WCPE2012 - The Possible Influence of Teachers’ Epistemological Beliefs

Proceedings of The World Conference on Physics Education 2012

845

The Possible Influence of Teachers’ Epistemological Beliefs on Student’s Epistemological Beliefs in College Level Physics Courses

Ramani V Pilaka, Department of Physics, SKR College, Rajahmundry, Andhra University, India Nageswar Rao Chekuri, Institute of Excellence in Teaching and Learning, Woodbury University, Burbank, USA Eugene Allevato, Department of Sciences, Woodbury University, Burbank, USA

Abstract

Hofer assumed an influence of teachers’ personal epistemologies on students’ personal epistemologies. Educational Model for Personal Epistemology (EMPE) proposed reciprocal influences between teachers’ and students’ personal epistemologies. Schommer-Aikins observed that some components of mathematics professors’ personal epistemologies were similar to the mathematics students’ personal epistemologies. We observed that the physics teachers’ and the students’ personal epistemologies on structure of the knowledge, nature of knowing and learning, evolving knowledge, and source of ability were similar. The current study was conducted at Rajahmundry, India. 91 students who scored 90% and above in a state conducted common public exam from about 10 institutions and 109 high school and college teachers from about 90 institutions participated in the study. A translated and English version of EBAPS survey was administered to both the students and teachers. Statistical analysis indicated interesting patterns. Results of ANOVA test on teachers’ scores indicated that the teachers had significantly higher scores on axes 2 (nature of knowing and learning), 3 (real life applicability), 5 (source of ability to learn) than the scores on Axes 1 (structure of knowledge) and 4 (evolving knowledge). Similar ANOVA test on students’ scores also gave the same result. Independent t-tests between the teachers’ and students’ scores on each axis showed no significant difference on axes 1, 2, 4, and 5. However the independent t-test showed a significant difference between the teachers’ and students’ on total epistemological scores and on axis 3. Independent t-tests showed that the total scores and the scores on Axis 1 of male students were significantly higher than those of female students. Teachers’ and students’ epistemological beliefs extracted from their answers to the individual questions in the survey showed more similarities. Furthermore context-dependency of the epistemological beliefs was also observed in the extracted beliefs.

Keywords: Epistemological beliefs, Teachers, Students, Structure of the knowledge, Nature of knowing and learning, Applicability of the knowledge, evolving knowledge, source of ability to learn.

The Possible Influence of Teachers’ Epistemological Beliefs on Student’s Epistemological Beliefs in College Level Physics Courses

Epistemology is the study of beliefs about the knowledge and knowing. The beliefs individuals hold regarding these are defined as personal epistemologies. The personal epistemologies are shaped in social and cultural contexts (Vygotsky, 1978), and can change in time. The personal epistemologies (eg. Schommer, 1990; Hofer and Pintrich, 1997) on nature of the knowledge and knowing are foundational for educational experiences and they develop in time. The developmental theories on personal epistemology describe that the personal epistemological stances/positions change (eg. Perry, 1970; Baxter Magolda, 1992; Kuhn et al., 1991, 2000, 2002) on developmental continuum over a period of time. The beliefs of the individuals may change even from one context to another context (eg. Bell et al., 2002, Hammer et al., 2002, 2004). The contextual epistemologies emphasize the importance of domain specific epistemologies. A discipline is differentiated from another discipline partly by their differences in epistemological beliefs. Domain specific epistemologies shape from general epistemologies (Hofer, 2000, Palmer et al., 2008).

Several studies show that teachers’ personal epistemologies influence learning, their understanding of the students as learners, influence their perception of content knowledge and their choice of instructional

846

WCPE 2012, Istanbul, Turkey

methods, classroom tasks (Eg. Kuhn et al., 2000; Howard et al 2000; Schraw 2002; Tsai 2002, Johnston et al 2001, Hofer 2001). Students interpret these practices through their own epistemological lenses and thus the students’ personal epistemologies are influenced. Hofer (2001) assumes a one-directional influence of teachers’ personal epistemologies on students’ personal epistemologies through teachers’ choice of classroom activities and instructional methods. Epistemic change in teachers is described as gradual (Brownlee et al 2001, Tsai 2002, White 2000). Bendixen and Rule (2004) suggest that an individual’s personal epistemology influences and is influenced by (reciprocal relation) the other individuals’ epistemologies and the epistemic climate thus created. The epistemological differences in an individual’s environment may trigger a mechanism of change. The epistemic climate can occur within and outside the classrooms influencing at micro (individual), meso (institutional) and macro (societal) levels. Students’ personal epistemologies can be influenced and developed through the personal epistemologies of their peers, teachers and parents, and the epistemic climate thus created.

In mathematics, Schommer-Aikins (2008) observes some components (control and speed of learning, and the source of knowledge) of teachers’ epistemologies are similar to the students’ personal epistemologies. These observed patterns between the students’ personal epistemologies and teachers’ personal epistemologies may not be accidental. In fact the Educational Model of Personal Epistemology (EMPE) by Feucht (Haerle et al., 2008; Feucht et al., 2010) proposes reciprocal influences between the personal epistemologies of teachers and learners, epistemic instruction, epistemic knowledge representation in creating epistemic climate. The construct of epistemic climate was re-conceptualized by (Feucht, 2008; Haerle and Bendixen, 2008) by integrating more components relevant to education especially for elementary classrooms. We briefly present the EMPE model and refer the readers to the original work for more details.

EMPE Model

According the Education Model for Personal Epistemology (EMPE), the epistemic climate (or classroom epistemology) is a climate that is generated from the personal epistemologies of learners and their teachers, epistemic instruction, and epistemic knowledge representation along with the reciprocal relations among these four components for developing right beliefs about knowledge and knowing. It is a holistic and dynamic approach for developing personal epistemology of students. The model is based on empirical research and draws from several theoretical models in the field of personal epistemology, and encompasses several areas such as curriculum and instruction, educational psychology, sociology, and philosophy. Even though it is developed in the context of school situation, we believe the ideas may be applicable to college level. Our findings regarding the correlation between the students’ physics epistemic beliefs and physics teachers’ epistemic beliefs, and the similarities between the math teachers’ and students’ personal epistemologies (Schommer-Aikins 2008) may be the artifacts of the proposed model in the context of college education. The EMPE model is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. EMPE model for Epistemic climate.


847

The model synthesizes the work from Curriculum and instruction (Kattmann et al (1996)); and education psychology (Hofer 2001; and Bendixen and Rule 2004). The bidirectional arrows represent reciprocal relations between the four components (learners’ personal epistemologies, teachers’ personal epistemologies, epistemic instruction, and epistemic knowledge representation). Total six reciprocal influences are proposed.

We now show the analysis of the collected data to show the patterns between the teachers’ and students’ epistemologies.

Data Collection

The study was conducted at Rajahmundry, India. A Telugu-translated version of EBAPS survey with Telugu and English printed on the same sheets was administered to 109 teachers and 91 students, a copy of which was presented in Appendix B. The survey for 91 students was administered on July 8 2011. A government funded science talent workshop was conducted for intermediate-physics-major students who recently passed 10th grade-common examinations with a score 90% or above. The survey was administered at the beginning of the one day work shop. Out of these ninety-one, 49 were female and 42 were male students. They were from ten institutions in and within a radius of about 30 km around Rajahmundry.

The teachers also belonged to the same region in and around Rajahmundry. Out of the 109 teachers from 90 institutions who participated in the survey, 98 were in-service teachers who regularly teach 10th graders and below, and 11 teachers were in-service colleges teachers who regularly teach intermediate and under graduate students. The first time the survey was administered to forty teachers on January 3, 2009. The second time the survey was administered to sixty nine teachers on January 31, 2012. There was no duplication of the surveys.

Analysis of the data and discussion

In this section, we analyze the data using statistical methods to explore if any patterns exist in the students’ and teachers’ scores. Furthermore to get more insight into the personal epistemologies, we look at the teachers’ and students’ surveys to find out what statements they circled. The corresponding statements are suitably modified and presented as possible epistemic beliefs they may have held at the time of taking surveys. Off course a qualitative study with actual utterances from the subjects gives better insight into their epistemological beliefs. Nevertheless the current method (we call it semi qualitative) gives a good approximation of their epistemological beliefs as the choice of answers were multiple (instead of two choices) and the chosen response should be close to their actual beliefs. The total score and scores on each axis (40 for Axis 1; 32 for Axis 2; 16 for Axis 3; 12 for Axis 4; and 20 for Axis 5) were converted into percentage scores. The statistical and the semi qualitative analyses are presented below.

Statistical analysis

Box plots for teachers’ and students’ scores on the structure of the scientific knowledge (Axis 1), nature of knowing and learning (Axis 2), real-life applicability (Axis 3), evolving nature of the knowledge (Axis 4), and the sources of ability to learn (Axis 5) are shown in Figures 2.

848


Figure 2. Box Plot of Epistemological Beliefs for teachers (blue) and students (red)

A glimpse at Teachers’ and students’ box plots (Figures 2) gives an idea that there may be some regularity between students’ and teachers’ scores. Teachers’ and students’ scores on Axis 1 and 2; 4 and 5 look similar, and the mean scores on 2, 3 and 5 may be higher than the mean scores on Axes 1, and 4. Their scores on Axis 3 look different but the spread of the scores seem similar. A detailed statistical analysis confirms these patterns and provide evidence for more patterns, hinting that there may be a relation between the students’ and teachers’ epistemological beliefs. An independent t-test on teachers’ and students’ total (all axis total) scores indicate that there is significant difference in the teachers’ and students’ total scores with teachers’ scores being higher at a p-value of 0.003. The test statistics are presented in Appendix A, Tables 1.1 through 1.4. Higher teacher’s scores on beliefs indicate that teachers have more discipline pertinent beliefs than students do. Teacher’s total score mean 60.589 and students’ total score mean 57.098.

An independent t-test to compare the teachers’ and the students’ axis wise mean scores indicate that Teacher’s Axis 3-mean scores are significantly higher than students’ Axis 3-mean scores with p-value less than 0.001. There is no significant difference between the teachers’ and students’ mean scores on Axes 1, 2, 4 and 5. The axis wise means scores and t-test p-values are presented in Table 2, Appendix A. Axis 3- teacher’s scores contributed for the significant difference in the teachers’ and students’ total scores. In light of this analysis, the students’ and the teachers’ epistemological beliefs may be similar on Axes 1, 2, 4, and 5. Teachers’ beliefs on Axis 3 may be more pertinent to the discipline’s beliefs and different from those of students’.

An analysis of variances (ANOVA) test on teachers’ axis wise mean scores indicate that the mean scores can be categorized into two sub sets. Subset 1 being Axes 1 and 4 and subset 2 being Axis 2, 3, and 5 as shown from Tukey test in Table 3 Appendix A. Subset 2 has higher mean scores than those of on subset 1. There is no significant difference between the scores on Axes 2, 3, and 5; and no difference between the scores on Axes 1 and 4. But there is significant difference between Axes 2 &1; 2 & 4; 3&1; 3&4; 5&1; and 5&4. The significantly high scores of teachers on Axes 2, 3, 5 compared with their scores on Axes 1,4 indicate that they have relatively pertinent beliefs on nature of knowing and learning, applicability and on source of ability than on the structure of knowledge and evolving nature of knowledge. But when compared with the experts scores (90% and above on MPEX survey) they still have poor beliefs on the nature of the knowledge and knowing.

An ANOVA test on students’ scores shows three independent subsets as shown in Table 3 from Tukey’s test. There is a statistically significant difference between the Subset 1 (Axes 1 and 4) Subset 2 (Axes 3) and Subset 3 (Axes 2 and 5). The scores on Axes 1, 4 are significantly lower than their score on Axes 2, 5. The mean score on Axes 3 is higher than on Axes 1, 4. In other words the mean scores on Axes 2, 3, and 5 are significantly higher than the scores on Axes 1, and 4, which is similar to that of teachers (the mean


849

scores on Axes 2,3,5 are higher than the mean scores on Axes 1, 4). In the case of students, the scores on Axes 3(application) is also lower than the scores on 2 (knowing and learning), 5(source of ability) but higher than 1(structure of knowledge) and 4(evolution). The scores of teachers and students are lower on 1(structure of knowledge) and 4(evolution).

Independent t-test to compare the means of each axis between students indicates that gender is a factor only on Axis 1 while for other axis no significant difference was observed. However, total epistemological beliefs for students show significant difference using gender as a factor with male students having higher scores. The statistics are presented in Appendix A, Tables 4.1 and 4.2.

Semi qualitative analysis

Extraction of Epistemological Beliefs from EBAPS survey questions.

To extract epistemological beliefs of students and teachers, we looked at the answers the teachers and the students selected in the surveys, categorized the questions on the five axes, and counted how many subjects chose a given answer for a given question. The data with detailed analysis is presented in Appendix A, Tables 5.1 through 5.5. The survey contained multiple choice and scenario type questions. The multiple choice questions have 5-likert scale answers ranging from strongly disagree through strongly agree and scenario questions have five (A, B, C, D, E) answers to choose. 5-likert scale is revised to 3 likert scale by combining strongly disagree (agree) and somewhat disagree (agree) into disagree (agree). The answers to the scenario questions are also suitably modified. The statements presented in the survey for questions were suitably modified to present as the possible epistemological beliefs of this group of teachers and students. An example of how the epistemological beliefs were extracted is presented here. Similar extractions performed on the other axes were presented in Appendix A.

Possible epistemological beliefs on structure of knowledge (SK).Question 2 from

EBAPS survey: When it comes to understanding physics or chemistry, remembering facts isn’t very important.

The choice of answers and scores are

A (Strongly disagree) = 0, B (somewhat disagree) = 1.5, C (neutral) = 2.5, D (somewhat agree) = 3.5, E (strongly agree) = 4

The number of teachers who disagree (A+B) =73 (66.97%), neutral (C) =2 (1.83%) and agree (D+E) =34 (31.19%). Similarly the number of students who disagree (A+B) = 61(67.03%), neutral (C) = 6(6.59%), and agree (D+E) = 24 (26.37%).

Majority of the teachers (66.97%) and students (67%) disagree with the statement “When it comes to understanding physics or chemistry, remembering facts isn’t very important” implying a belief something similar to the effect:

“When it comes to understanding physics or chemistry, remembering facts is important or somewhat important.” OR “Remembering facts is somewhat important or important to understand physics or chemistry” (Teachers 67%; students 67% agree).

We label the above belief as Epistemological belief (Structure of the Knowledge) SK 1.

Such epistemological beliefs are presented here as possible personal epistemologies. When students and teachers differ on beliefs, both the statements are presented.

Epistemological belief SK 2

Scientists should spend their time in gathering information. Worrying about theories can’t really understand anything. (Teachers 56%; students 52% agree).


When a scientific theory does not make sense, you just have to accept it and move on, because not

850


everything in science is supposed to make sense. (Teachers 66%; students 54% agree).


When solving problems the key thing is knowing the method. Understanding the “big idea” might be helpful but may not be as important� (Teachers 52%; students 52% agree).


Formulas or Equations are really the main thing to understanding physics or chemistry. The other material is helpful to decide what equations to use in which situations. (Teachers 51% agree and 49% disagree. This is real dichotomy for teachers. Nobody (0%) is neutral; students 66% agree, 7% neutral and 27% disagree).


Teacher’s belief: Events in daily-life behave according to consistent rules. But sometimes certain events (thunderstorms) are hard to explain because they behave according to complicated or hard to apply rules or the rules are fully not known. (Teachers 70%; students 48% agree).

Students’ belief: Certain events (Thunderstorms) in daily life may not behave according to the rules. (Students 52%; teachers 30% agree).


The major formulas summarize the main concepts; they’re not really separate from the concepts. In addition, those formulas are helpful for solving problems. (Teachers 75%; students 69% agree).


A large collection of multiple choice questions covering one specific fact or concept is the best format for measuring students’ understanding in physics and chemistry.(Teachers 92%; students 80% agree).


A good science textbook should show how the material in one chapter relates to the material in other chapters, because they’re not really separate. (Teachers 68%; students 65% agree).


Things in science cannot be ambiguous. They are either correct or incorrect. (Teachers 54%; students 60% agree).

Gender difference

Statistical analysis on the gender difference revealed that male students’ epistemological beliefs were significantly better than female students’ epistemological beliefs on the structure of the knowledge (Axis 1) and on the hole. But there was no significant difference on the other axes. In Table 6, Appendix A, we present the number of male and female students who chose a particular answer for a particular question on the structure of knowledge. Total number of students was 91, number of male students was 42, and females were 49.

Possible epistemological beliefs on structure of knowledge (SK) for male and female students.


When it comes to understanding physics or chemistry, remembering facts is important. OR Remembering facts is important to understand physics or chemistry. (Males 62%; females 71% agree).


Scientists should spend their time in gathering information. Worrying about theories can’t really understand anything. (Males 40%, females 61% agree; Males 48%, females 29% disagree; males 12%, females 18% neutral).


851


When a scientific theory does not make sense, you just have to accept it and move on, because not everything in science is supposed to make sense. (Males 55%, females 53%).


When solving problems the key thing is knowing the method. Understanding the “big idea” might be helpful but may not be as important. (Males 38%, females 63% agree; males 50%, females 22% disagree).


Formulas or Equations are really the main thing to understanding physics or chemistry. The other material is helpful to decide what equations to use in which situations. (Males 62%, females 69% agree).


Events in daily-life behave according to consistent rules. But sometimes certain events (thunderstorms) are hard to explain because they behave according to complicated or hard to apply rules or the rules are fully not known. (Males 50%, females 47%)

Certain events (Thunderstorms) in daily life may not behave according to the rules. (Males 50%, females 53% agree).


The major formulas summarize the main concepts; they’re not really separate from the concepts. In addition, those formulas are helpful for solving problems. (Males 69%, females 69% agree).


A large collection of multiple choice questions covering one specific fact or concept is the best format for measuring females’ understanding in physics and chemistry. (Males 76%, females 82%).


A good science textbook should show how the material in one chapter relates to the material in other chapters, because they’re not really separate. (Males 67%, females 63%).


Things in science cannot be ambiguous. They are either correct or incorrect. (Males 69%, Females 53%).

Discussion

We discuss here possible explanations for the results we obtained in the analysis of the data. First we will discuss the results of the statistical analysis.

Pattern 1: Axis wise comparison (independent t-tests for Axis x Axis for teachers’ and students’) indicated that there was no significant difference between the teachers’ mean scores and students’ mean scores on Axes 1,2,4, and 5. However teachers’ mean score on Axis 3 was higher than students’ mean score on Axis 3. Pattern 2: Teachers’ mean scores on Axes 2, 3, and 5 were higher than their mean scores on Axes 1 and 4, so as for students. Off course for students the mean scores on Axes 2, 5 (sub set 1) were higher than the mean score on Axis 3 (subset 2) and the mean score on Axis 3 was higher than the mean scores on Axes 1 and 4 (subset 3). But in essence the mean scores on Axes 2, 3, and 5 were higher than the mean scores on Axes 1, and 4. Pattern 3: Standard deviations of teachers’ and students’ mean scores were almost same on Axis 4 (students’-21.71 and teachers’-22.02). Since there was no statistically significant difference between the teachers’ and students’ epistemological beliefs on Axes 1,2,4, and 5, and the mean score of both the groups on Axes 2,3, and 5 were higher than the mean scores on Axes 1 and 4, for this group of teachers’ and students’ the personal epistemologies on the structure of the knowledge (Axis 1), nature of knowing and learning (Axis 2), evolving nature of the knowledge (Axis 4), and on the source of ability to learn (Axis 5) could be similar, and could be different on the real-life applicability (Axis

852


3). Also there might be a large variance in the epistemological beliefs on evolving knowledge for both the groups. Regarding the gender difference: male students’ total mean score (59.39) was significantly higher than female students’ total mean score (55.13). Furthermore male students’ mean score on Axis 1 (50.56) was higher than female students’ mean score (45.30) on the same axis and there was no significant difference between the mean scores of the male and female students on Axes 2, 3, 4, and 5. The data of this group infer that the male students’ epistemological beliefs might be more pertinent than the female students’ beliefs on the structure of the knowledge (Axis 1), and the male and female students’ might have similar beliefs on nature of knowing and leaning (Axis 2), real-life applicability (Axis 3), evolving nature of the knowledge (Axis 4) and the source ability to learn (Axis 5). A study on the physics education under graduates (Kiong, etal 2010) at the Universiti Teknologi Malaysia revealed that the female students had more sophisticated epistemological beliefs on the structure of knowledge than the male students (Males 26, Females 42; Male mean score is 64.36, female mean score 71.31). We think the gender difference may be more of a local character depending in various factors such as the upbringing, values in the community, etc. Extracted epistemological beliefs from the surveys reveal that the majority of students’ and teachers’ beliefs for this group on Axis 1, 2, 4, and 5 most likely be the same and be different on Axis 3. There could be a large variance in the teachers’ and students’ epistemological beliefs on Axes 4.

We now discuss the Extracted epistemological Beliefs from the survey.

Teachers vs Students

Structure of the knowledge (Axis 1) SK. Majority of teachers and majority of students agree on epistemological beliefs: remembering the facts is important (SK 1), scientists should spend more time in gathering information rather than worrying about theories that can’t help us understand anything (SK 2), we have to except and move on when a theory does not make sense, because not everything is supposed to make sense (SK 3), in problem solving understanding the “big idea” is helpful but not important (SK 4), formulas summarize the main concepts and helpful for solving problems (SK 7), a large collection of multiple choice questions covering concepts is better assessing method (SK 8), concepts are not really separate. Textbooks should show inter-relations (SK 9), and things in science are either right or wrong (SK 10). The groups differ on SK 6. Majority of teachers seem to have an epistemological belief something similar to that of: events in real-life behave according to consistent rules. But sometimes it is hard to apply or the rules are fully not known while majority of students seem to have a belief similar to that of: Certain events in real-life may not behave according to the rules. (Actually students split on SK 6. 52% of the students seem to have the latter belief and 48% of the students seem to have former belief.) On SK 5 situation is little different. 51% of the teachers and 66% of students seem to agree on something similar to that of: Equations are really the main thing to understanding physics or chemistry. The other material is helpful to decide what equations to use in which situations. But 49% of the teachers seem to disagree with the afore mentioned statement. They seem to have a belief something similar to that of: Equations are not main thing to understand physics or chemistry. Teachers split almost 51-49 on SK 5. Thus the majority of both the groups agree on all beliefs except on SK 6.

Epistemological belief that are similar to the majority of members in both the groups on the structure of the knowledge are: Remembering facts is important; when theories don’t make sense, we have to accept and move on without worrying too much about theories; when solving problems understanding the “big idea” is helpful but not crucial; formulas summarize the main concepts and help solving problems; concepts are inter-related; things in science are right or wrong (dualists or dichotomous nature); and multiple choice method is better for assessing the understanding of knowledge.

Statistical analysis also showed that students’ and teachers’ epistemological beliefs on the nature of knowledge were similar.

Nature of knowing and learning (Axis 2) NKL . Majority of teachers and students agree on the epistemological beliefs: when things disagree with personal experiences, ignore personal experiences and accept what book says (NKL 1), students generally have sense of how well they did in the exams NKL 2), relating to personal experience help understand science better(NKL 3), clear lectures with plenty of examples help learn subject (NKL 4), putting the concepts in the individuals’ own words help learn better (NKL 5), and


853

reflect upon the work after solving a problem (NKL 6). It is interesting to see that both the groups seem to have a belief on one hand that Relating the learning to the the personal experiences (general situation), putting the concepts in the individuals’ own words, reflecting upon after solving problems help learn/construct the science knowledge better (which are qualities of building own knowledge) on the other hand they also seem to belief that clear lectures with plenty of real-life examples without students doing work on their own, when your personal experiences disagree, accept what the text book says (relating the learning to personal experiences in the context of reading the textbook) help constructing the knowledge and justify the knowledge learnt using multiple choice test is contradictory. In the general context they seem to believe: relating to the personal experiences help understand the science better. In the context of reading the text book: To learn science, even though some things disagree with personal experiences, we should ignore our experiences and focus on what book says. This is an example of context dependency (Hammer 2002). Thus majority of the members from both the groups agree on all the epistemological beliefs on the nature of knowing and learning including on the context dependency. Statistical analysis also showed that students’ and teachers’ epistemological beliefs on the nature of knowing were similar.

Real-life applicability (Axis 3) RLA . For these groups, majority of teachers’ beliefs agree with the majority of students’ beliefs on: understanding science is equally important for politicians (RLA 1) and on science explains real world events. But sometimes we cannot apply, it is because the examples or principles are complicated or we don’t know the applicable principles yet (RLA 2). Students and teachers seem to disagree on RLA 3. Teachers seem to believe that: Events in daily-life behave according to consistent rules. But sometimes certain events (thunderstorms) are hard to explain because they behave according to complicated or hard to apply rules or the rules are fully not known. Students don’t seem to agree with teachers and majority of students seem to believe: Certain events (Thunderstorms) in daily life may not behave according to the rules. (RLA 3 and SK 6 result from the same question). RLA 2 (general situation) and SK 6/RLA 3 (specific to Thunderstorm) are two different questions but result in the same belief. Students’ belief changed when it came from general to specific situation. This is another instance where the beliefs are context dependent. However majority of teachers’ epistemological beliefs were consistent when it came from general to specific situation (on RLA 2 and 3). Majority of teachers’ epistemological beliefs are better than those of students’ beliefs. Statistical analysis also showed the same i.e. teachers’ epistemological beliefs on the real life applicability are more matured than students’ beliefs.

Evolving knowledge (Axis 4) EK . The Students and teachers seem to agree on the belief: science cannot be ambiguous, things are either corrects or incorrect (EK 3). Both the groups have large variation on the other two beliefs scientists cannot evaluate which scientific study is the best on controversial topics (EK 1). And majority of teachers and students disagree with Even though scientific theories that are strongly supported by experimental verification don’t change that often, but always open to arguments to improve/modify theories and experiments (EK 2). They may have belief something similar to that off: Ones the scientific theories are established and experimentally verified, there is little room for changes. While the majority of teachers and students have similar beliefs on EK 2 and 3 and there is a large variance on EK 1.

Statistical analysis reflected a large standard deviation on this axis for both the students and teachers groups and there was no significant difference on the mean scores.

Source of Knowledge to learn (Axis 5) SAL . Majority of members in both the groups in this sample agree on: studying in a better way can make a big difference when struggling in physics or chemistry (SAL 1), the people who don’t have natural ability can still learn physics or chemistry (SAL 2), and everybody can learn to think scientifically, if they really want to and given enough time (SAL 3). Although majority of teachers and students seem to have beliefs something similar to that of: when struggling, studying in a better way can make a big difference, people who don’t have natural ability can still learn physics or chemistry and everybody can learn to think scientifically. In other contexts (to be successful in science course and a physicist (SAL 4), Dr. Kay Kinoshita being smarter(SAL 5)) they were split: (On SAL 4) 37% of teachers and 41% students expressed a belief: Hard work is more important than the natural ability to succeed in science courses, 41% of teachers and 42% of students have belief: natural ability and hard work are equally important, 22% of teachers and 17% of students expressed: natural ability is more important than the hard work; (on SAL 5) 54% of teachers and 42% of students believe: without natural ability, hard work will not get you anywhere in science, 18% of

854


the teachers and 26% of the students believe: you need natural ability and hard work to be smarter, 28% of the teachers and 32% of the students believe: smarter people work harder in a proper way and natural ability is not important. This variation may because the beliefs are context dependent.

The statistical and the semi-qualitative analysis of the data of these teachers’ and students’ groups reveal that certain epistemological beliefs of students and teachers were similar and some were dissimilar.

Male students vs Female students

We compare the epistemological beliefs of male and female students on the Structure of knowledge. Statistical analysis showed that the epistemological beliefs of male students were more matured than those of female students on the structure of the knowledge and on the other components they were the same.

Structure of the knowledge (Axis 1) SK. Majority of male and female students have the same beliefs something similar to that of: remember the facts is important (SK 1), we have to except and move on when a theory does not make sense because not everything is supposed to make sense (SK3), Formulas are the main thing to understand physics or chemistry. The other material is helpful to decide what formula to use in which situation (SK5), formulas summarize the main concepts and helpful for solving problems (SK7), a large collection of multiple choice questions covering concepts is better assessing method (SK8), As the concepts are not really separate, the textbooks should show inter-relations (SK9), and things in science are either right or wrong, but cannot be ambiguous (SK 10). Male students seem to have little edge over the female students on SK 2, SK 4, and on SK 6. 48% of the male students seem to believe that theories help understand things in science where as 61% of the female (40% of the male) students seem to believe that scientists should spend more time in gathering information rather than worrying about the theories (SK 2). 63% of the female students seem to believe that when solving problems key thing is knowing the method. Understanding the “big idea” is not that important, while 50% of the male students seem to believe that understanding “big idea” also important (SK 4). 50% of the male students seem to believe that Events in daily-life behave according to consistent rules. But sometimes certain events (thunderstorms) are hard to explain because they behave according to complicated or hard to apply rules or the rules are fully not known. But 53% of the female (50% of males) students seem to believe that certain events (Thunderstorms) in daily life may not behave according to the rules.

Conclusions

In this study, we performed statistical and semi-qualitative analysis on the data of 91 undergraduate students who scored 90 and above in the public exams and 109 teachers from the surrounding institutions. We administered the translated version of EBAPS surveys over a period of two years. The statistical analysis showed that there was no significant difference between students’ and teachers’ epistemological beliefs on the structure of the knowledge, nature of knowing and learning, evolving knowledge and source ability to learn. However there was significant difference on the applicability of the knowledge. The epistemological beliefs for both the groups on the nature of knowing and learning, applicability, and source of ability to learn were more matured than the beliefs on the structure of the knowledge and evolving nature of knowledge. There was a large variance in the beliefs about the evolving nature of the knowledge. The semi-qualitative analysis also showed that the beliefs of majority of teachers and students for these groups were the similar on the structure of the knowledge, nature of knowing and learning, evolving nature of the knowledge and the source of ability to learn. Context dependence nature of the epistemological beliefs was also observed on certain axes. Just as EMPE model suggested in reference to young and adult children, we predict that there should be a reciprocal-relation between the teachers’ and students’ personal epistemologies at college level for physics and chemistry. More qualitative and quantitative studies with more controls are needed to understand if teachers’ personal epistemologies have reciprocal relation with the students’ personal epistemologies in physics or chemistry for college students. As regards to the gender differences on the epistemological beliefs, we think it may differ from culture to culture, may be different even within the same culture depending upon various factors including the upbringing and epistemological climates. We observed that male students had matured epistemological beliefs on the structure of knowledge than the female students while Kiong etal (2010) observed at Universiti Teknologi, Malaysia, that female students had better epistemological beliefs on the structure of the knowledge than the male students.


855

Even though the students had physics for a total of five years in high school (three years), and in intermediate (two years) colleges, and had scored 90% and above in the common intermediate exam the beliefs were poor. Possible reasons could be that the students probably hardly had time to reflect upon due to the instructional methods followed in the institutions; the school and college education in this area require the teachers to complete the syllabus at the cost of students’ understanding; focus more on repetition and memorization than reflecting upon; and focus the instruction to pass the common final examinations that emphasizes on writing definitions and deriving equations. The data on the teachers’ beliefs revealed that the teachers in this area may have poor epistemological beliefs. These teachers were also the product of the same educational system. It was interesting to see that the male students had better epistemological beliefs than the female students.

In view of this study we recommend that the local educational authority should conduct workshops for in service teachers on the epistemological beliefs and instructional methods, change the examination system that elicit students’ holistic knowledge and emphasize on reasoning, conduct bridge courses, and restructure the high school and college syllabus to integrated syllabus.

Acknowledgements

The second author wants to thank Florian C. Feucht for providing excellent material on EMPE model, Andrew Elby, Dept. of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 for his valuable comments, and PERTG for providing travel grants.

References

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender-related patterns in students’ intellectual development. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2002). Beliefs about science: How does science instruction contribute. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 321–346). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bendixen, L. D. and Rule, D. C. ( 2004 ). An intergrative approach to personal epistemology: A guiding model . Educational Psychologist, 39 (1), 69 – 80.

Brownlee , J. , Purdie , N. , and Boulton-Lewis , G. ( 2001 ). Changing epistemological beliefs in pre-service teacher education students . Teaching in Higher Education , 6 (2), 247 – 68.

Feucht , F. C. ( 2008 ). The nature of epistemic climates in elementary education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Nevada , Las Vegas.

Feucht , F. C. and Bendixen L. D. ( 2010 ). Personal epistemologies of elementary school teachers: Exploring similarities and differences across US and German classroom cultures. Cognition and Instruction, 28(1), 39–69.

Feucht, F. C. (2010). Epistemic climates in elementary classrooms. In L. D. Bendixen&F. C. Feucht (Eds.), Personal epistemology in the classroom: Theory, research, and implications for practice (pp. 55–93). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Hammer, D. H. and Elby, A. (2002). On the form of personal epistemology. In B. K. Hofer and P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (PP.169–90). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hammer, D. (2004). The Variability of Student Reasoning, Lecture 1: Case studies of children’s enquiries. In E. F. Reddish and M. Vicentini (Eds,), The Proceedings of the Enrico Fermi Summer School in Physics, Course CLVI (PP .279-295). Oxford, England:IOS press.

Haerle , F. C. and Bendixen , L. D. ( 2008 ). Personal epistemology in elementary classrooms: A conceptual comparison of Germany and the United States and a guide for future cross-cultural research. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Knowing, knowledge and beliefs: Epistemological studies across diverse cultures (151–176). NewYork: Springer.

856


Hofer , B. K. ( 2001 ). Personal epistemology research: Implications for learning and teaching. Educational Psychology Review , 13 , 353 – 83 .

Hofer, B. K. (2000). Dimensionality and disciplinary differences in personal epistemology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 378–405.

Hofer, B.K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997) The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning, Review of . Educational. Research,. 67(1), 88–140

Howard , B. C. , McGee , S. , Schwartz , N. and Purcell , S. ( 2000 ). The experience of constructivism: Transforming teacher epistemology . Journal of Research on Computing in Education , 32 (4), 455 – 465.

Johnston , P. , Woodside-Jiron , H. , and Day , J. ( 2001 ). Teaching and learning literate epistemologies . Journal of Educational Psychology , 93 (1), 223 – 33 .

Kattmann , U. , Duit , R. , Gropengießer , H. and Komorek , M. ( 1996 ). Educational reconstruction – bringing together issues of scientific clarification and students’ conceptions. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching (NARST), St. Louis, MI.

Kiong, Sim Sze, Sulaiman, Seth Bin.( 2010). Study of Epistemological Beliefs, Attitudes towards Learning and Conceptual Understanding of Newtonian Force Concept among Physics Education Undergraduates. Eprint, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia http://eprints.utm.my/14946/1/Study_of_Epistemological_Beliefs.pdf.

Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kuhn, D. , Cheney, R., and Weinstock, M. ( 2000 ). The development of epistemological understanding. Cognitive Development, 15, 309 – 28.

Kuhn, D., & Weinstock, M. (2002). What is epistemological thinking and why does it matter? In B. K. Hofer & P.R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 121–144). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Palmer, B., & Marra, R.M. (2008). Individual Domain-Specific Epistemologies:Implications for Educational Practice, In M.S. Khine (Ed.), Knowing,Knowledge and Beliefs: Epistemological Studies across Diverse cultures, (PP 325-350). Springer.

Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 498–504.

Schommer-Aikins, M. (2008). Applying the Theory of an Epistemological Belief System to the Investigation of Students’ and Professors’ mathematical Beliefs. In M.S. Khine (Ed.), Knowing,Knowledge and Beliefs: Epistemological Studies across Diverse cultures, (pp.303-323). Springer.

Schraw , G. and Olafson , L. ( 2002 ). Teacher’s epistemological worldviews and educational practices . Issues in Education, 8 (2), 99 – 148.

Tsai, C.-C. ( 2002 ). Nested epistemologies: Science teachers’ beliefs of teaching, learning and science . International Journal of Science Education, 24 (8), 771 – 83 .

Vygotsky , L. S. ( 1978 ). Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press .

White, B. C. ( 2000 ). Pre-service teachers’ epistemology viewed through perspectives on problematic classroom situations. Journal of Education for Teaching, 26 (3), 279 – 306.


857

Appendix ATable 1.1. Group Statistics. Teachers’ and students’ mean scores, std. deviation and error means

Axis_ST N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

ELTOTALStudent 91 57.098 7.9831 .8369

Teacher 109 60.589 8.4082 .8054

Table 1.2 Descriptive statistics for teachers

Axes N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Axis_1 109 17.50 80.00 51.10 14.17

Axis_2 109 34.38 89.06 67.07 11.16

Axis_3 109 18.75 100.00 71.38 16.81

Axis_4 109 0.00 91.67 49.85 22.02

Axis_5 109 40.00 100.00 70.69 14.28

Table 1.3 Descriptive statistics for students

Axes N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Axis_1 91 17.50 80.00 47.7198 13.01521

Axis_2 91 40.63 92.19 64.8710 11.37385

Axis_3 91 6.25 93.75 55.3929 17.91647

Axis_4 91 .00 100.00 48.2599 21.71408

Axis_5 91 20.00 100.00 67.7473 18.10868

Table 1.4 Independent t-test for total scores between teachers and students

Levene’s Test for Equality of

Variancest-test for Equality of Means

F Sig� t dfSig�

(2-tailed)Mean

DifferenceStd. Error Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower Upper

EL

TOTAL

Equal variances assumed

1.287 .258 -2.992 198 .003 -3.4912 1.1669 -5.7923 -1.1901

Equal variances

not assumed

-3.006 194.720 .003 -3.4912 1.1614 -5.7818 -1.2006

858


Table 2. Independent t-test (Levene’s) F & p-values and epistemological beliefs mean scores.

Axis Students Teachers F-value p-value

1 47.72 51.1 1.185 0.083

2 64.87 67.07 0.161 0.168

3 55.39 71.383 0.848 0.000

4 48.26 49.84 0.169 0.610

5 67.75 70.688 5.310 0.201

Total 57.098 60.589 1.287 0.003

Table 3. Tukey’s test for both teachers and students indicating different subsets

Tukey HSDa

Axis NSubset of alpha = 0.05

1 2

4.00 109 49.8470

1.00 109 51.1009

2.00 109 67.0739

5.00 109 70.6881

3.00 109 71.3838

Sig� .979 .279

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed

a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 109.000

Tukey HSDa

Axis NSubset of alpha = 0.05

1 2 3

1 91 47.72

4 91 48.26

3 91 55.39

2 91 64.87

5 91 67.75

Sig� 1.000 1.000 .779

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed

a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 91.000


859

Table 4.1 Descriptive statistics for male and female students

Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Axis_1

Axis_2

Axis_3

Axis_4

Male 42 50.595 12.7448 1.9666

Female 49 45.300 12.8786 1.8398

Male 42 65.9286 12.46962 1.92410

Female 49 63.9673 10.39820 1.48546

Male 42 58.657 16.5883 2.5596

Female 49 52.629 18.6967 2.6710

Male 42 47.419 22.2070 3.4266

Female 49 48.978 21.4969 3.0710

Axis_5Male 42 69.405 18.0177 2.7802

Female 49 66.327 18.2510 2.6073

ELTOLMale 42 59.393 8.1158 1.2523

Female 49 55.131 7.3941 1.0563

Table 4.2 Independent t-test for different axis between students with gender as a factor

Axis Males Females F-value p-value

1 50.595 45.300 0.082 0.053

2 65.9286 63.9673 1.273 0.415

3 58.657 52.629 0.492 0.110

4 47.419 48.978 0.022 0.735

5 69.405 66.327 0.021 0.422

Total 59.393 55.131 0.758 0.010

860


Table 5.1 Number of teachers (Tchrs) and students (Stdnts) selected answers to a given question are presented in the cells. A, B, C, D and E are choice of answers. Axis 1 Structure of knowledge.

Q.No A B C D E

Tchrs Stdnts Tchrs Stdnts Tchrs Stdnts Tchrs Stdnts Tchrs Stdnts

2 51 38 22 23 02 06 30 17 04 078 30 17 14 13 04 14 26 23 35 2410 18 22 16 10 03 10 45 25 27 2415 26 14 21 18 05 12 29 24 28 23

17 41 11 12 14 0 06 29 25 27 35

19 40 19 14 25 36 25 14 05 05 17

20 52 36 11 07 30 27 12 12 04 09

23 49 24 03 09 39 24 12 24 06 1024 38 25 36 34 09 09 20 14 06 0928 19 13 20 18 20 24 18 20 32 16

Table 5.2 Number of teachers and students selected answers to questions. A, B, C, D and E are choice of answers. Axis 2 Nature of knowing and learning (NKL)

Q.No A B C D ETchrs Stdnts Tchrs Stdnts Tchrs Stdnts Tchrs Stdnts Tchrs Stdnts

1 72 57 22 20 0 03 08 06 07 05

7 48 23 27 17 02 04 28 14 04 33

11 14 07 15 10 02 06 33 28 45 40

12 04 01 06 04 01 02 21 13 77 71

13 06 05 05 13 0 03 32 19 66 51

18 38 21 26 31 27 24 09 09 09 06

26 35 40 37 20 09 08 19 10 09 13

30 10 11 07 07 12 10 15 11 65 52

Possible Epistemological Beliefs On Nature Of Knowing And Learning (Nkl)

Epistemological belief NKL 1

To learn science, even though some things disagree with personal experiences, we should ignore our experiences and focus on what book says. (Teachers 86%; students 85% agree).


Students can generally have a sense of how well they did the test soon after they complete the test. (Teachers 72%; students 75% agree).


Relating to the personal experiences help understand the science better. (Teachers 90%; students 92% agree).


861


Clear lectures with plenty of real-life examples and sample problems help most good students learn physics or chemistry even without students doing sample questions and solving problems on their own. (Teachers 90%; students 77% agree).


When learning science concepts, putting those in individuals’ own words help learn better. (Teachers 66%; students 65% agree).


After solving a problem reflecting upon how principles applied, meaning of the solution, procedure, etc. help improve problem solving skills. (Teachers 73%; students 70% agree).

Table 5.3 Number of teachers and students selected answers to questions. A, B, C, D and E are choice of answers. Axis 3 Real-life applicability (RLA)

Q .No A B C D E


3 37 37 07 09 14 11 42 25 09 09

14 69 24 16 28 06 06 08 12 10 21

19 40 19 14 25 36 25 14 05 05 17

27 61 29 28 28 09 15 09 12 02 07

Possible epistemological beliefs on Real life applicability (RLA)

Epistemological belief RLA 1

Teachers’ Belief: Understanding science is important for scientists as well as for politicians. (Teachers 78%; students 57% agree).

Epistemological belief RLA 2

Science explains/applies to real-world. But sometimes we cannot apply to some example, it is because the example or principles are very complicated or we do not know the applicable principles yet. (Teachers 82%; students 63% agree).Epistemological belief RLA 3Teacher’s belief: Events in daily-life behave according to consistent rules. But sometimes certain events (thunderstorms) are hard to explain because they behave according to complicated or hard to apply rules or the rules are fully not known. (Teachers 70%; students 48% agree).Students’ belief: Certain events (Thunderstorms) in daily life may not behave according to the rules. (Students 52%; teachers 30% agree).Table 5.4 Number of teachers and students selected answers to questions. A, B, C, D and E are choice of answers. Axis 4 Evolving knowledge (EK)

Q .No A B C D E


6 30 25 18 16 13 25 36 13 12 12

28 19 13 20 18 20 24 18 20 32 16

29 28 12 20 18 17 09 24 19 20 33

862


Possible epistemological beliefs on evolving knowledge (EK)Epistemological belief EK 1When it comes to controversial topics, there’s no way for scientists to evaluate which scientific studies are the best. Everything’s up in the air (Teachers 44% agree, 12% neutral and 44% disagree; Students 45% agree, 27% neutral, 28% disagree).Epistemological belief EK 2Even though scientific theories that are strongly supported by experimental verification don’t change that often, science accepts arguments to improve/modify theories and experiments (Teachers 16% agree, 84% don’t agree; Students 10% agree, 90% don’t agree).Epistemological belief EK 3:Things in science cannot be ambiguous. They are either correct or incorrect. (Teachers 54%; students 60% agree).Table 5.5 Number of teachers and students selected answers to questions. A, B, C, D and E are choice of answers. Axis 5 Source of ability to learn (SAL)

Q.No A B C D E


5 01 04 01 03 02 02 16 19 89 63

9 04 11 07 15 06 13 46 27 46 25

16 02 07 08 03 10 03 36 21 53 57

22 25 25 15 12 45 38 12 07 12 09

25 23 20 36 18 20 24 18 17 12 12

Possible epistemological beliefs on Source of ability to learn (SAL)

Epistemological belief SAL 1

For those who have trouble in physics or chemistry, studying in a better way can make a big difference. (Teachers 96%; students 90% agree).


The people who don’t have natural ability can still learn physics or chemistry (Teachers 84%; students 57% agree).


Almost everybody could learn to think more scientifically, if they really wanted to and given enough time. (Teachers 82%; students 86% agree).


Hard work is more important than the natural ability to be successful in science courses (Teachers 37%; students 41% agree).

Natural ability and hard work are equally important. (Teachers 41%; students 42% agree).

Natural ability is more important than the hard work. (Teachers 22%; students 17% agree).


Some people (in the context of Kay Kinoshita, the physicist) are just smarter at science than other people. Without natural ability, hard work won’t get you anywhere in science. (Teachers 54%; students 42% agree).

Some people are just smarter at science than other people, because they have natural ability and work hard work. (Teachers 18%; students 26% agree).


863

Some people are smarter in science than other people, because they work harder in a proper way. Natural ability is not important. (Teachers 28%; students 32% agree).

Table 6. Number of male and female students selected answers to questions. A, B, C, D and E are choice of answers. Axis 1 Structure of knowledge.

Q .No A B C D E

Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

2 15 23 11 12 02 04 11 06 03 04

8 13 04 07 06 05 09 08 15 09 15

10 11 11 03 07 05 05 13 12 10 14

15 09 05 12 06 05 07 07 17 09 14

17 05 06 07 07 04 02 10 15 16 19

19 09 10 12 13 12 13 02 03 07 10

20 15 21 02 05 14 13 06 06 05 04

23 09 15 05 04 13 11 10 14 05 05

24 11 14 17 17 03 06 07 07 04 05

28 06 07 10 08 13 11 07 13 06 10

864



865

866



867

868



869

870



871

872


This page is intentionally left blank.

WCPE2012 - The Possible Influence of Teachers’ Epistemological Beliefs

Documents

Transcript of WCPE2012 - The Possible Influence of Teachers’ Epistemological Beliefs