Different majors--different epistemological beliefs?

Abstract

The development of epistemological beliefs and connected intellectual development are key functions of education and the last years showed an increase in research of how epistemological beliefs can get scaffolded by instruction. At the same time learning science as a discipline moves away from a General Theory to design instruction within a discipline and across disciplines. Prior research of the influence of different disciplines on epistemological belief development is controversial. In this exploratory study the authors analyzed whether or not there are any significant differences between students' epistemological beliefs depending on their field of study and in how these differences are reflected in students' perception of their own learning process. The authors used quantitative and qualitative methods in a large survey class at a Midwestern University.

**********

Research of epistemological beliefs, its influence on learning, and its scaffolding through different environments has increased in recent years (for an overview see Hofer & Pintrich, 1997). Several studies have shown the influence of different learning interventions on the epistemological development of students in many domains. The research effort is not surprising considering that intellectual development is a key function of education (Marra et al., 2000). At the same time, instructional design as a discipline is moving away from a General Theory of design and recognizes the independence of domain specific reasoning, different approaches to learning and teaching (based on research on multiple intelligences), and the underlying interpretative perspectives of the disciplines. In this exploratory research the authors were interested in understanding whether or not there are any significant differences between students' epistemological beliefs depending on their field of study and in how these differences are reflected in students' perception of their own learning process. Different fields might foster students' epistemological development differently or might attract people with specific intellectual maturity to pursue studies in those fields.

Literature Review

The literature on epistemological development conceptualizes progress in the cognitive processes of individuals. Borrowing a term (and concept) from one of philosophy's core disciplines--epistemology--the research of epistemological belief in education is concerned with how individuals answer questions such as "What is the nature of knowledge?", "How can I know what I know?", and "What is truth?". The progress in development is differently conceptualized and described in forms of evolutionary stages, but is described by Jonassen & Marra (2003) in this way: "While the theories differ in detail and scope, they suggest a common pattern of development that progresses from simple, black-white thinking, through an exploration of multiple perspectives, to complex, relativistic thinking" (p. 2) There is a significant and fast growing amount of literature on epistemological developments of students and the influence of teaching and learning paradigms and methodologies (see Pavelich and Moore, 1996; Marra, Palmer & Litzinger, 2000; Jonassen, Marra, & Palmer, in press).

However, there are only a few research studies that deal with cross-disciplinary questions of epistemological belief. Jehng, Johnson, & Anderson (1993) and Schommer & Walker (1995) address differences in 'domains' (Schommer) or 'field of studies' (Jehng). Jehng et al. used Schommer's framework (1990) that includes five factors (certainty of knowledge, omniscient authority, orderly process, innate ability, and quick learning) and developed their own instrument with Likert-type scaled questions. Their major findings showed that:

   students, who study in the 'soft' fields (i.e. social science
   and arts/humanities) have a stronger tendency of believe that
   knowledge is uncertain, are more reliant on their independent
   reasoning ability, and have a stronger feeling that learning
   is not an orderly process than students in 'hard' fields"
   (Jehng et al. 1993, p. 23)

On the contrary, Schommer & Walker's results support the idea that individuals' epistemological beliefs tend to be domain independent. They used a similar questionnaire as Jehng and let the students simulate scenarios from different domains while they filled out the questionnaire. In the authors' opinion, the results are limited in their abilities to inform the research questions because Schommer & Walker measured the perception of students about other fields, but did not compare students from different disciplines. The question of whether epistemological development is independent of different disciplines still needs further attention to understand the differences--if any exist. Both studies (Jehng et al. and Schommer & Walker) used quantitative methodologies to find answers to their research questions. Another study, slightly related to the previous ones, is dealing with faculty's epistemological foundations and uses qualitative methodology (Jonassen & Marra, 2003). Although it does not address the core question of their study, the data suggesting that epistemological belief foundations differ according to faculty discipline can be seen as support to pursue our initial believes in a more systematic manner.

Present study--Methods

For this study the authors administered a survey and conducted a statistical analysis of the closed-ended questions and a content analysis for three open-ended questions. As part of their course assignment in an introductory (survey) class in Religious Studies, 110 college students from a large Midwestern university participated in this study. The students were all undergraduates and represented 34 majors. The authors followed Jehng et al. (1993) and grouped students' majors in Humanities, Social Studies, Business, and Natural Sciences/Engineering. The large majority of students (94.5%) were 22 or younger and about 58% of the students were male.

The data collection instrument had three parts:

1) An epistemological belief questionnaire developed by Michael Jacobson and Jihn-Chang Jehng (1998) was used to measure students' epistemological beliefs. This questionnaire is based on Schommer's (1990) five dimensions of epistemological beliefs, which include: certainty knowledge, simple knowledge, omniscient authority, 4 fixed ability, and quick learning. The instrument had 61 items using a 6-point Likert-type scale.

2) In the second part, the students provided demographic information (sex, age, major, minor, school year), and indicated how many classes they already took in the humanities and social studies.

3) In the final part, students were asked to write short answers to three open-ended questions that the authors adapted from a portion of the same instrument as the epistemological belief questionnaire (Jacobson & Jehng, 1998). The three questions were: In your own words, what does it mean to learn?; How do you determine (when you have completed a reading assignment) whether you have understood the material well enough? How would you decide that you need to review the reading material or to seek help in figuring it out?

The quantitative data were analyzed using a standard statistical analysis software package (SPSS), running descriptive statistics, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and regression. The authors also tested the internal reliability of the five factors as well as the entire epistemological belief questionnaire using Cronbach's Alpha. Findings indicate that for this group the overall reliability is quite strong (Alpha= 0.83). Factor 1--certainty of knowledge--proved to have a strong internal reliability (Alpha= 0.73) while factors 2, 3, and 5 had reliabilities that ranged from 0.38 to 0.49. They are low but acceptable for group comparison. Only Factor 4 proved to have a very low reliability (Alpha=0.12). Based on these results the authors decided to run ANOVA and stepwise regression using the means of the four stronger factors indicated above and the mean of the overall score.

For the content analysis the mean and standard deviation of the overall epistemological beliefs scores were used to identify the low and high-end students. We considered a spread of 1.5 standard deviations from the mean and selected for the analysis only those questionnaires that were below (low epistemological beliefs) and above (high epistemological beliefs) the spread. This process eliminated 86% of the questionnaires leaving for analysis 16 sets of answers. After individual analysis both researchers agreed to exclude two sets as being not usable: one was not answered, the second one was an ironic, laconically formulated statement. This left a total of 14 sets of answers for analysis.

Results--quantitative analysis

A one-way analysis of variance using sex, age, and major was run. Major was the only significant factor both for the overall epistemological beliefs and for factors 1 and 2. The difference between Humanities and the Natural Sciences/Engineering for the factor 1 'certainty of knowledge' (3.61 mean compared to 2.85 mean) was significant, F=7.87, p=.000, as well as for the factor 'omniscient authority (3.78 compared to 3.45), F=4.08, p=.009 and for the overall epistemological score (3.48 compared to 3.13), F=4.51, p=.005. The stepwise regression using sex, age, and major as independent variables indicated that major is the only significant predictor for the overall epistemological belief, F(1,94)=12.49, p=.001 score as well as for Factor 1, F(1,94)=24.08, p=.000, and Factor 2, F(1,94)=9.23, p=.003. For both factors as well as for the overall scores, results from regression analysis indicate a slightly negative correlation, which shows that students with 'soft' fields (Humanities and Social Studies) are more likely to have higher level of epistemological beliefs than those having 'hard' fields of study (Business and Natural Sciences & Engineering).

Results--qualitative analysis

The content analysis of the three open-ended questions enriched the authors' understanding of the relationship between epistemological beliefs and learning in school settings.

For the first question, 'In your own words, what does it mean to learn?' the authors found that students with high epistemological beliefs seem to see learning as a process in which they are involved to reshape what they learned (using terms like ownership, application, building up), while students with lower epistemological beliefs thought that learning is something to possess and keep (using terms like gaining or obtaining knowledge from somebody/something). The two following statements are meant to illustrate these findings: "To take an active ownership of the knowledge presented to you" (from a student with high epistemological belief) and "To acquire new knowledge and be familiar with it" (from a student with low epistemological belief).

The answers to the second question 'How do you determine (when you have completed a reading assignment) whether you have understood the material well enough?' showed that, in general, students with high epistemological beliefs tend to measure themselves, how much they learned if they follow-up what they learned into the classroom, using terms like 'relation to something known before' or 'follow in class discussion'. Students with low epistemological belief tend to relay on external sources (e.g. tests) to know if they learned anything.

For the third question 'How would you decide that you need to review the reading material or to seek help in figuring it out?' no significant differences with students with high and low epistemological belief scores were found. The authors assume that the reason to get this result is the relationship of this question to those factors that proved not to be significantly different (e.g. quick learning). However, the answers from the open-ended questions confirmed overall, provided illustrations, and enriched the understanding of the results from the quantitative analysis.

Conclusion

The results of this study support the idea that epistemological beliefs vary, based on the field of study. At least two conclusions can be tentatively advanced based on the results of the study: a) epistemological beliefs are multidimensional (as seen through the reliability of the epistemological belief factors and the qualitative results) and b) individual epistemological beliefs tend to depend upon a student's field of study. In the last finding the authors were able to replicate core findings of prior research (Jehng et al. 1993) and confront other related research (Schommer, 1995). These findings post further challenges for instructors in how to foster their students' intellectual development, and need to be further examined to inform instructional design for the scaffolding the intellectual development (Jonassen et al., in press). For example, in 'hard' science classes the instructor might change the focus from factual knowledge with right/wrong solutions to situated complex knowledge that does not have clear-cut solutions and requires critical thinking and problem solving skills to compensate for students' dualistic tendencies towards certainty of knowledge. For mixed classes, instructors might make available supplementary scaffolds and guides towards complexity to support students who tend to think more dualistically. These guides can include learning environments that show different perspectives or that engage students in exploring multiple possible solutions like in problem-based or inquiry-oriented learning. Overall, the authors would like to intensify the discussion on domain specific reasoning and the different contributions of the disciplines based on their interpretative perspectives.

References

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.

Jehng, J.J., Johnson, S.D., & Anderson R.C. (1993) Schooling and students' epistemological belief Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 23-35.

Jacobson, M. J., & Jehng, J. C. (1998). Epistemological beliefs: Scales and items Technical Report). Athens, GA: The University of Georgia, Learning and Performance Support Laboratory.

Jonassen, D.H., Marra, R.M., Palmer, E. (in press) Epistemological Development: An Implicit Entailment of Constructivist Learning Environments in Seel, N.M., & Dijkstra, S. (Eds.), Curriculum, Plans, and Processes of Instructional Design: International Perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Jonassen, D., Marra, R.M. (2003) Faculty Beliefs: The impact of the Design of Constructivist Learning Environments on Faculty Teaching Epistemologies in American Educational Research Association, Annual Meeting.

Marra, R.M., Palmer, B., and Litzinger, T.A. (2000) The effects of a first-year engineering design course on student intellectual development as measured by the Perry Scheme, Journal of Engineering Education 89 (1), 39-46.

Pavelich, M.S., and Moore, W.S. (1996) Measuring the effect of experimental education Using the Perry Model, Journal of Engineering Education 85 (4), 287-292.

Perry, W.G. (1970) Intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A Scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Schommer, M.A. (1990) Effects of belief about the nature of knowledge on comprehension Journal of Educational Psychology, 82 (3), 498-504.

Schommer, M. and Walker, K. (1995) Are Epistemological Beliefs Similar Across Domains? Journal of Educational Psychology, 87 (3), 424-432.

Widick, C., and Simpson D. (1978) Developmental Concepts in College Instruction, in C. Parker (Ed.), Encouraging Development in College Students, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN, 1978

Dan Cernusca, University of Missouri-Columbia, MO

David H. Jonassen, University of Missouri-Columbia, MO

Strobel is a PhD candidate at the School of Information Science and Learning Technologies (SISLT) and co-founder of the Learning Science Institute at the University of Missouri-Columbia. Cernusca is a PhD student at SISLT. Jonassen is Distinguished Professor of Education. He has published 23 books and numerous articles, papers, and reports.