the latter.

Interviews and questionnaires have been the most common methods to gather

data about epistemological beliefs in individuals (Moschner et al. 2008, 113)

47

though such methods were found to be more effective for adults than children

(Moschner et al. 2008, 117). Through the course of the review, the authors also

pointed out that the lack of questionnaire instruments to measure specific aspects

of epistemology remain and that epistemological beliefs should be assessed using

a diversity of methodologies (Moschner et al. 2008, 116). The authors, in

examining the efficacy of using survey questions for children also concluded that

the difficulties that the younger respondents had with abstract questions pertaining

to beliefs is not confined to children and that it would be useful to contextualise

and concretise such questions even for adults (Moschner et al. 2008, 130).

Moschner et al. also made a link between epistemological beliefs and learning

strategies, stating that the two are closely linked but rarely measured in an

interrelated manner. The influence of epistemic beliefs on learning strategies like

motivation, metacognition and strategic action is clear to the authors and merits

further study (Moschner et al. 2008, 119). It is with this link in mind that the move

towards the character and virtue-based measurement of epistemic responsibility is

both timely and apt in its ability to bring a new facet to the study of epistemology

in education.

Another related study (Shommer-Aikens and Easter 2008) attempted to

explore the link between culture, epistemological beliefs and study strategies. In

48

particular, the researchers looked at the self-perception of students’ beliefs and

study strategies from two different cultures (Asian-American and European

American) and then went on to test the “notion that epistemological beliefs and

study strategies contribute to differences in academic performance” (Schommer-

Aikins and Easter 2008, 920). There were two major thrusts in their research

hypotheses – that cultural groups would differ both in epistemological beliefs as

well as in academic performance and that there are relationships between study

strategies, epistemological beliefs and academic performance. In particular, they

hypothesised that academic differences would be partially explained by study

strategies and epistemological beliefs (Schommer-Aikins and Easter 2008, 922).

The study (Schommer-Aikens and Easter 2008, 924) used three separate

instruments8 to measure study strategies, attitudes towards thinking and learning

as well as epistemological beliefs (2008, 923). The results showed significant

differences in epistemological beliefs between the Asian and European Americans

in that the latter saw knowledge as more complex than the former and that the

European Americans had stronger beliefs that learning is a slow and gradual

8 Study strategies were assessed using the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI). This

instrument assesses study strategies related to technique, motivation, and self-regulation. Ways of knowing were measured with the Attitude Toward Thinking and Learning Survey (ATTLS). This 20-item

questionnaire generates unique scores for Separate Knowing and Connected Knowing. Epistemological

beliefs were measured using the Epistemological Belief Inventory (EBI). This questionnaire evaluates

student beliefs about the speed of knowledge acquisition, knowledge construction issues, the structure of

knowledge, and characteristics of successful students (Schommer-Aikins and Easter 2008, 923).

49

process. Cultural differences in study strategies were also noted. European

Americans were better able to select main ideas, use information processing

strategies and were less prone to anxiety in school (Schommer-Aikins and Easter

2008, 925). What this indicated was that cultural differences were related to the

differences in epistemological beliefs and ways of knowing.

Further to this, a strong relationship between academic performance and

epistemological beliefs was found. The particular epistemological beliefs of the

two groups of students examined in the study had an effect on particular aspects of

academic performance. The European American students were seen to have

outperformed the Asian American students in communication and areas where

flexibility were called for whereas the Asian American students outperformed the

European American students in calculation and problem solving situations

(Schommer-Aikins and Easter 2008, 927). This study is significant in its

examination of the triarchic relationship between culture, epistemological beliefs

and academic performance and gives an insight into the potential pitfalls in

making use of Western epistemological constructs in Asian contexts.

50

Studies in Constructivist Learning Environments

The study of constructivist learning environments was originally used as a

means of monitoring the development of constructivist approaches to teaching.

This was done through the provision of “an efficient means of learning more about

their students' perceptions of the extent to which the classroom learning

environment enabled them to reflect on their prior knowledge, develop as

autonomous learners, and negotiate their understandings with other students”

(Taylor, Fraser and White 1991). The constructivist learning environments were

measured through the use of the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey

(CLES) that was described in the 1991 paper and was updated twice (Taylor,

Fraser and Fisher 1997; Nix, Fraser and Ledbetter 2003) to better describe the

conditions for Constructivism in classrooms.

The survey and the studies focus on two central aspects of Constructivism –

the individuals’ use of his or her prior knowledge in their development of new

understanding of material as well as the reflective process of interpersonal

negotiation that occurs within the classroom among students and their instructors

(Taylor, Fraser and Fisher 1997, 128). The researchers here point to a need to

understand the critical and communicative discourse within the classroom that

builds negotiation among learners, participation in the class experiences and

51

engagement with both peers and instructors. The framing of the constructivist

learning environment in this way presents a fertile base from which epistemically

responsible learners can emerge and thrive.

With the reconfiguration of constructivist learning environments that have

teachers facilitating knowledge of students through learning experiences,

increased negotiation among students and an emphasis on reflection about learning

(Taylor, Fraser and Fisher 1997, 131), there is a decided focus on the individual’s

ability and willingness to turn experiences into substantive knowledge. In a

learning environment where classes are facilitated and subject to negotiation, there

is a need for a good learner to be aware of knowledge issues and sufficiently

motivated to learn through negotiation and reflection. Being able to track the

learning preferences, and in particular the tendency for a learner to be responsible

for his or her learning can be useful when used in tandem with the ability to

monitor the development of constructivist learning environments.

An examination of the attributes of the constructivist learning environment

can aid in clarifying the links between that and epistemic responsibility, as

described earlier in table 1. Taylor, Fraser and Fisher (1997, 129) identify five

scales that describe the constructivist learning environment: personal relevance,

uncertainty, critical voice, shared control and student negotiation.

52

As described previously in Chapter 1, Personal relevance focuses on the

students’ perception of how knowledge is related to the outside world. Uncertainty

assesses the perception of the potential stability of knowledge. Critical voice refers

to potential for the negotiation of teaching and learning approaches in class.

Shared control focuses on the extent to which control for assessment and learning

goals are shared between teacher and student. Student negotiation has to do with

the extent to which opportunities exist for students to share and negotiate ideas

and concepts in class.

Based on the described aspects of epistemic responsibility, there are

immediate parallels that can allow for the exploration into the possible relationship

between epistemic responsibility and Constructivism. Personal relevance can be

related with knowledge maximisation in that an epistemically responsible learner

would seek to gain knowledge that is applicable in a multitude of situations. In a

similar way, the negotiation within the class that begins with the critical voices of

the learners and results in student negotiation about learning can be related to the

aspect of flexibility and adaptability as learners seek to create environments that

would best result in knowledge creation. Lastly, the aspect of contact

maximisation flows from flexibility and adaptability as the learners seek to

53

maximise the potential for learning and knowledge creation and would thus want

to seek greater control and relevance for their learning environment.

Asian Studies in Epistemology and Constructivist Learning Environments

Due to the dearth of studies on epistemological beliefs or other

epistemological issues in the Asian context and the associated lack of such studies

on high-school or college students, the following studies that focused on the

epistemological beliefs of pre-service teachers were reviewed. The main

commonality that the studies have is that they make use of Western-based

epistemological constructs in Asian contexts, the implications of which are

discussed following the descriptions of the studies.

One study conducted in Hong Kong on undergraduate pre-service teachers

explored the aspects of epistemological beliefs as elucidated by Schommer (1990)

in a Hong Kong Chinese context, which the author noted was lacking in the

literature of the time (Chan 2008, 259). The author’s main observation from the

study that echoes the one conducted by Schommer-Aikens and Easter (2008) was

that epistemological beliefs are culturally specific and that that these have effects

on learning approaches as well as conceptions about teaching and learning (Chan

2008, 260).

54

The author explained that the traditional Chinese culture that values education,

effort and hard work could have played a role in the generally high belief in the

“Authority” aspect of Schommer’s (1990) scale though he also noted that the long

period of time spent as a British colony could have accounted for what he felt as a

predominantly “Western” conception of knowledge as being uncertain (Chan 2008,

262). Additionally, the author also found that epistemological beliefs had a

mediating effect on academic performance through the interaction with cognition

and activity (Chan 2008, 263), though this point was one aspect that he

highlighted as having the potential for further study.

Of particular interest in this study was the link made between epistemological

beliefs and traditional and constructivist conceptions about teaching and learning.

It is significant to note that the subjects of this study were pre-service teachers

who would have a greater than average knowledge and sensitivity to conceptions

of teaching and learning and would thus be better able to notice changes in these

as they respond to the instruments (Chan 2008, 269). However, the findings were

still considered preliminary and further research into the motivational aspect of

epistemological beliefs and their relation to academic achievement was suggested

as potential extensions of this study (Chan 2008, 269).

55

A related study conducted on similar subjects (pre-service teachers) in

Singapore also elicited similar results (Chai and Khine 2008, 287). The study

investigated the epistemological and pedagogical beliefs of Singaporean pre-

service teachers and sought also to explore the variables among gender, ethnicity

and subject concentration on those beliefs (Chai and Khine 2008, 288). The study

was conducted on over 877 pre-service teachers in Singapore and made use of

items drawn from Schommer’s (1990) questionnaire on epistemological beliefs

with some additional items to test the subjects’ pedagogical beliefs, specifically

whether they identified more with Traditional or Constructivist pedagogies (Chai

and Khine 2008, 292).

The results were surprising to the researchers because while the

epistemological beliefs were consistent with other studies conducted in Asian

countries (Chan 2008), the strongest pedagogical belief was that of constructivism.

That did not conform to the expectations of the researchers (Chai and Khine 2008,

293). The epistemological outlooks of the subjects were generally relativistic as

shown by generally low scores on knowledge as being authoritative or certain,

which was surmised to be congruent not just with the constructivist beliefs but

were also in line with the recent educational reforms and cultural contexts in

Singapore (Chai and Khine 2008, 294).

56

It was concluded that the epistemological profiles of the pre-service teachers

surveyed provided a conducive base for the implementation of “constructivist-

oriented student-centred learning environments” (Chai and Khine 2008, 297).

While it was found that epistemological beliefs were influenced by variables like

ethnicity and gender, the researchers suggested that further research into which

variables are more significant would aid in the direction and curriculum of the

teacher training programmes.

Though the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES) was

conceived of and initially used mainly in Australia, there have been some studies

that have found the use of it effective in Asian contexts as well. The first to be

examined made use of the CLES in a cross-national study that saw the instrument

administered to 1081 high school students in Australia and 1879 high school

students in Taiwan (Aldridge et al. 2001). The aim of this study was the

validation of the English and Mandarin versions of the instrument and the

investigation of determinants of constructivist learning environments in the two

countries.

The instrument was found to be similarly reliable in both contexts despite the

difference in language used in the different countries. The main differences in the

responses showed that personal relevance and uncertainty were reported to occur

57

more frequently in Taiwanese classrooms whereas shared control, critical voice

and student negotiation occurred more frequently in Australian ones. The

researchers concluded that despite the differences in classroom preferences among

the students, there was a similar emphasis on Constructivism in both countries. In

subsequent qualitative investigation by the researchers, it was also found that

classroom preferences of students could be culturally conditioned as is the case of

the generally high regard for teachers amongst the Taiwanese student being related

with lower levels of student negotiation. Similarly, critical voice was seen to occur

more frequently in Australian classrooms due to a slightly less examination-driven

focus by teachers and students that allowed for more negotiation and alternatives

when it came to teaching and learning methods employed in class.

The significance of this cross-cultural examination of the CLES is that it

demonstrates the applicability of the instrument in contexts outside western ones.

The qualitative element of this study helped to explain and interpret the already

reliable data and gave additional credence to the use of the instrument as a means

of checking for a possible relationship between epistemic responsibility and

Constructivism as it occurs in the classroom.

Another study that aids in the contextualising of the CLES is one that was

conducted in elementary schools in Turkey (Bas 2012) where the researcher was

58

interested in correlating the constructivist learning environment with academic

achievement. Across six schools, 195 students were randomly selected to respond

to a translated version of the CLES. The data from this was subsequently

correlated with their academic achievement in the form of subject grades from

their report cards. From the data, it was found that personal relevance and critical

voice were the variables that were best able to predict academic success.

Although the research focused only on academic success in the subject of

Science at the elementary school level, the findings were significant in that they

demonstrated the possibility of the use of the CLES in determining learning

preferences in relation to academic performance. In particular, the researcher

noted that student perceptions of constructivist learning environments, especially

in their ability to link their learning to their life outside of school and to have a say

in how and why they learn in the classroom are positive predictors of academic

success. Learning environments that encourage such perceptions of how the

students learn would aid in improving the actual learning of the students. In a

similar way, creating environments where students are made to be more

responsible for their learning would in turn lead to better learning and thus better

academic performance.

59

Summary

The conceptual and theoretical foundations of virtue epistemology provide a

strong grounding for epistemic responsibility as a means of describing the

knowledge and learning issues in constructivist learning environments.

Furthermore, the previous studies into epistemological beliefs and constructivist

learning environments show that this conception of epistemic responsibility can

serve to fill some gaps in the understanding of the role of epistemology in

classrooms, especially in constructivist ones.

60

CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the research design, setting, respondents, instruments,

data-gathering procedures and the statistical treatments for the gathered data.

Research Design

The primary method was descriptive. Surveys were used to gather data “with

the intention of describing the nature of existing conditions” (Cohen, Manion and

Morrison 2007, 205) with regards to the epistemic responsibility and constructivist

learning environments of the subjects of the study. The analysis of the results of

the surveys was primarily quantitative. Qualitative methods in the form of content

analysis of some open-ended questions in the survey provided opportunities for

the respondents to shed light (Cohen, Manion and Morrison 2007, 331) on the role

that epistemic responsibility plays in the learning of the subjects. This use of both

qualitative and quantitative treatment of the results of the surveys served as a

means of triangulating the respondents‟ perspectives of knowledge with their

personal characteristics that relate to knowledge building so as to gain a broader

61

picture of epistemic responsibility in the subjects (Cohen, Manion and Morrison

2007, 141).

Research Setting

The research took place in the Ateneo de Manila University, a Catholic and

Jesuit institution in Quezon City, Philippines. One main aim of the institution is to

train men and women for others by “forming them to develop their talents to the

utmost and challenge them to the highest levels of service” (Ateneo de Manila

University 2012). There is a distinct focus on the development of the person and

preparing him or her for service to society while also serving the faith of the

Catholic Church.

Most undergraduates follow a four-year academic programme that is split

between general education in the first two years and subjects in their majors or

areas of specialisation in the latter two. The students are exposed not just to a wide

variety of subjects but also to a wide variety of teaching styles and ways of

thinking about knowledge (Palmer and Marra 2008). While Constructivism is not

explicitly used as a pedagogical focus in the university, there has been a move

towards fostering student-centred learning amongst the faculty to encourage

students to learn independently and collaboratively with appropriate guidance

62

from the teacher (Ang, et al. 2001, 6-7). This conception of student-centred

learning shows a similarity to Constructivism in its focus on allowing the students

to explore and build knowledge independently.

This direction in teaching and learning makes the university an ideal setting

for this study as students are exposed to various forms of learning in which

construction of knowledge takes up a major part of the time in the classroom and

where “the roles of teacher and student in the learning process have shifted

towards a shared responsibility for learning” (Ang, et al. 2001, 17-18). Students

are thus exposed to at least some form of self-directed or student-centred learning

methodologies which would give them some experiences upon which the

reflection and questions about their learning preferences can be based.

Research Subjects

The subjects for this study were drawn from the population of upper-year

students from the Ateneo de Manila University. In particular, students taking the

general philosophy classes1 at the university were used as the research population.

The choice of these year levels was to ensure that the subjects had at least two full

years of classes in the university and would thus be relatively familiar with the

1 All students in the Ateneo de Manila University have to fulfil 12 credit-units (four classes over four

semesters) of philosophy during their latter two years there. These consist of the Philosophy of the Human

Person I and II (conducted over two semesters); Philosophy of Religion and Foundations of Moral Value.

63

curriculum as well as pedagogical styles of the various professors and teachers.

They are, as the document on student-centred learning (Ang et al. 2001) also

suggests, exposed to some form of constructivist teaching or learning methods and

would have developed preferences and learning styles in relation to that. The

distribution and percentages of research subjects against the total population of

upper year students at the Ateneo de Manila University are shown in table 2.

TABLE 2

UPPER YEAR STUDENT POPULATION OF ATENEO DE MANILA

UNIVERSITY AND RESEARCH SUBJECTS FOR TESTING

Target Population Data Generating Respondents Sample Percentage

100 63 63%

There were two reasons behind the choice of a subject from the core or

general curriculum of the university. The first reason stemmed from the fact that

the students were spread quite evenly by subject concentrations or majors across

the year levels making it possible to use the classes as cluster samples (Cohen,

Manion and Morrison 2007, 112) in themselves. The second related reason for the

choice of a general subject was to give a “neutral” space for students to reflect on

their epistemological beliefs and traits away from the domain-specific

64

epistemologies (Palmer and Marra 2008, 330) that may come into play during

classes in their major subjects. The use of the philosophy class as the base for the

studies meant that the subjects responded to the surveys and questions from the

context of philosophy. Furthermore, the use of classes as samples allowed the

choice of particular classes which had teachers who used teaching methodologies

that were anecdotally in line with the aspects of constructivist learning

environments.

Research Instruments

Two instruments were used for the collection of data in this study. An

instrument for the measurement of epistemic responsibility was developed and the

steps taken to construct and test it are described in this section. This instrument

will hereafter be referred to as the Epistemic Responsibility Survey (ERS). The

other instrument is the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES) that

was used to record the perceptions of the research subjects on constructivist

learning environments.

The ERS can be distinguished from other instruments measuring

epistemological beliefs in that it is aimed at measuring the character trait of

epistemic responsibility as opposed to the measurement of the theories and beliefs

65

of the learner that most of the previous instruments in related studies have

demonstrated (Hofer 2008, 8). The use of multiple methodologies in the

development and testing of the instrument reflects the complex nature of the

character trait that is epistemic responsibility.

The ERS was developed and pilot-tested prior to the measurement of the

perceptions of epistemic responsibility and constructivist learning environments in

the research subjects. The three aspects of epistemic responsibility as described in

Chapter One (Knowledge Maximisation, Flexibility-Adaptability and Contact

Maximisation) were used as sub-scales in the ERS. The items on Knowledge

Maximisation focused on the perception of knowledge as being a key element in

the learning of the respondent. The items on Flexibility-Adaptability focused on

the how the respondent‟s perception of his or her ability to make use of knowledge

in a variety of situations. The items on Contact Maximisation)focused on how the

respondent viewed his or her ability to create situations where knowledge can be

effectively gained.

Table 3 shows the Table of Specifications for the ERS and the expected

number of items testing each of the aspects of epistemic responsibility in each of

the steps of the development of the instrument.

66

TABLE 3

TABLE OF SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE EPISTEMIC

RESPONSIBILITY SURVEY

Aspect of Epistemic

Responsibility

No. of Items in Pilot

Test

No. of Items in ERS

Knowledge Maximisation 20 6

Flexibility-Adaptability 18 6

Contact Maximisation 18 6

In addition to the newly constructed instrument for testing epistemic

responsibility, the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES) was used

in tandem with the finalised items of the new instrument as a means of relating

epistemic responsibility to constructivism (see appendix A). To keep the number

of items in the final test to a minimum, selected items from the CLES were placed

alongside the questions on epistemic responsibility. The items were selected based

on their relevance to this study and were the ones that focused more on the direct

perceptions of constructivist elements and dynamics within the learning

environment. Items that focused more on perceptions about the subjects being

taught were not included as the items that tested class dynamics and characteristics

were more relevant to the study as a whole.

67

Pilot Testing and Item Selection for the Epistemic Responsibility Survey

A key step in the construction of the Epistemic Responsibility Survey was the

pilot testing phase where a set of 56 items (see appendix B) to measure the aspects

of epistemic responsibility were constructed based on the Table of Specifications

detailed in table 3. The items were 5-point likert-scale self-report questions that

were aimed at allowing the respondent to reflect upon and express his or her

conceptions of knowledge and the subsequent subjective responses to it. These

items reflect the varied nature of the aspects and their links to other conceptual

frameworks. In particular, other instruments that test epistemological beliefs

(Hofer and Pintrich 1997), beliefs about knowledge and learning (Schommer

1990) and metacognition (Schraw and Dennison 1994) were also used as

references in the construction of the items in the instrument to measure epistemic

responsibility.

These items were examined by educational experts for content or face validity.

The experts were asked to examine and comment on the clarity and

appropriateness of the items. This examination took place concurrently with the

pilot testing in preparation for the final test and the results of the comments

incorporated into the selection of the items for the final test.

68

The Pilot Test was administered to 164 students over 4 separate upper-year

classes of Ateneo de Manila University during the first semester of Academic

Year 2013-2014. The results of this pilot test were scored and checked for

reliability and face validity. Items that showed high variability or had outlying

mean scores were dropped and the remaining items formed the basis of the final

test. The summarised results of the Pilot Test are presented in table 4.

TABLE 4

SUMMARY OF DATA FOR CONTACT MAXIMISATION,

FLEXIBILITY-ADAPTABILITY AND KNOWLEDGE MAXIMISATION

IN ADMU STUDENTS AY 2013-2014 FROM PILOT TEST (N=164)

No. of

Items

Mean Interpretation SD Range

Contact Maximisation 18 4.01 Moderately High 0.80 1.36

Flexibility-Adaptability 18 3.92 Moderately High 0.79 2.29

Knowledge Maximisation 20 3.94 Moderately High 0.80 1.81

The means for the three aspects of Contact Maximisation, Flexibility-

Adaptability and Knowledge Maximisation were observed to be consistently

moderately high, according to the interpretation scale given in table 4, as all three

have grouped means between 3.94 to 4.01. While one may make the observation

that there was a moderately high level of epistemic responsibility amongst the

69

respondents sampled, this could not be conclusively stated until the reliability and

validity of the items was established. Furthermore, there was some convergence in

the various aspects of epistemic responsibility given the small range of means

across the aspects, pointing to a certain amount of consonance across the aspects

that measure epistemic responsibility.

The variability of the data, however, detracted from the mean scores. Firstly,

the range of the scores was quite large, ranging from 1.36 for Contact

Maximisation to 2.29 for Flexibility-Adaptability. Secondly, the standard

deviation of all three aspects stood at approximately 0.80 which is moderate but

sufficiently sizable for it to be a cause of concern as this points to the fact that

despite the moderately high mean, the scores are spread between 3.1 to 4.8. The

majority of responses were spread between the “neutral” option and the „strongly

agree‟ options, indicating that the variability of perceptions of epistemic

responsibility of the respondents was moderately high. A more detailed list of the

descriptive statistics of the individual items can be seen in appendix E.

An initial summary of the data collected from the pilot test data indicated that,

despite the variability of the perceptions of epistemic responsibility, there seemed

to be a preference for being epistemically responsible among the respondents, as

demonstrated by the moderately high means in all three aspects. The variability

70

could be explained in part by the relatively large number of items in the pilot test

that could have included items that were less reliable in measuring the aspects of

epistemic responsibility, an issue that was resolved through a judicious process of

item selection based on the data collected.

A key aspect of the pilot testing was in the selection of items for further

measurement of epistemic responsibility. The Cronbach‟s Alpha coefficient of the

three aspects of epistemic responsibility showed that the items measuring them

were reliable with coefficients ranging from 0.73 for Contact Maximisation to

0.80 for Knowledge Maximisation (Cohen, Manion and Morrison 2007, 506) as

seen in table 5. The reliable internal consistency among the items showed that they

were, for the most part, measuring the same aspects (Cohen, Manion and Morrison

2007, 148) and that the items as a whole could be retained as means of measuring

epistemic responsibility.

71

TABLE 5

SUMMARY OF RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS FOR CONTACT

MAXIMISATION, FLEXIBILITY-ADAPTABILITY AND

KNOWLEDGE MAXIMISATION BEFORE AND AFTER

THE RETENTION AND REJECTION OF ITEMS

All items from Pilot

Test

Retained items from

Pilot Test

Aspect No. of

Items

Cronbach’s

Alpha

No. of

Items

Cronbach’s

Alpha

Contact Maximisation 18 0.73 6 0.73

Flexibility-Adaptability 18 0.74 6 0.77

Knowledge Maximisation 20 0.80 6 0.83

Following this recognition of the reliability of the total number of items

measuring the three aspects of epistemic responsibility, there was a need to make

choices for the retention and rejection of the items as the planned final test only

required 18-24 items for the measurement of epistemic responsibility. Two means

of making this choice were through the analysis of reliability and collinearity,

where item reliability was the focus of the former and the levels of inter-item

correlation among the items were used as criteria for retention or rejection of items

for the latter (Cohen, Manion and Morrison 2007, 342). For the purposes of this

study, the decision rule for reliability was thus: items were retained insofar as they

did not cause the reliability to reduce (leading to a lower Cronbach‟s Alpha

coefficient) and rejected if they caused a reduction in reliability.

72

The decision rule for collinearity was similar in that items that demonstrated

low correlation and negatively affected reliability were rejected and items that

showed the converse were retained. Additionally, items that were found to have

means and standard deviations that were on extreme ends of the scale were

rejected. Finally, certain items were rejected or retained based on their relative

clarity and on the suggestions of the expert panel.

Given the earlier choice to include items from the Constructivist Learning

Environment Survey (CLES) into the final test, the number of items per aspect

was kept to a minimum so as not to create a survey that is overly long or taxing on

the respondents. Six items per aspect were chosen as shown in appendix C. As

table 5 shows, the reliability coefficients for all three aspects of epistemic

responsibility either remained the same or increased, ensuring that the items that

were retained were at least as reliable in measuring the aspect of epistemic

responsibility as the larger set in the pilot test.

The selection of the items was also done in conjunction with inter-item

correlation and covariance matrices that aided in the decision rule for collinearity.

Items that showed strong correlation and covariance with each other demonstrated

that they were not only measuring the same aspect but changed in similar

directions, indicating collinearity. The inter-item correlation and covariance

73

matrices shown in appendix G highlight the items with higher than average

correlations and covariances which aided in the retention and rejection decision. In

general, the set of items that resulted from the analysis of both matrices showed

moderate inter-item correlations (>0.3) and moderate to low covariances (>0.15).

table 6 shows the summary of the means from both inter item-item correlations

and covariances. It showed that the items that were retained had moderate

correlations between them and along with moderate covariances that showed some

collinearity within the epistemic responsibility aspects.

TABLE 6

SUMMARY OF MEAN INTER-ITEM CORRELATION AND

COVARIANCE FOR CONTACT MAXIMISATION, FLEXIBILITY-

ADAPTABILITY AND KNOWLEDGE MAXIMISATION BEFORE AND

AFTER THE RETENTION AND REJECTION OF ITEMS

All items from Pilot Test Retained items from Pilot

Test

Aspect

Mean inter-

item

Correlation

Mean

inter-item

Covariance

Mean inter-

item

Correlation

Mean inter-

item

Covariance

Contact

Maximisation 0.15 0.08 0.30 0.14

Flexibility-

Adaptability 0.16 0.09 0.35 0.16

Knowledge

Maximisation 0.18 0.11 0.39 0.23

74

The items that were marked for retention after these two processes were

collated and these formed the basis for the final test. As the data presented in table

6 shows, the retained items showed a marked increase in both inter-item

correlation and covariance though the latter increase was not as great as the

previous. Given that the improvement of reliability was one aim of the selection,

the increase on both the inter-item correlation and covariance was not surprising

but attested to the slightly improved reliability of the retained items in measuring

epistemic responsibility. Although the inter-item correlation average was not

high, it was within what is commonly considered to the “moderate” range (Kim

and Mueller 1978, 26). The broad coverage of the various items within each aspect

could account for the slightly lower correlations, as they allow the respondent to

reflect on a wider range of perceptions of epistemic responsibility.

In particular, several items from the Flexibility-Adaptability and Knowledge

Maximisation aspects were selected despite their low inter-item correlations and

their lack of positive effect on the Cronbach‟s Alpha coefficient. For Knowledge

Maximisation, the item “Learning is important to me” had a very high mean and

low standard deviation (Mean=4.78, SD=0.48) but was not as well correlated with

the rest of the items in that aspect. The item was retained as it provided a means

for the respondent to demonstrate his or her perceptions about knowledge as a

75

whole and to set a general tone for the instrument to help orient the respondents

towards the perceptions of knowledge (Cohen, Manion and Morrison 2007, 343)

that the instrument was testing. Another item from Flexibility-Adaptability, “I am

willing to adjust my perspectives to learn better” was retained despite the lower

correlation as it measures a key component of the aspect–the ability of the

respondent to be flexible with perspectives of learning. The rejection of this item

might adversely affect the ability of the instrument to accurately measure the

aspect of epistemic responsibility, hence its retention.

Following the conduct and analysis of data from the pilot test, the selected

items on the aspects of epistemic responsibility form the basis for the Epistemic

Responsibility Survey (ERS), and along with items from the CLES, were

compiled to form the Final Test. In addition to these likert scale items, the open

ended and ranking items as indicated in appendix E were also included in the Final

Test.

Additionally, comments from the examination of clarity of the items by the

panel of experts (see appendix E) were incorporated into the construction of the

final form of the ERS. The suggestions from the panel of experts centred mainly

on clarifying the concepts of “learning” and “knowledge”, ensuring that the

respondents would be clear whether they were responding to their perceptions of

76

knowledge as a concept or learning as a practice that leads to knowledge. The

items were generally seen as clear and appropriate.

Final Testing

The final test consisted of 6 items from each of the three aspects of epistemic

responsibility for a total of 18 items from the Epistemic Responsibility Survey.

Twelve items from the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES) that

focused on student perceptions of classroom practices and dynamics that pertain to

Constructivism were also included.

The conceptual similarities that were observed between epistemic

responsibility and constructivist learning environments were also expressed in the

items for the CLES. As a result of this, the selection of items from the CLES for

the final test was based mainly on ensuring that the items were not repetitive or

too conceptually close to the items measuring epistemic responsibility.

Additionally, the items from the Uncertainty scale were left out completely as they

were deemed to be too subject-specific and were less relevant to the aspects or

dispositions of epistemic responsibility. The likert scale distributions and

descriptors used in both surveys were found to be similar, allowing the items to be

placed side-by-side in the final test.

77

The perceptions of epistemic responsibility and constructivist preferences

were interpreted through the use of a researcher-conceptualised interpretation

scale based on the likert-scale score ranges. Table 7 shows the scales, with scores

ranging from 1 as the lowest to 5 as the highest.

TABLE 7

RESEARCHERS’ INTERPRETATION SCALE

FOR ERS AND CLES SCORES

Mean Score Verbal Description

4.51-5.00 High

3.76-4.50 Moderately High

3.01-3.75 Moderate

2.26-3.00 Moderately Low

1.51-2.25 Low

1.00-1.50 Very Low or Absent

The researcher-conceptualised scales apply to scores from both the ERS and

the CLES for the mean scores in the various aspects or sub-scales of both. The

descriptions indicate the levels of either epistemic responsibility or preference for

particular aspects of constructivist learning environments. For instance, a mean

score of 4.2 would indicate a moderately high level of a particular aspect of

epistemic responsibility whereas a mean score of 1.8 would indicate a low level of

the same.

78

In addition to the likert-scale items, five open-ended questions were added to

provide additional qualitative data that had the potential to corroborate and

strengthen the conclusions from the items from both the ERS and CLES. In

particular, questions that allowed the respondents to state particular actions and

dispositions that lead to learning and gaining of knowledge were included to give

an additional check on the validity of the Epistemic Responsibility Survey items.

The final test was given to a smaller group of 63 students (as indicated in

Table 2) which included some students who were in classes where the dominant

pedagogical style was constructivist. The final test, as administered to the

respondents, can be found in appendix E. The results of this test were scored and

the resultant data analysed to confirm the validity and reliability of this instrument

in eliciting information about the epistemic responsibility of college students.

Data Gathering Procedure

As the instruments were administered to students of the Ateneo de Manila

University, permission from the department chairs and individual teachers was

sought in writing prior to the administration of the surveys. The surveys were

administered in class with the permission of the respective teachers. Respondents

were reassured of the anonymity and confidentiality of the data collected.

79

Data Analysis and Statistical Treatment

For the data collected from the tests, descriptive statistical treatment was used.

The statistical treatment of this data aided in answering Question 1 about the

measurement of epistemic responsibility. In particular, the mean

,

where is the mean,

Σ is the sum of the scores, and

N is the total number of cases (Downie and Heath 1984, 35);

and standard deviation

,

where S is the standard deviation,

X is the individual value in the population,

is the mean of the values, and

N is the number of respondents in the population (Downie and Heath

1984, 79),

of the various items were calculated. This also formed the basis for the acceptance

and rejection of the items to form the first draft of the Epistemic Responsibility

Survey. The items that showed lower variation and that were observed to have

similar means aided in the description of epistemic responsibility through the

items that described the three aspects.

80

A further statistical tool to respond to question 1 and how epistemic

responsibility can be measured was the use of Cronbach‟s Alpha coefficient

,

where α is the Cronbach‟s Alpha coefficient,

K is the number of items,

r is the average inter-item correlation (Hinton 2004, 303),

(Cohen, Manion and Morrison 2007, 162) for the testing of reliability of the

items in measuring perceptions of the particular aspects of epistemic responsibility.

Unreliable items shown through this data were removed.

Question 2 on the perceptions of college students regarding epistemic

responsibility was answered using similar statistical treatment on the data

collected from the items gleaned from the CLES.

Question 3 on the possible relationship between epistemic responsibility and

constructivist learning environments was answered through the use of the Pearson

correlation coefficient

,

where r is the Pearson correlation coefficient;

ΣZxZy is the sum of the products of the two sets of scores to be

compared; and

N is the number of respondents (Downie and Heath 1984, 99),

81

in correlating the aspects and scales from epistemic responsibility and the

constructivist learning environment with each other so as to gain a better

understanding of the possible relationships between them. The interpretative table

of correlation coefficients is given in table 8.

TABLE 8

RESEARCHERS’ INTERPRETATION SCALE

FOR CORRELATION SCORES

Pearson Correlation (R) Coefficient Verbal Description

0.70 – 1.00 Very Strong Positive Correlation

0.40 – 0.69 Strong Positive Correlation

0.20 – 0.39 Moderate Positive Correlation

0.01 – 0.19 Weak Positive Correlation

The converse interpretation applies to negative correlations. For instance, -0.45

would indicate a strong negative correlation.

The use of correlation coefficients in the early stages of testing also served as

a means of checking the interrelationships between the items during the pilot test

for the epistemic responsibility items and this data provided additional means of

deciding whether to accept or reject particular items. High correlations between

the aspects of epistemic responsibility were used to check on construct validity of

the items..

82

The same statistical treatment of data was done on the final test which

provided an additional data point which helped to further respond to questions 1

and 2. In particular, the reliability of the data collected from this test was treated

again using the Cronbach‟s Alpha coefficient.

Additionally, content analysis was performed on the qualitative data that was

collected through the open ended questions and the resultant concepts and themes

correlated with the results of the instrument itself. This served to provide

additional data to respond to question 3. The constructed responses given there

provided a better insight into the actual knowledge issues and the possible

relationship between epistemic responsibility and Constructivism as it occurs in

the classroom.

83

CHAPTER FOUR

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter presents the analysis and interpretation of the data gathered from

the college students of Ateneo de Manila University (AdMU) during academic

year 2013-2014. It focuses on how the data collected answer the questions

discussed in the Statement of the Problem in Chapter 1.

Question One. What are the perceptions of college students regarding

Epistemic Responsibility?

The analysis of the data with regards to perceptions of epistemic responsibility

focused on a detailed description of the results from the final test. The discussion

of the data pertaining to this question comes mainly from the final test though

some additional insights come from the development of the instrument as

described in Chapter 3.

84

TABLE 9

SUMMARY OF DATA OF CONTACT MAXIMISATION, FLEXIBILITY-

ADAPTABILITY AND KNOWLEDGE MAXIMISATION IN ADMU

STUDENTS AY 2013-2014 IN FINAL TEST (N=63)

No. of

Items

Mean Interpretation SD Range

Contact Maximisation 6 4.53 High 0.61 1.33

Flexibility-Adaptability 6 4.46 Moderately High 0.70 1.50

Knowledge Maximisation 6 4.13 Moderately High 0.79 1.67

The scores for the Epistemic Responsibility Survey items in the final test, as

shown in table 9, were seen to be either high or moderately high, with the aspects

of Contact Maximisation (Mean=4.53, SD=0.61) and Flexibility-Adaptability

(Mean=4.46, SD=0.70) showing relatively low ranges and standard deviations as

well. More details on the individual items can be found in appendix E.

A closer look at the individual items of the aspect of Contact Maximisation

showed recognition of the possible preferences for experiential learning among the

respondents to the Final Test. The three items that recorded the highest scores had

an experiential element to them. The item “Knowledge building is an experiential

process” had a high mean with a relatively low spread (Mean=4.62, SD=0.52),

indicating that the respondents saw experience as important to the building of

knowledge. The Contact Maximisation item that recorded the highest mean score

85

was “Learning involves seeking new experiences” (Mean=4.68, SD=0.50),

corroborating the other item in demonstrating the importance of experience in

knowledge construction. Another item that recorded a high mean and relatively

low spread was “Increased contact with real situations would lead to increased

learning” (Mean=4.56, AD=0.59), showing that the contact with situations that

mirror daily life would, in the estimation of the respondents, lead to the building of

knowledge.

In a similar way, the individual items from the aspect of Flexibility-

Adaptability showed perceived preferences for learning in different situations

among the respondents. The item that recorded the highest mean was “I prefer to

be able to make use of my knowledge in different situations” (Mean=4.67,

SD=0.51) which also showed a relatively low spread of scores. When taken in

conjunction with the other item that states “I like to learn in a variety of situations”

(Mean=4.46, SD=0.71), there was evidence to show a relatively strong preference

for learning in environments where conditions are variable and where learners are

allowed to make use of their prior knowledge in a variety of situations.

The two observations regarding the perceived preferences for experiential

learning and the framing of learning in a variety of situations showed a certain

convergence in the preferences of the respondents which in turn demonstrated

86

some convergence between the two aspects. A learner who seeks to maximise

contact with reality and knowledge would also have to be relatively flexible in his

or her approach to knowledge so as to ensure that the contact with knowledge-

creating situations was indeed maximised. This observation was further

corroborated statistically with a very strong Pearson correlation between the two

aspects (r=0.76). This indicated that a learner who displayed a high level of

Contact Maximisation would be very likely to display high levels of Flexibility-

Adaptability, leading one to conclude that the two aspects were not just closely

related but would also form an important basis for the link between Epistemic

Responsibility and constructivist learning environments as the latter also has a

strong focus on experiential learning and flexibility in responding to different

learning environments.

While the aspect of Knowledge Maximisation also showed an increase in

average scores from the pilot test, the increase was lower and the scores had a

slightly wider spread (Mean=4.13, SD=0.79) as compared to the other two aspects.

What seemed significant was the fact that of the six items in this aspect, one item

“Gaining knowledge is important to me” returned a very high average with low

spread (Mean=4.81, SD=0.39). This one outlying item demonstrates that although

the respondents were able to identify that they value gaining knowledge in general,

87

they were not as agreeable to the more abstract conceptions of Knowledge

Maximisation. It was acknowledged that the items in this section were more

abstract than the rest of the items as they dealt mainly with knowledge and

knowledge issues, which in turn could have led to the lower average scores.

It was also observed that the normative nature of some of the items in the

Knowledge Maximisation aspect such as “I find it easy to motivate myself to gain

knowledge” (Mean=3.63, SD=0.97) and “Gaining knowledge is preferable to other

activities” (Mean=3.89, SD=0.59) may have caused the lower average responses.

Unlike the items in Contact Maximisation and Flexibility-Adaptability, many of

the items in this aspect were normative descriptions of particular character traits

that a knowledge maximising individual may tend to possess. Given the

normativity of the items and the difficulty that the respondents might have in

gauging what constitutes motivation or how much they prefer knowledge to other

activities, the variability and generally lower scores seem apt. However, the

difficulty in seeking to measure character traits and dispositions would have to be

acknowledged and accepted while exploring other means of making use of the

data to draw a fuller picture of Epistemic Responsibility through the collected data.

What the average scores showed was that it is possible to measure the

perceptions of epistemic responsibility of students in a reliable manner and that the

88

current sample of respondents had a moderately high perception of epistemic

responsibility as demonstrated by the average scores in all aspects. Furthermore,

as table 10 shows, there was a strong correlation between the various aspects of

epistemic responsibility, with the aforementioned relationship between Contact

Maximisation and Flexibility-Adaptability showing a very strong correlation

(r=0.76). The relationship between Knowledge Maximisation and the other two

aspects was shown to be strong (r=0.49 and r=0.42) but not as strongly related as

the relationship Contact Maximisation and Flexibility-Adaptability. One

explanation for this could be the normativity in the items measuring Knowledge

Maximisation that led to the generally lower average scores amongst the

respondents.

TABLE 10

PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS (R) BETWEEN THE

THREE ASPECTS OF EPISTEMIC RESPONSIBILITY

Correlated aspects of Epistemic Responsibility Pearson coefficient r

(significance)

Contact Maximisation – Flexibility-Adaptability 0.76**

(0.000)

Contact Maximisation – Knowledge Maximisation 0.49**

(0.000)

Flexibility-Adaptability - Knowledge Maximisation 0.42**

(0.001)

*Significant at p<0.05; **Significant at p<0.02

89

The data presented thus far demonstrate the possibility of measuring

perceptions of epistemic responsibility through the Epistemic Responsibility

Survey as reliability and coherency was demonstrated among the items used.

However, further evidence with regards to the measurement of the character traits

and dispositions of the respondents would help in increasing the understanding of

the descriptive nature of the aspects of Epistemic Responsibility and the

relationships between them. A brief examination of some of the data from the

open-ended questions through simple content analysis of the responses aided in

this respect.

Of the open-ended questions, two in particular returned interesting data that

helped shed light on some of the more normative aspects of Epistemic

Responsibility and Constructivist Learning Environments1. In these items, the

respondents were asked to write three personal characteristics (in Question B) and

three actions (in Question C) that they felt were important for learning and gaining

knowledge (see appendix D for the open-ended questions as posed in the final test).

Most of the responses were single words or short phrases and a very basic content

analysis was performed on the individual words that the respondents returned in

1 It should be noted here that not all the data collected from the open-ended questions were used as the

other questions did not generate data that could be appropriately analysed or related with the rest of the

quantitative data.

90

the instrument. This analysis consisted of counts of frequencies of the words and

phrases as they appear in the responses (Cohen, Manion and Morrison 2007, 477).

The codes and categories of the content analysis were constructed inductively after

the frequency counts (Cohen, Manion and Morrison 2007, 480).

In the responses to the item on the personal characteristics that were important

to learning, there were several words that appeared at a greater frequency then

others which in turn led to the construction of particular categories for

understanding the data. Table 11 below summarises the frequencies and the

categories that were inductively constructed based on the responses. Only words

that appeared more than twice were considered in this analysis.

TABLE 11

FREQUENCIES FOR THE CONTENT ANALYSIS OF QUESTION B,

GROUPED BY CATEGORY (N=63)

Category Word (Frequency, Percentage of total)

Perseverance Perseverance (12, 19.04%); Diligence (6, 9.52%);

Motivation (6, 9.52%); Discipline (5, 7.94%);

Concentration (4, 6.35%) ; Hardworking (3, 4.77%)

Patience/Humility Patience (11, 17.46%); Humility (6, 9.52%);

Inquisitiveness Curiosity (11, 17.46%); Thinking (5, 7.94%);

Openness Open (11, 17.46%); Openness (9, 14.29%); Critical (6,

9.52%); Courage (3, 4.77%); Inspiration (3, 4.77%)

91

The categories that emerged based on the preliminary content analysis of the

qualitative data showed two foci in the preferences of the respondents, that of

perseverance and openness. The majority of the words fell into these two

categories, showing that as a whole, perseverance and openness were dispositions

that were valued in learning and gaining knowledge among the respondents. The

focus on perseverance and discipline was surprising given the quantitative data

that showed that the respondents preferred a variety of situations which could

detract from persevering in a particular task or situation. Perseverance can be

important in learning experientially as the learning that occurs through exploration

and experience does require more effort and diligence on the part of the learner for

stable knowledge to be built (Dearden 1998, 278).

Equally significant was the preference for openness. This seems to link

directly with the aspect of Flexibility-Adaptability as a person who is open to new

forms of learning would tend to be more adaptable to the situation and may in turn

express preferences for learning in a wide variety of situations, real or otherwise.

When taken in tandem with the category of inquisitiveness, openness also reflects

the trait of a person who is both contact and knowledge maximising. Such a

person would tend to try to put him or herself in situations where learning could

92

occur. The qualitative data with regards to the particular dispositions of the

learners aided in substantiating the quantitative items of the instrument.

Question Two. What are the perceptions of college students regarding

constructivist learning environments?

The data that was collected with regards to constructivist learning

environments were from the Final Test which contained items from the

Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES) (Taylor, Fraser and White

1991) that were added alongside the items on Epistemic Responsibility. A total of

12 likert scale items in the Final Test were dedicated to the measurement of

perceptions of constructivist learning environments over four separate scales:

Student Negotiation, Personal Relevance, Shared Control and Critical Voice2.

Each of these reliable and validated scales (Taylor, Fraser and Fisher 1997)

offered particular insights into the perceptions of constructivist learning

environments among the respondents of the Final Test. Table 12 gives a summary

of the descriptive statistics for the four scales of the CLES surveyed. Further

details of the individual items are found in appendix E.

2 There is another scale that the CLES measures – Uncertainty. This was not included in the final test as the

items were not relevant to the study. This was explained in Chapter Three.

93

TABLE 12

SUMMARY OF PERCEPTIONS OF CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING

ENVIRONMENTS IN ADMU STUDENTS AY 2013-2014

FROM FINAL TEST (N=63)

No. of

Items

Mean Interpretation SD Range

Student Negotiation 3 3.97 Moderately High 0.68 2.33

Personal Relevance 3 4.23 Moderately High 0.44 1.67

Shared Control 3 3.02 Moderate 0.60 3.00

Critical Voice 3 4.24 Moderately High 0.59 2.33

The scores returned from the measurement of perceptions of the Constructivist

Learning Environment Survey (CLES) were quite varied but generally showed a

positive perception for aspects of Constructivism occurring in their classes that

potentially also hinted at the possible relationship between Constructivist Learning

Environments and Epistemic Responsibility. In particular, the scales of Personal

Relevance and Critical Voice showed moderately high average scores with mean

scores that were over 4 on a 5-point likert scale, indicate fairly strong positive

perceptions for these two aspects of the Constructivist Learning Environment

while the other two scales returned lower scores that were either moderate or

moderately low.

The Critical Voice scale had a moderately high mean (Mean=4.24, SD=0.59)

and this was the highest among all the CLES scales tested. Critical Voice refers to

94

the climate in the class that allows negotiation between teacher and student with

regards to approaches to learning. The scores indicated that there was room for

such negotiation among the respondents (Taylor, Fraser and Fisher 1997). In

particular, the item “It‟s OK for me to question the way I‟m taught” (Mean=4.44,

SD=0.69) returned the highest mean score from among the items of this scale and

showed that the respondents were able to express their learning preferences within

the classes that they attended. This shows that among the learning environments of

the respondents of the final test, there was a climate where the Critical Voices of

the students could be expressed.

The other scale that returned moderately high average scores was that of

Personal Relevance (Mean=4.23, SD=0.44). This scale showed an even stronger

positive perception of constructivist learning environment than Critical Voice as

the mean was similar to the latter but showed a much lower range (1.67) and lower

dispersion as demonstrated by a lower standard deviation. Personal Relevance

refers to the links that the learners made between knowledge learned in class with

situations outside of the classroom or school and the items in this scale are quite

closely linked with the Contact Maximisation aspect of Epistemic responsibility.

One particular item in this scale “I learn interesting things about the world outside

of school” (Mean=4.48, SD=0.59) which had a higher mean and moderate

95

standard deviation showed that the respondents were put in learning environments

where they could learn about things beyond school. The data collected from this

aspect also showed that the learning environments of the respondents did allow for

adequate links to be made between learning in school and its relation with the

world beyond it.

Student Negotiation was shown to have had a more moderate perception

among the respondents of the Final Test with a moderately high mean and

standard deviation (Mean=3.97, SD=0.68). While the perception of Student

Negotiation in the sample was lower than the previous two scales discussed, there

was still evidence to show that the respondents perceived that negotiation was

present in their classroom environments. The individual items were relatively

similar in their means and standard deviation, allowing one to conclude that while

these preferences and perceptions were present among the respondents, they were

not as noteworthy or significant as the two previously discussed scales.

The final scale on Shared Control returned a very different set of results from

all the rest of the scales and aspects tested in the Final Test. The moderate mean

scores (Mean=3.02, SD=0.60) demonstrate that for the most part, the respondents

felt that they were less able to share control of their learning with their teachers or

96

instructors3. The items were aimed at checking if the respondents were able to help

their teachers to plan or decide on learning activities with each item beginning

with “I help the teacher to…” and perhaps despite the attempts at creating student

centred environments, the impact of student voice in the planning of learning

activities was not high. In particular the item, “I help the teacher to plan what I‟m

going to learn” returned moderately low average scores (Mean=2.79, SD=0.74),

indicating that the respondents were not exposed to situations where they were

able to aid in the planning of their learning activities. Taken in conjunction with

the conclusions from the Critical Voice scale, one may presume that despite the

ability to question the content that is taught and to express opinions, the

respondents were less likely to participate directly in the design of the learning

environments in which they found themselves.

In general, the respondents did display positive perceptions of the

Constructivist Learning Environments that they were in that could indicate

possible preferences for Personal Relevance as well as for the ability to have a

Critical Voice in their learning environment. Though they displayed a lower

perception of the need for Shared Control, one might also conclude that this

3 Though 3 out of 5 on the likert scale items indicate a moderate preference for the particular aspect in

question, the skewness of the data should also be taken into account (Cohen, Manion and Morrison 2007,

327). The CLES items showed a negative skew in all items away from a mean of 3.87, indicating that

scores that are around 3 are lower than the most of the other scores recorded.

97

particular aspect of the Constructivist Learning Environment could find expression

more in a “Western” classroom than in an Asian one, an observation that was also

found in the cross-cultural study of the CLES where it was found that Asian

students showed less preference for Shared Control and were also less able to

quote instances of it occurring in class (Aldridge et al. 2001, 49). The “Asianness”

of the respondents was also shown in the results of this data as far as the Shared

Control scale was concerned but interestingly, this did not extend to the Critical

Voice scale that was also shown to be lower in other Asian studies (Aldridge et al.

2001, 51). The generally outspoken nature of the students in the institution that the

sample was drawn from and the recent emphasis on student-centred learning and

assessment (Ang et al. 2001) could have contributed to their current preference for

the ability to inject their voice into the learning process.

An interesting link to the qualitative data collected from the open-ended items

can be seen through the item (Question C in the final test, see appendix D) that

asked students to consider the particular actions that they felt were important for

learning or gaining knowledge. In the content analysis of the data in table 13, two

broad categories for the words written were constructed – that of the “traditional”

classroom and that of the constructivist classroom. In the former, actions such as

“reading” and “practice” were categorised as being normally associated with

98

learning in traditional classrooms. In such classrooms, activities that focused on

students practicing skills or learning through the transmission of knowledge from

teacher to student were prevalent. In a constructivist classroom, words such as

“questioning,” “understanding” and “discourse” that are more closely associated

with learning through constructivist environments were included.

TABLE 13

FREQUENCIES FOR THE CONTENT ANALYSIS OF QUESTION C,

GROUPED BY CATEGORY (N=63)

Category Word (Frequency, Percentage of total)

„Traditional‟ classroom Reading (16, 25.40%); Listening (6, 9.52%); Writing

(3, 4.77%); Practice (3, 4.77%)

Constructivist classroom Questioning (8, 12.70%); Understanding (4, 6.35%);

Discourse (4, 6.35%);

What was significant in this set of data was that, while there was a possible

preference for actions that are linked to constructivist learning environments, the

preferences for more traditional methods of learning were seen to be more

prevalent. The most frequent word that was returned was “reading” (25.4%),

which could lie in both categories but given that for most of the responses,

“reading” was found in conjunction with “traditional” actions “writing” and

“practice” and not with the words more associated with constructivism led to its

99

categorisation in the „traditional‟ classroom category. This qualitative data

corroborates with the CLES data as shown in table 12 that shows some preference

for Constructivist Learning Environments, especially in the expression of Critical

Voice, while still demonstrating more “traditional” inclinations in the lack of

preference for Shared Control in the classroom.

Despite some tendencies towards both “traditional” classrooms as well as a

lower preference for Shared Control among the respondents, there was sufficient

evidence to show that there is a positive perception for Constructivist Learning

Environments among those surveyed. In particular, the moderately high

perceptions in the scales of Student Negotiation and Personal Relevance showed

that the respondents had such key constructivist inclinations that not only

demonstrated the possibility of general preferences for Constructivist Learning

Environments but may also have indicated their ability to thrive and learn well

within such environments.

Question Three. What relationship, if any, is there between the perceptions of

college students regarding Epistemic Responsibility and Constructivist

Learning Environments?

Based on a cursory look at the conclusions made on both Epistemic

Responsibility and Constructivist Learning Environments, there were parallels in

100

the perceptions of both measures by the respondents to the final test. In particular,

the Epistemic Responsibility aspect of Contact Maximisation seems to have had a

number of similarities with the Constructivist Learning Environments both in the

form of the items that describe them as well as the data that resulted from the Final

Test. Furthermore, there also seems to be a natural link between the Epistemic

Responsibility aspect of Flexibility-Adaptability and the Constructivist Learning

Environments scales of Critical Voice and Personal Relevance because of the

similarity in the items.

The relationship between Epistemic Responsibility and Constructivist

Learning Environments was analysed through the use of correlation analysis. The

aspects and scales from both the Epistemic Responsibility Survey and

Constructivist Learning Environment Survey, respectively, were correlated with

each other to gain an initial set of Pearson correlation coefficients which allowed

for a statistical examination of the possible relationships between the two variables.

The summary of the correlation coefficients between Epistemic Responsibility and

Constructivist Learning Environments are found in table 14.

101

TABLE 14

SUMMARY OF THE PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS (R)

BETWEEN EPISTEMIC RESPONSIBILITY AND CONSTRUCTIVIST

LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS FROM THE FINAL TEST (N=63)

Student

Negotiation

(Significance)

Personal

Relevance

(Significance)

Shared

Control

(Significance)

Critical

Voice

(Significance)

Contact

Maximisation

0.464**

(0.000)

0.528**

(0.000)

0.291*

(0.020)

0.486**

(0.000)

Flexibility-

Adaptability

0.320*

(0.011)

0.269*

(0.033)

0.220

(0.083)

0.502**

(0.00)

Knowledge

Maximisation

0.259*

(0.040)

0.377**

(0.002)

0.325**

(0.009)

0.112

(0.382)

*Significant at p<0.05; **Significant at p<0.02

Based on the correlations given above, there are statistically significant

correlations between all the aspects of Epistemic Responsibility and Constructivist

Learning Environments with the exception of Flexibility-Adaptability with Shared

Control and Knowledge Maximisation with Critical Voice. Most interestingly,

Contact Maximisation was shown to be significantly correlated with all four scales

of the Constructivist Learning Environments. This demonstrates that there were

relationships between the perceptions of Epistemic Responsibility and

Constructivist Learning Environments.

The Epistemic Responsibility aspect of Contact Maximisation was shown to

be significantly correlated with all the scales of Constructivist Learning

102

Environments. In particular, Student Negotiation, Personal Relevance and Critical

Voice were shown to have moderate to strong correlation coefficients when

related with Contact Maximisation, indicating a fairly strong relationship between

these measures. It was not surprising to note that the correlation with Personal

Relevance was particularly strong (r=0.528, Sig.=0.000) given the similarity in the

intent of both of these aspects. In both, the link to real-life situations and how the

perceptions of these links could give rise to better learning could explain the

strong correlation between them. In a similar way, the correlation between Contact

Maximisation and Student Negotiation (r=0.464, Sig.=0.000) and Critical Voice

(r=0.486, Sig.=0.000) was also strong and underlines the important link between

Contact Maximisation and the active nature of students who prefer the

Constructivist Learning Environment. In both the aforementioned scales, the focus

was on the ability and willingness of the learner to be active in speaking with other

learners or expressing their opinions on their learning. These demonstrate the

active nature of learners who thrive in constructivist learning environments. It also

reflected the active nature of the contact maximising epistemically responsible

individual.

The relationship between Flexibility-Adaptability and Constructivist Learning

Environments is present but not as strong nor significant as that of Contact

103

Maximisation. Flexibility-Adaptability is moderately correlated with Student

Negotiation (r=0.320, Sig.=0.011), which probably stems from the fact that a

learner who is able and willing to work with others to learn better would also tend

to be more flexible and adaptable in approaching learning in general. The

correlation between Flexibility-Adaptability and Critical Voice was strong

(r=0.502, Sig.=0.000) and significantly so, corroborating the previous link with

Student Negotiation while also showing the importance of being able to speak up

and negotiate learning approaches in the learning environment. Flexibility-

Adaptability was shown not to be significantly correlated with Shared Control

(r=0.220, Sig.=0.083), also corroborating the conclusion that despite the

respondents‟ preference for flexible learning, they were also unwilling to extend

this to participate directly in the design of class environments. The recognition of

the need to actively negotiate and respond to different environments showed that

there is a definite link between being flexible and adaptable as an Epistemically

Responsible learner and the constructivist aspect of having a Critical Voice.

For the aspect of Knowledge Maximisation, both scales of Personal Relevance

(r=0.377, Sig.=0.002) and Shared Control (r=0.325, Sig.=0.009) showed moderate

correlations that were statistically significant. As with the other two, the

Constructivist scale of Personal Relevance was seen to be significantly related

104

with Epistemic Responsibility, underlining the importance of relevance and the

links to the real-world that affect both measures. What was interesting in this

relationship was that Knowledge Maximisation was related to Shared Control,

which was the one scale in the CLES that returned low overall scores. Statistically,

this could be a result of both Knowledge Maximisation and Shared Control having

lower average scores than all the rest of the scales and aspects but it could also

give an insight into the perceptions of the respondents with regards to knowledge

and the individual‟s role in it. Given that the items in the Knowledge

Maximisation aspect were more abstract and the fact that the items in Shared

Control represented activities that were not common behaviours among learners

sampled, the correlation between them could be explained as stemming from

similarly unfamiliar modes of learning. Knowledge Maximisation was also not

significantly correlated with the scale of Critical Voice (R=0.112, Sig.=0.382),

possibly showing that one who values knowledge may not necessarily be vocal

about how one learns in class.

In general the correlation data shows fairly strong relationships especially

between Epistemic Responsibility and the scales of Student Negotiation and

Personal Relevance, indicating that there could be a tendency for an epistemically

responsible learner to seek to want to collaborate with others to gain knowledge

105

that is relevant to real life. The constructivist scale of Shared Control was shown

to be less related to the epistemically responsible individual though this could be

due to the Asian context where learners are less willing to exert control within the

classroom environment and may not be a general conclusion for all contexts.

Critical Voice, while well correlated with Contact Maximisation and Flexibility-

Adaptability, was not related with Knowledge Maximisation. This could be due to

the active nature of the items that measured this scale that linked well with the

other two more active aspects of epistemic responsibility and not to the more

abstract Knowledge Maximisation aspect.

Summary

The data generated demonstrated that it was possible to reliably observe

perceptions of epistemic responsibility among college students and that there was

an observable relationship between epistemic responsibility and constructivist

learning environments. The links between the qualitative and quantitative data

collected on both epistemic responsibility and constructivist learning environments

allowed for a corroboration of the quantitative data collected from the likert scale

items. The relationship shown between perceptions of epistemic responsibility and

constructivist learning environments showed that there was relevance in the

106

measurement of both in tandem and points towards the possibility of further

investigation into the relationship between the two.

107

CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter includes the summary, findings, conclusion and

recommendations of the study.

Summary

Statement of the Problem

This study aimed to measure how epistemic responsibility and its individual

characteristics of Knowledge Maximisation, Flexibility-Adaptability and Contact

Maximisation could be related to constructivist learning in a college classroom.

Specifically, the study aimed to answer the following questions:

1. What are the perceptions of college students regarding epistemic

responsibility?

2. What are the perceptions of college students regarding constructivist learning

environments?

3. What relationship, if any, is there between the perceptions of college students

regarding Epistemic Responsibility and Constructivist learning environments?

108

Hypothesis

Based on the specific problems stated, the following hypothesis was tested:

The research hypothesis was that there is no relationship between perceptions

of epistemic responsibility and constructivist learning environments with college

students.

Research Method

The primary method employed in this study was descriptive. Surveys were

used to gather data ‘with the intention of describing the nature of existing

conditions’ (Cohen, Manion and Morrison 2007, 205) with regards to the

epistemic responsibility and constructivist learning environments of the subjects.

Research Subjects

The research respondents of the study were 63 Ateneo de Manila University

students in their third or fourth year of studies in Academic Year 2013-2014.

Research Instruments

Two instruments were used in this study, the Epistemic Responsibility Survey

and the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey. The former was developed

109

during the course of this study whereas the latter is a validated survey used in a

variety of contexts and countries (Bas 2012; Nix, Fraser and Ledbetter 2003).

The Epistemic Responsibility Survey was aimed at measuring the perceptions

of and dispositions towards knowledge and learning among its respondents. Three

aspects of epistemic responsibility, Knowledge Maximisation, Flexibility-

Adaptability and Contact Maximisation, were used as sub-scales for this

instrument. In its final form, it had 18 likert scale items over the three sub-scales

along with five open-ended questions.

The Constructivist Learning Environment Survey measures students’

perceptions of their learning environment with regards to constructivism and does

so over five sub-scales: Personal Relevance, Uncertainty, Critical Voice, Shared

Control and Student Negotiation (Taylor, Fraser and White 1991). The original

instrument had 30 likert scale items over the five sub-scales. Of these 30 items, 12

were chosen (see appendix A) over four of the sub-scales for use in this study both

to reduce the cognitive load of the surveys on the research subjects and to avoid

repetition of some of the concepts and ideas.

110

Data Gathering Procedure

As the instruments were administered to students of the Ateneo de Manila

University, permission from the department chairs and individual teachers was

sought in writing prior to the administration of the surveys. The surveys were

administered in class with the permission of the respective teachers. Respondents

were reassured of the anonymity and confidentiality of the data collected.

Statistical Treatment

Means and standard deviations were computed and used to respond to

research questions one and two with regards to the perceptions of epistemic

responsibility and constructivist learning environments of the research subjects.

The Chronbach’s Alpha coefficient was used to compute the reliability of the

items used in the Epistemic Responsibility Survey in the pilot test. The Pearson

correlation coefficient was computed and used to respond to question three with

regards to the relationship between epistemic responsibility and constructivist

learning environments.

111

Research Findings

The findings of the study are presented based on the specific questions posed

in the Statement of the Problem.

Question One

Based on the data collected from the pilot and final tests, the perceptions of

college students regarding epistemic responsibility can be summarised as follows:

1. Contact Maximisation

Contact Maximisation was found to be moderately high (Pilot test

mean=4.01) to high (Final test mean=4.53) among the subjects surveyed.

2. Flexibility-Adaptability

Flexibility-Adaptability was found to be moderately high (Pilot test

mean=3.92, Final test mean=4.46) among the subjects surveyed.

3. Knowledge Maximisation

Knowledge Maximisation was found to be moderately high (Pilot test

mean=3.94, Final test mean=4.13) among the subjects surveyed.

Furthermore, the items used to measure the three aspects of epistemic

responsibility in the Epistemic Responsibility Survey were found to be reliable.

The Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients for the aspects as measured in the Pilot test

112

were 0.73 for Contact Maximisation, 0.74 for Flexibility-Adaptability and 0.80 for

Knowledge Maximisation.

Question Two

Based on the data collected from the final test, the perceptions of college

students regarding constructivist learning environments can be summarised as

follows:

1. Student Negotiation

Student Negotiation was found to be moderately high (Mean=3.97)

among the subjects surveyed.

2. Personal Relevance

Personal Relevance was found to be moderately high (Mean=4.23) among

the subjects surveyed.

3. Shared Control

Shared Control was found to be moderate (Mean=3.02) among the

subjects surveyed.

4. Critical Voice

Critical Voice was found to be moderately high (Mean=4.24) among the

subjects surveyed.

113

Question Three

Based on the data collected from the final test, the relationship observed

between the perceptions of epistemic responsibility and constructivist learning

environments among college students can be summarised as follows:

1. Correlation between Contact Maximisation and scales of the Constructivist

Learning Environment Survey

Contact Maximisation was found to be significantly and strongly

correlated to Student Negotiation (r=0.464, p=0.000), Personal Relevance

(r=0.528, p=0.000) and Critical Voice (r=0.486, p=0.000). It was found to be

significantly correlated to Shared Control (r=0.291, p=0.020).

2. Correlation between Flexibility-Adaptability and scales of the Constructivist

Learning Environment Survey

Flexibility-Adaptability was found to be significantly and strongly

correlated to Critical Voice (r=0.502, p=0.000). It was found to be

significantly correlated to Student Negotiation (r=0.320, p=0.011) and

Personal Relevance (r=0.269, p=0.033). It was found not to be significantly

correlated to Shared Control (r=0.220, p=0.083).

3. Correlation between Knowledge Maximisation and scales of the

Constructivist Learning Environment Survey

114

Knowledge Maximisation was found to be significantly correlated to

Student Negotiation (r=0.259, p=0.040), Personal Relevance (r=0.377,

p=0.002) and Shared Control (r=0.325, p=0.000). It was found not to be

significantly correlated to Critical Voice (r=0.112, p=0.382).

Implications

There are two sets of implications from the results of the study that have to do

with the measurability of epistemic responsibility and with the relationship that

was demonstrated between responsibility and constructivist learning environments.

The aim of the Epistemic Responsibility Survey was to measure the

dispositions and perceptions of students with regards to knowledge and learning,

and in particular, the dispositions that relate with constructivist learning

environments. While the stated aim and provenance of the survey lay at the

connection between epistemic responsibility and constructivism, the ability to

measure perceptions of the former among students may be useful to teaching and

learning environments outside of constructivist ones. The aspects of epistemic

responsibility are closely linked with but not peculiar to students in constructivist

learning environments and the ability for a researcher or educator to reliably

115

measure students’ perceptions about knowledge can be useful as a diagnostic tool

for students with regards to their learning styles or preferences.

A researcher may be able to make use of the data collected from the Epistemic

Responsibility Survey with regards to the three aspects of epistemic responsibility

(Knowledge Maximisation, Flexibility-Adaptability and Contact Maximisation) to

gain insights into students’ motivations, perceptions of knowledge and

dispositions to learn. This can be used as the basis for making decisions with

regards to curriculum and pedagogy so as to suit the learning preferences of the

students.

The relationship that was shown between perceptions of epistemic

responsibility and constructivism shows that the Epistemic Responsibility Survey

could potentially be used as a means of predicting students’ preferences for

constructivist learning environments. Further to this, the perceptions of knowledge

and learning that would allow students to function well in a constructivist learning

environment would give an educator insight into how students would respond to

constructivist teaching methods in class.

The survey may also be used as a diagnostic tool at the beginning of lessons

that make use of constructivist methods to gauge the students’ dispositions and

readiness to engage in the active construction of knowledge. Further to this, the

116

survey may also be used as a means to assess students’ receptivity to constructivist

learning environments if administered during or after students’ experiences with

such teaching methodologies. Changes in the students’ levels of epistemic

responsibility could be indicators of their ability to adapt and learn well within

constructivist learning environments.

Another implication has to do with the relationship between preferences for

epistemically responsible behaviour and similar preferences for constructivist

learning environments. Students who may have preferences for epistemically

responsible behaviours would generally tend to have similar preferences for

constructivist learning environments. If one makes the extrapolation that

preferences for epistemically responsible behaviours may lead to the performance

of epistemically responsible behaviours, then one may also surmise that those who

display such behaviours may tend perform better in constructivist learning

environments. There is thus a possible link between epistemic responsibility and

academic achievement within the constructivist learning environment.

Given the generally lower scores in the constructivist learning environment

aspect of shared control, one implication for teachers in Asia would be to take note

of the need for the sharing of control and for negotiation within constructivist

classrooms. Educators should be aware of the tendency of students in Asian

117

contexts to want to cede control to their teachers. With this in mind, teachers can

take steps to create conversations in the class that would give students a greater

say as to how lessons and even assessment would occur in class.

Further to this, the strong perception for the importance of contact

maximisation in the knowledge creation or acquisition as well as the moderately

strong perception for the importance of flexibility-adaptability points to the

potential benefits of bringing authentic or real-life situations into lessons. As these

aspects are also strongly correlated with personal relevance in constructivist

learning environments, planning lessons or activities that show strong relevance to

the lives of the students may aid in increasing interest in learning and in

knowledge building as a whole.

Additionally, the insights that an educator or researcher can gain from the

Epistemic Responsibility survey can be extended to curriculum and pedagogical

choices that are related with constructivist teaching methods like discovery

learning (Dearden 1998) and service learning (Goh, 2007).

Conclusion

There was a relationship shown between perceptions of epistemic

responsibility and constructivist learning environments with college students in

118

Ateneo de Manila University. The revised Epistemic Responsibility Survey was

successful in connecting epistemic responsibility with constructivist learning

environments in this study.

Recommendations

Based on the findings and conclusion, the following recommendations are

suggested:

1. To submit the theoretical framework of the Epistemic Responsibility Survey

to further scrutiny by experts and academics to be able to ground the measure

in a firm theoretical foundation. This process has already begun with the

presentation of the theoretical framework at a Philosophy of Education

Conference (Goh 2013). The paper can be found in appendix H.

2. To further test the Epistemic Responsibility Survey on similar research

subjects to further validate and check on its reliability as a means of

measuring epistemic responsibility.

3. To perform a multi-modal research study in a predominantly constructivist

learning environment into the role that epistemic responsibility plays in the

students perceptions of how they learn to gather more data to further draw the

links between the two concepts. This study should include focus group

119

discussions with both students and teachers who have experience in

constructivist learning environments. This would allow for further validation

of the instrument (Cohen, Manion and Morrison 2007, 96) while providing

potential qualitative means of improving the study of the link between

epistemic responsibility and constructivist learning environments.

4. To perform similar tests to examine the potential relationship between

epistemic responsibility and constructivist learning environments in high

schools and other groups. This would further validate the instrument as being

applicable to learners at different levels of intellectual development. Some

adjustments to the Epistemic Responsibility Survey may be necessary to

ensure its easy comprehension by the subjects.

5. To explore the possibility of measuring substantive levels of epistemic

responsibility in learners based on the data collected on the perceptions of

epistemic responsibility gained in this study.

6. To study the possible relationship between epistemic responsibility and

academic success or achievement in constructivist learning environments. It

may thus be interesting to explore if epistemic responsibility could be a

predictor of academic success in constructivist learning environments.

120

REFERENCES

Books and Book Sections

Aristotle. 1985. Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by Terence Irwin. Indianapolis:

Hackett Publishing.

Anscombe, Gertrude Elizabeth Margaret. 1957. Intention. Oxford: Blackwell.

Berlin, Isaiah. 1981. "Vico's Concept of Knowledge." In Against the Current:

Essays in the History of Ideas, 111-119. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Brooks, Jacqueline G., and Martin G. Brooks. 1999. In Search of Understanding:

the Case for Constructivist Classrooms. Alexandria, VA.: Association for

Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Chai, Ching Sing, and Mynit Swe Khine. 2008. "Assessing the Epistemological

and Pedagogical Beliefs Among Pre-service Teachers in Singapore." In

Knowing, Knowledge and Beliefs: Epistemological Studies across Diverse

Cultures, by Mynit Swe Khine, 287-299. Dordrecht: Springer.

Chan, Kwok-wai. 2008. "Epistemological Beliefs, Learning, and Teaching: The

Hong Kong Cultural Context." In Knowing, Knowledge and Beliefs:

Epistemological Studies across Diverse Cultures, edited by Myint Swe Khine,

257-272. Dordrecht: Springer.

Cohen, Louis, Lawrence Manion, and Keith Morrison. 2007. Research Methods in

Education. 6th Edition. Oxford: Routledge.

Dearden, R. F. 1998. Instruction and Learning by Discovery. Vol. 4, in The

Philosophy of Education, edited by P. H. Hirst and P. White, 268-283.

London: Routledge.

Dewey, John. 1933. How We Think. Boston: D.C. Heath and Co Publishers.

Downie, N.M and Robert W. Heath. 1984. Basic Statistical Methods. 5th

Edition.

New York: Harper and Row.

121

Fairweather, Abrol. 2001. "Epistemic Motivation." In Virtue Epistemology: Essays

on Epistemic Virtue and Responsibility, edited by Abrol Fairweather and

Linda Zagzebski, 63-81. New York: Oxford University Press.

Flavell, John H. 1987. "Speculations about the Nature and Development of

Metacognition." In Metacognition, motivation, and understanding, edited by

Franz E. Weinert and Rainer Kluwe, 21-29. New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Fosnot, Catherine T. 2005. Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives And Practice.

Columbia: Teachers College Press.

Fumerton, Richard. 2006. Epistemology. Oxford: Blackwell.

Greco, John. 2010. "Virtue Epistemology." In A Companion to Epistemology,

edited by Jonathan Dancy, Ernest Sosa and Matthias Steup, 75-82. Malden,

MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Gergen, Kenneth J. 1995. "Social Construction and the Educational Process." In

Constructivism in Education, edited by Leslie P. Steffe and Jerry Gale, 17-40.

New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hinton, Perry, R. 2004. Statistics Explained. 2nd

Edition. East Sussex: Routledge.

Hofer, Barbara K. 2008. "Personal Epistemology and Culture." In Knowing,

Knowedge and Beliefs: Epistemological Studies across Diverse Cultures,

edited by Myint Swe Khine, 3-22. Dordrecht: Springer.

Kim, Jae-On, and Charles W. Mueller. 1978. Introduction to Factor Analysis.

Beverly Hills: Sage.

Larochelle, Marie, and Nadine Bednarz. 1998. "Constructivism and education:

beyond epistemological correctness." In Constructivism and Education, edited

by Marie Larochelle, Nadine Bednarz and Jim Garrison, 3-22. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Moschner, Barbara, Andrea Anschuetz, Stephan Wernke and Uta Wagener. 2008.

“Measurement of Epistemological Beliefs and Learning Strategies of

Elementary School Children.” In Knowing, Knowledge and Beliefs:

Epistemological Studies across Diverse Cultures, edited by Myint Swe Khine,

113-133. Dordrecht: Springer.

122

Palmer, Betsy, and Rose M. Marra. 2008. "Individual Domain-Specific

Epistemologies: Implications for Educational Practice." In Knowing,

Knowledge and Beliefs: Epistemological Studies across Diverse Cultures,

edited by Myint Swe Khine, 325-376. Dordrecht: Springer.

Pepin, Yvon. 1998. "Practical knowledge and school knowledge: a constructivist

representation of education." In Constructivism and Education, edited by

Marie Larochelle, Nadine Bednarz and Jim Garrison, 173-192. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Perry, William G. 1970 Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the

College Years: A Scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Pompa, Leon. 1990 Vico: A Study of the 'New Science'. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Roberts, Robert C., and W. Jay Wood. 2007. Intellectual Virtues: An Essay in

Regulative Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sosa, Ernest. 1991. "The raft and the pyramid: coherence versus foundations in the

theory of knowledge." In Knowledge in Perspective: Selected essays in

epistemology, 165-191. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Steffe, Leslie P., and Jerry Gale. 1995. Constructivism in Education. New Jersey:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Vico, Giambattista. 1968. The New Science of Giambattista Vico. Translated by

Thomas Goddard Bergin and Max Harold Fisch. Ithaca, New York: Cornell

University Press.

von Glasersfeld, Ernst. 1995. Radical Constructivism: a Way of Knowing and

Learning. Washington, D.C.: Routledge.

Wong, Benjamin, Myint Swe Khine, and Ching Sing Chai. 2008. "Challenges and

Future Directions for Personal Epistemology Research in Diverse Cultures."

In Knowing, Knowledge and Beliefs: Epistemological Studies across Diverse

Cultures, edited by Myint Swe Khine, 445-456. Dordrecht: Springer.

123

Wood, Phillip, Karen Kitchener, and Laura Jensen. 2002. "Considerations in the

Design and Evaluation of a Paper-and-pencil Measure of Epistemic

Cognition." In Personal Epistemology : The Psychology of Beliefs About

Knowledge and Knowing, edited by Barbara K. Hofer and Paul R. Pintrich,

277-294. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Wood, Terry. 1995. "From Alternative Epistemologies to Practice in Education:

Rethinking what it means to Teach and Learn." In Constructivism in

Education, edited by Leslie P. Steffe and Jerry Gale, 331-340. New Jersey:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Zagzebski, Linda T. 1996. Virtues of the Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Zagzebski, Linda T. 1999. "What is Knowledge?" In The Blackwell Guide to

Epistemology, edited by John Greco and Ernest Sosa, 92-117. Malden, MA:

Blackwell.

Zagzebski, Linda T., and Abrol Fairweather. 2001. "Introduction." In Virtue

Epistemology: Essays On Epistemic Virtue and Responsibility, edited by

Linda T. Zagzebski and Abrol Fairweather, 3-14. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Journal Articles and Periodicals

Applefield, James M., Richard Huber, and Mahnaz Moallem. 2000.

"Constructivism in Theory and Practice: Toward a Better Understanding." The

High School Journal 84, no. 2: 35-53.

Aldridge, Jill M., Barry J. Fraser, Peter C. Taylo, and Chung-Chih Chen. 2001.

"Constructivist learning environments in a crossnational study in Taiwan and

Australia." International Journal of Science Education 22, no. 1: 37-55.

Bas, Gokhan. 2012 "Investigating the Correlation Between Students‟ Perceptions

on the Constructivist Learning Environment and their Academic Success in

Science Course with Path Analysis." Journal of Baltic Science Education 11,

no. 4: 367-378.

124

Buehl, Michelle M., and Patricia A. Alexander. 2005. "Motivation and

Performance Differences in Students' Domain-Specific Epistemological Belief

Profiles." American Educational Research Journal 42, no. 4: 697-726.

Code, Lorraine. 1994 "Responsibility and Rhetoric." Hypatia 9, no. 1: 1-20.

Code, Lorraine. 1984. "Toward a `Responsibilist' Epistemology." Philosophy and

Phenomenological Research 45, no. 1: 29-50.

Duell, Orpha K., and Marlene Schommer-Aikins. 2001. "Measures of People‟s

Beliefs About Knowledge and Learning." Educational Psychology Review 13,

no. 4: 419-449.

Fox, Richard. 2001. "Constructivism Examined." Oxford Review of Education 27,

no. 1: 23-35.

Hieronymi, Pamela. 2008. "Responsibility for believing." Synthese 161, no. 3:

357-373.

Hofer, Barbara K. 2001. "Personal Epistemology Rearch: Implications for

Teaching and Learning." Journal of Educational Psychology Review 13, no. 4:

353-383.

Hofer, Barbara K., and Paul R. Pintrich. 1997. "The Development of

Epistemological Theories: Beliefs about Knowledge and Knowing and Their

Relation to Learning." Review of Educational Research, 67, no. 1: 88-140.

Lilla, Mark. 1993. "G.B. Vico: The Antimodernist." The Wilson Quarterly 17, no.

3: 32-39.

Matthews, Michael R. 1992. "Constructivism and empiricism: An incomplete

divorce." Research in Science Education 22: 299-307.

Olssen, Mark. 1996. "Radical Constructivism and Its Failings: Anti-Realism and

Individualism." British Journal of Educational Studies (44) 3: 275-295.

Pintrich, Paul R. 2002. "The Role of Metacognitive Knowledge in Learning, Teaching,

and Assessing." Theory into Practice 41, no. 4: 219-225.

Schommer, Marlene. 1990. "Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on

comprehension." Journal of Educational Psychology 82: 498-504.

125

Schommer-Aikins, Marlene, and Marilyn Easter. 2008 "Epistemological Beliefs‟

Contributions to Study Strategies of Asian Americans and European

Americans." Journal of Educational Psychology 100, no. 4: 920–929.

Schraw, Gregory, and Rayne S. Dennison. 1994. "Assessing Metacognitive

Awareness." Contemporary Educational Psychology 19: 460-475.

Schraw, Gregory, Lisa D. Bendixen, and Michael E. Dunkle. 2002. "Development

and Validation of the Epistemic Belief Inventory (EBI)." In Personal

Epistemology : The Psychology of Beliefs About Knowledge and Knowing,

edited by Barbara K. Hofer and Paul R. Pintrich, 261-275. New Jersey:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Siegel, Harvey. 2008. "Is „Education‟ a Thick Epistemic Concept?" Philosophical

Papers 37, no. 3: 455-469.

Taylor, Peter C., Barry J. Fraser, and Darrell L. Fisher. 1997. "Monitoring

constructivist classroom learning environments." International Journal of

Educational Research 27: 293-302.

von Glasersfeld, Ernst. 1989. "Cognition, Construction of Knowledge, and

Teaching." Synthese 80, no. 1: 121-140.

Electronic Sources

Ateneo de Manila University. 2012. "The Vision And The Mission Of The

Ateneo." Ateneo de Manila University Website.

http://www.admu.edu.ph/vision-and-mission-ateneo (accessed 10 July 2013).

Biletzki, Anat, and Anat Matar. 2011 "Ludwig Wittgenstein". The Stanford

Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edited by Edward N. Zalta. June 2011.

http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2011/entries/wittgenstein/ (accessed 4

January 2014).

Greco, John, and John Turri. 2011. "Virtue Epistemology." The Stanford

Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edited by Edward N. Zalta. December 2011.

http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2011/entries/epistemology-virtue/

(accessed 7 July 2013).

126

Ortwein, Mark. 2012. “Virtue Epistemology and Education.” The Encyclopaedia

of Educational Philosophy and Theory. Edited by Michael A. Peters, Tina

Besley, Andrew Gibbons, Berislav Žarnić, Paulo Ghiraldelli.

http://eepat.net/doku.php?id=virtue_epistemology_and_education (accessed 2

December 2013).

Thornton, Stephen P. 2004. “Solipsism and the Problem of Other Minds.” Internet

Encyclopedia of Phiosophy. Edited by James Fieser and Bradley Dowden..

http://www.iep.utm.edu/solipsis/#H7 (accessed 4 January 2014)

Manuals and Conference Proceedings

Ang, Rodolfo P., Ma. Celeste T. Gonzalez, Ma. Emma Concepcion D. Liwag,

Benilda S. Santos, and Catherine P. Vistro-Yu. 2001. Elements of Student-

Centered Learning. Manila: Ateneo de Manila University.

Goh, Stanley. 2007. “Development of agency as a virtue in the epistemic

groundings of Problem-Based Learning.” International Society for the

Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 4th

Annual Conference Proceedings.

Sydney, Australia: International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and

Learning.

Goh, Stanley. 2013. “Epistemic Responsibility and Constructivism: A virtue-based

way of knowing for constructivist teaching and learning environments.”

Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia Conference 2013 Proceedings.

Melbourne, Australia: Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia.

Nix, Rebekah F., Barry J. Fraser, and Cynthia E. Ledbetter. 2003 "Evaluating an

Integrated Science Learning Environment Using a New Form of the

Constructivist Learning Evironment Survey (CLES)." Annual Meeting of the

American Educational Research Association. Chicago: American Educational

Research Association.

Taylor, Peter C., Barry J. Fraser, and Loren R. White. 1991. "CLES: An

instrument for monitoring the evolution of constructivist learning

environments." Mathematics, Inclusive, Dynamic, Exciting, Active,

Stimulating. Victoria, Australia: Mathematical Association of Victoria.

127

APPENDICES

128

APPENDIX A

CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING ENVIRONMENT SURVEY ITEMS

Personal Relevance Scale

1. I learn about the world outside of school.

2. My new learning starts with problems about the world outside of school.*

3. I learn how the school subjects can be part of my out-of-school life.

4. I get a better understanding of the world outside of school.*

5. I learn interesting things about the world outside of school.*

6. What I learn has nothing to do with my out-of school life. (Reversal)

Uncertainty Scale

7. I learn that the school subjects cannot provide perfect answers to problems.

8. I learn that the school subjects have changed over time.

9. I learn that the school subjects are influenced by peoples’ opinions.

10. I learn about the different subjects used by others in different cultures.

11. I learn that subjects taught now are different from long ago.

12. I learn that subjects in school are about creating theories for understanding.

Critical Voice Scale

13. It’s OK for me to ask the teacher ‘why do I have to learn this?’

14. It’s OK for me to question the way I’m being taught.*

15. It’s OK for me to complain about teaching activities that are confusing.

16. It’s OK for me to complain about anything that prevents me from

learning.*

17. It’s OK for me to express my opinion.*

18. It’s OK for me to speak up for my rights.

Shared Control Scale

19. I help the teacher to plan what I’m going to learn.*

20. I help the teacher to decide how well I am learning.*

21. I help the teacher to decide which activities are best for me

22. I help the teacher to decide how much time I spend on learning activities.

23. I help the teacher to decide which activities I do.*

24. I help the teacher to assess my learning.

129

Student Negotiation Scale

25. I get the chance to talk to other students.*

26. I talk with other students about how to solve problems.*

27. I explain my understanding to other students.

28. I ask other students to explain their thoughts.*

29. Other students ask me to explain my ideas.

30. Other students explain their ideas to me.

All items as presented in Nix, Fraser and Ledbetter (2003) which was based on

Taylor and Fraser (1991).

The (*) indicates that the item was chosen for inclusion in the final test.

130

APPENDIX B

PILOT TEST

Note: What follows is the Pilot Test that was administered to the research subjects

of Ateneo de Manila University in September 2013.

131

132

APPENDIX C

EPISTEMIC RESPONSIBILITY SURVEY ITEMS

What follows are the items chosen after the analysis of the pilot test results. The

resultant 18 items form the basis of the Epistemic Responsibility Survey.

Contact Maximisation

1. I try to put myself in situations where I can gain knowledge better.

2. Knowledge building is an experiential process.

3. I prefer learning with situations that are similar to what happens in real life.

4. Increased contact with real situations would lead to increased learning.

5. Learning involves seeking new experiences.

6. Creating situations to learn well is important to building knowledge.

Flexibility-Adaptability

1. I like to learn in a variety of situations.

2. I am willing to adjust my perspectives to learn better.

3. I approach learning differently according to the situation I find myself in.

4. I prefer to be able to make use of my knowledge in different situations.

5. Learning is about making use of knowledge in new situations.

6. Being able to respond positively to environmental changes helps in

learning.

Knowledge Maximisation

1. Gaining knowledge is important to me.

2. Learning takes priority over other similar activities.

3. I prefer to choose to put myself in situations where I can gain more

knowledge.

4. Gaining knowledge is preferable to other activities.

5. I am motivated to gain knowledge in most situations.

6. I find it easy to motivate myself to gain knowledge.

133

APPENDIX D

FINAL TEST

Note: What follows is the Final Test that was administered to the research subjects

of Ateneo de Manila University in November 2013.

134

135

APPENDIX E

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF ALL ITEMS OF PILOT TEST

Note: The items are grouped by sub-scale and are not in the question order of the

survey given to the respondents.

Contact Maximisation

Item Mean Interpretation SD

1 I try to put myself in situations where I can

learn better. 4.30 Mod. High 0.68

2 I know when the best time for me to learn

is. 3.46 Moderate 0.97

3 Knowledge is about contact with reality. 4.13 Mod. High 0.85

4 I enjoy learning with other people. 4.05 Mod. High 0.92

5 Knowledge building is an experiential

process. 4.48 Mod. High 0.60

6 I prefer learning with situations that are

similar to what happens in real life. 4.31 Mod. High 0.73

7 It is better to learn through experience than

through being told. 4.37 Mod. High 0.78

8 I learn better when I get to discuss things

with others. 4.06 Mod. High 0.90

9 Increased contact with real situations would

lead to increased learning. 4.39 Mod. High 0.65

10 I can learn anything as long as I spend

sufficient time on it. 4.09 Mod. High 0.94

11 Learning involves seeking new experiences. 4.52 High 0.64

12 I find it difficult to learn on my own.

(REVERSAL) 3.36 Moderate 0.89

13 Learning occurs best in abstract or

theoretical situations. (REVERSAL) 3.16 Moderate 0.91

14 I learn better when I am thinking about how

I learn. 3.56 Moderate 0.91

15 I often question the bases of the knowledge 3.87 Mod. High 0.78

136

that I have to know it better.

16 Knowing where I learn well is important to

building knowledge. 4.11 Mod. High 0.78

17 Creating situations to learn well is important

to building knowledge. 4.03 Mod. High 0.71

18 I am aware of the times when I am learning

better. 3.91 Mod. High 0.76

Flexibility-Adaptability

Item Mean Interpretation SD

1 I like to learn in situations that are similar

to daily life. 4.57 High 0.66

2 I like to learn in a variety of situations. 4.35 Mod. High 0.66

3 I learn best when exposed to different

environments. 3.95 Mod. High 0.90

4 My prior experience or knowledge helps

me to learn better. 4.56 High 0.57

5 I am willing to adjust my perspectives to

learn better. 4.13 Mod. High 0.74

6 Learning does not always occur in the

mind. 3.93 Mod. High 1.12

7 Learning is about applying knowledge to

different situations. 4.29 Mod. High 0.72

8 I approach learning differently according to

the situation I find myself in. 4.09 Mod. High 0.70

9 I am aware of how I apply my knowledge

to different situations. 3.90 Mod. High 0.79

10

Changes in environments or situations

make learning more difficult.

(REVERSAL)

2.70 Mod. Low 0.94

11 I don’t mind changing my assumptions or

perspectives to learn better. 3.91 Mod. High 0.83

12 There should be one right approach to

solving problems. (REVERSAL) 3.84 Mod. High 1.03

13 I prefer to be able to make use of my

knowledge in different situations. 4.30 Mod. High 0.63

14 Learning is about making use of knowledge 4.29 Mod. High 0.63

137

in new situations.

15 Being able to respond positively to

environmental changes helps in learning. 4.28 Mod. High 0.71

16 I prefer to learn in specific ways that I am

used to. (REVERSAL) 2.27 Mod. Low 0.87

17 I am comfortable learning in environments

that are unfamiliar to me. 3.20 Moderate 0.98

18 Knowledge that is gained outside the

classroom is retained in my mind better. 3.96 Mod. High 0.87

Knowledge Maximisation

Item Mean Interpretation SD

1 Learning is important to me. 4.78 Mod. High 0.48

2 I like to find things out on my own. 4.13 Mod. High 0.80

3 What I know is largely dependent on my

wanting to know. 4.15 Mod. High 0.89

4 I am responsible for what I learn. 4.21 Mod. High 0.82

5 Learning takes priority over other similar

activities. 3.68 Moderate 0.75

6 I am able to gauge how well I am learning. 3.50 Moderate 0.80

7 The more I learn about something, the

more interested I get in it. 4.15 Mod. High 0.79

8 I sometimes ask myself if I am learning

well. 4.02 Mod. High 0.84

9 I prefer to choose to put myself in

situations where I can learn more. 4.09 Mod. High 0.72

10 I am able to choose learning strategies that

enable me to learn better. 3.78 Mod. High 0.83

11 I know the conditions that allow me to

learn well. 3.76 Mod. High 0.86

12 I enjoy learning. 4.37 Mod. High 0.74

13 Gaining knowledge is preferable to other

activities. 3.45 Moderate 0.75

14 Learning is an activity that aids in the

increase of knowledge. 4.40 Mod. High 0.58

15 Learning activities should end up with an 4.15 Mod. High 0.82

138

increase of knowledge.

16 I am motivated to learn in most situations. 3.70 Mod. High 0.87

17 Learning does not necessarily lead to

knowledge. (REVERSAL) 2.98 Mod. Low 1.22

18 I find it easy to motivate myself to learn. 3.25 Moderate 0.98

19 I find it easy to motivate myself to gain

knowledge. 3.39 Moderate 0.99

20 I gain more knowledge when I am

interested in what I’m learning. 4.78 High 0.47

139

APPENDIX F

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF ALL LIKERT SCALE

ITEMS OF FINAL TEST

Note: The items are grouped by sub-scale and CLES indicates items from the

Constructivist Learning Environment Survey and ERS indicates items from the

Epistemic Responsibility Survey.

Student Negotiation (CLES)

Item Mean Interpretation SD

1 I get the chance to talk to other students. 4.08 Mod. High 0.83

2 I talk with other students about how to

solve problems. 4.00 Mod. High 0.72

3 I ask other students to explain their

thoughts. 3.84 Mod. High 0.90

Personal Relevance (CLES)

Item Mean Interpretation SD

1 My new learning starts with problems

about the world outside of school. 4.02 Mod. High 0.75

2 I get a better understanding of the world

outside of school. 4.21 Mod. High 0.74

3 I learn interesting things about the world

outside of school. 4.48 Mod. High 0.59

Shared Control (CLES)

Item Mean Interpretation SD

1 I help the teacher to plan what I’m going

to learn. 2.79 Mod. Low 0.74

2 I help the teacher to decide how well I

am learning. 3.29 Moderate 0.75

3 I help the teacher to decide which

activities I do. 3.00 Moderate 0.76

140

Critical Voice (CLES)

Item Mean Interpretation SD

1 It's OK for me to question the way I'm

being taught. 4.44 Mod. High 0.69

2 It's OK for me to complain about

anything that prevents me from learning. 3.92 Mod. High 0.90

3 It's OK for me to express my opinion. 4.35 Mod. High 0.77

Contact Maximisation (ERS)

Item Mean Interpretation SD

1 I try to put myself in situations where I

can gain knowledge better. 4.46 Mod. High 0.59

2 Knowledge building is an experiential

process. 4.62 High 0.52

3 I prefer learning with situations that are

similar to what happens in real life. 4.40 Mod. High 0.73

4 Increased contact with real situations

would lead to increased learning. 4.56 High 0.59

5 Learning involves seeking new

experiences. 4.68 High 0.50

6 Creating situations to learn well is

important to building knowledge. 4.46 Mod. High 0.64

Flexibility-Adaptability (ERS)

Item Mean Interpretation SD

1 I like to learn in a variety of situations. 4.46 Mod. High 0.71

2 I am willing to adjust my perspectives

to learn better. 4.52 High 0.64

3

I approach learning differently

according to the situation I find myself

in.

4.17 Mod. High 0.87

4 I prefer to be able to make use of my

knowledge in different situations. 4.67 High 0.51

5 Learning is about making use of

knowledge in new situations. 4.52 High 0.62

141

6

Being able to respond positively to

environmental changes helps in

learning.

4.38 Mod. High 0.73

Knowledge Maximisation (ERS)

Item Mean Interpretation SD

1 Gaining knowledge is important to me. 4.81 High 0.40

2 Learning takes priority over other

similar activities. 3.95 Mod. High 0.66

3

I prefer to choose to put myself in

situations where I can gain more

knowledge.

4.40 Mod. High 0.73

4 Gaining knowledge is preferable to

other activities. 3.89 Mod. High 0.60

4 I am motivated to gain knowledge in

most situations. 4.13 Mod. High 0.75

6 I find it easy to motivate myself to gain

knowledge. 3.63 Moderate 0.97

142

APPENDIX G

INTER-ITEM CORRELATION AND COVARIANCE MATRICES OF

PILOT TEST ITEMS

Note: The following pages show the inter-item correlation and covariance matrices

of the pilot test items. The matrices detail the correlation and covariance among

items within the aspects of Contact Maximisation, Flexibility-Adaptability and

Knowledge Maximisation. The highlighted rows show the correlations that are

above 0.3 or covariances that are below 0.15.

143

Inter-item correlation and covariance matrices for Contact Maximisation

144

Inter-item correlation and covariance matrices for Flexibility-Adaptability

145

Inter-item correlation and covariance matrices for Knowledge Maximisation

146

APPENDIX H

PAPER ON EPISTEMIC RESPONSIBILITY AND CONSTRUCTIVISM

PRESENTED AT THE PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION SOCIETY OF

AUSTRALASIA CONFERENCE 2013

Note: The following pages show the paper based on Chapter Two of this thesis

that was presented at the Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia

Conference 2013, 6-9 December 2013 in Melbourne, Australia. The paper was

subsequently published in the conference proceedings.