exploratory study of hk teacher education students' epistemological beliefs

Contemporary Educational Psychology 27, 392–414 (2002)

doi:10.1006/ceps.2001.1102

Exploratory Study of Hong Kong Teacher EducationStudents’ Epistemological Beliefs: Cultural Perspectives

and Implications on Beliefs Research

Kwok-wai Chan

Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong, China

and

Robert G Elliott

Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia

This paper reports a study of epistemological beliefs of Hong Kong teacher educa-tion students in which such four belief dimensions have been identified. The resultis similar to that found by Schommer with North American university students inthat the number of dimensions is the same but the nature of the dimensions is differ-ent. The paper hypothesizes that these differences can be accounted for in terms ofdifferences in cultural context. In particular, the difference in dimensions concernedwith authority–expert knowledge and effort and learning reported in this study mightbe explained by value differences between Western (North American) and non-Western (Hong Kong Chinese) culture. From a methodological perspective, the in-terview data also imply difficulties in measuring knowledge beliefs and one findingfrom the study is that in-depth interviews to complement quantitative data are neces-sary for trustworthy study of epistemological beliefs. 2002 Elsevier Science (USA)

Key Words: epistemological beliefs; Hong Kong teacher education students; be-liefs dimensions; cultural context.

RESEARCH IN EPISTEMOLOGICAL BELIEFS

The important role of beliefs on teaching and learning has been highlightedby many researchers (Calderhead, 1996; Cater, 1990; Clark & Peterson,1986; Richardson, 1996). In particular, the viewpoints and beliefs of teachersin the nature of knowledge and knowing (epistemological beliefs) are likelyto affect the way they organize and transmit information in the classroom(Young, 1981). Although there has been an increased interest in the study of

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Kwok-wai Chan, Department of Educa-tional Psychology, Counselling and Learning Needs, School of Foundations in Education,Hong Kong Institute of Education, 10 Lo Ping Road, Tai Po, New Territories, Hong Kong,China. E-mail: [email protected]. Fax: (852)29487794.

3920361-476X/02 $35.00 2002 Elsevier Science (USA)All rights reserved.

EXPLORATORY STUDY OF HONG KONG TEACHER EDUCATION 393

teachers’ beliefs in the past decade (Fang, 1996), research on epistemologicalbeliefs is still not plentiful. Studies of students’ epistemological beliefs ingeneral can be traced back to early work by Perry (1968) who consideredepistemological beliefs from a developmental perspective. Perry was fol-lowed by others such as Ryan (1984), who made use of Perry’s scale toexamine the relation between text comprehension and individual differencesin epistemological standards. Parallel to this, Kitchener (1986) started todevelop a reflective judgment model to conduct research in this area. Re-sults indicated that sophistication in reflective judgment increases with ageand education (Kitchener & King, 1981, 1990) and that changes in reflectivejudgment follow a fixed sequence (King, Kitchener, Davison, Parker, &Wood, 1983; Kitchener, King, Wood, & Davison, 1989). By the 1990s, asmall group of researchers including Schommer (1989, 1990, 1993a, 1993b,1994a, 1994b, 1998), Schommer, Crouse, and Rhodes (1992), Schommerand Walker (1995), Schommer, Calvert, Gariglietti, and Reja (1997), Jehng,Johnson, and Anderson (1993), Qian and Alvermann (1995), and Kardashand Scholes (1996) has been researching epistemological beliefs. This re-search has sought to identify the underlying dimensions of epistemologicalbeliefs and the relation between these dimensions and various learning attri-butes such as reading comprehension and learning-helplessness. Amongthese Schommer (1989, 1990) was considered a pioneer in the study of epis-temological beliefs dimensions (see review by Hofer & Pintrich, 1997). Stud-ies conducted by Jehng et al. (1993), Qian (1995), Qian and Alvermann(1995), and others were mostly based on the assumptions and conceptualframework hypothesized by Schommer (1990). In this framework, episte-mological beliefs were reconceived as a system of more or less independentdimensions. By ‘‘system,’’ she means that there is more than one belief toconsider. By ‘‘more or less independent,’’ she means that individuals maybe sophisticated in some beliefs but not necessarily sophisticated in others.An implication of such a framework is that epistemological beliefs can bestudied individually or in various combinations.

In general terms, epistemological belief may be regarded as one particulartype of belief within a person’s belief system. Epistemological beliefs arefundamental assumptions about the nature of knowledge and learning, in-volving knowledge about the limits of knowing, the certainty of knowing,and the criterion of knowing. That is, they refer to the individuals’ beliefsabout the source, certainty, and organization of knowledge, as well as thecontrol and speed of learning (Schommer, 1990, 1994a, 1994b). Since suchbeliefs undoubtedly influence how individuals understand the nature of intel-lectual tasks and decide what kinds of strategies are appropriate for dealingwith complex and ill-structured situations, it is likely that epistemologicalbeliefs are related to metacognition, i.e., study skills and learning strategies.

394 CHAN AND ELLIOTT

The studies of Schommer (1989, 1990) and Qian and Alvermann (1995)have demonstrated that epistemological beliefs are related to meta-cognitiveprocesses such as reading comprehension, active inquiry, and integration oflearning materials. This implies that epistemological beliefs have a role toplay in class teaching as classroom teaching is considered an ill-defined situ-ation, with various possibilities for unpredictable change. However, howteachers’ epistemological beliefs are related to, and interact with, their beliefsabout teaching and learning is not clearly understood and need to be exploredin a range of research studies.

EPISTEMOLOGICAL BELIEFS AND CULTURE

An analysis of existing studies shows that the conceptual framework andinstruments used in epistemological research were developed mainly inNorth America. The findings of the research (such as the number and natureof epistemological beliefs dimensions and the relation of epistemologicalbeliefs to meta-cognitive activities) are thus contextually related to the NorthAmerican context. A few studies of epistemological beliefs in other cultures,for example, Chile (Arredondo & Rucinski, 1996), Korea (Lee, 1995), andJapan (Mori, 1997), have been conducted and the results show some dif-ferences from the studies reported by Schommer (1990). The study byArredondo and Rucinski (1996) suggested that Schommer’s factor structuresmight be somewhat less stable among Chilean educators than she found inAmerica. Pai (1990) has speculated that epistemological beliefs may be af-fected by family influences, especially among Hispanic Americans—thismay be so particularly on the items concerning the ‘‘nature of learning.’’ InLee’s (1995) study of Korean graduate students the majority of Korean grad-uate students tended to believe in the dominant role of epistemic authorities,such as textbooks and academics in senior positions, in their learning. InSchommer’s (1989, 1990) study of North American college and universitystudents, however, she was not able to empirically determine the OmniscientAuthority factor or dimension as proposed in her conceptual framework (seeTable 1).

In addition, Lee’s (1995) study showed that the Korean graduate studentsdemonstrated more simplistic views about the nature of learning than mostof their American counterparts. They also tended to believe that knowledge iscertain. Also, many Korean graduate students placed more value on students’innate ability to learn than American students did. Mori (1997), in an explor-atory factor analytical study of epistemological beliefs of learners of Japa-nese, employing Schommer’s 63-item questionnaire, identified four differentfactors accounting for 13% variance. The four factors identified were con-cerned with beliefs in Quick Learning, Effort is a Waste, Certain Knowledge,and Truth. These four factors differ from those reported by Schommer


TABLE 1Schommer’s (1990) Hypothesized Epistemological Dimensionsa

1. Source of knowledge: From knowledge is handed down by omniscient authority toknowledge is reasoned out through objective and subjective means. (Omniscient Author-ity)

2. Certainty of knowledge: From knowledge is absolute to knowledge is constantly evolv-ing. (Certain Knowledge)

3. Organization of knowledge: From knowledge is compartmentalized to knowledge ishighly integrated and interwoven. (Simple Knowledge)

4. Control of learning: From ability to learn is genetically predetermined to ability tolearn is acquired through experience. (Fixed Ability)

5. Speed of learning: From learning is quick or not-at-all to learning is a gradual process.(Quick Learning)

a Schommer has recently refined and elaborated on her conceptualization of epistemologicalbelief (Schommer, 1994a). She suggests that personal epistemological dimensions may bepictured as frequency distributions rather than as a single point along a continuum in orderto capture the complexity of beliefs. Research is underway to test this refined conceptualizationof epistemological beliefs.

(1990). This difference was possibly due to the fact that Schommer usedprior subsets of belief dimensions as original variables while Mori used indi-vidual items as original variable.

All these results (Arredondo & Rucinski, 1996; Lee, 1995; Mori, 1997)cast doubt on the general applicability of Schommer’s epistemological ques-tionnaire for use with Chilean teachers, Korean graduate students, and Japa-nese learners; perhaps due to a cultural bias. It is not unreasonable to alsodoubt the applicability of the questionnaire in a Chinese cultural context suchas Hong Kong. Hong Kong is unique in having been exposed to both Chineseand Western cultural influence. Research associated with other psychologicalconstructs, such as self-concept and study approaches, has also illustratedthe influences of cultural values in different contexts, e.g., individualism inWestern culture and collectivism in Asian or Chinese culture (Bond, 1996).Therefore, the first step in the study of epistemological beliefs in culturesother than North America (in this case, Hong Kong Chinese culture) shouldinvolve a validation of Schommer’s epistemological questionnaire. If differ-ences between North American results and the other context are found, ex-planations in terms of cultural differences can be explored.

OBJECTIVES

The research reported in this paper explores the epistemological beliefsheld by Hong Kong teacher education students. Specifically, the followingquestions are addressed.


1. What are the epistemological beliefs held by Hong Kong teachereducation students?

2. Is there any significant difference in epistemological beliefs of theteacher education students in terms of age, electives studied, and courses?

3. How do these results compare with findings from studies involvingNorth America university or college students?

4. How can identified differences be accounted for?The study is significant in that it helps to clean up the ‘‘mess’’ associated

with research into teachers’ beliefs (Pajares, 1992). The research addressessome of the theoretical and methodological issues for research on episte-mological beliefs raised by Hofer and Pintrich (1997). These authors identifynine such issues. They include the general definition of the construct, concep-tual clarity about the elements or dimensions that constitute individual episte-mological theories or beliefs, the possible relationship of epistemologicalbeliefs with other aspects of cognitive development, such as age, and educa-tion.

METHOD

The study adopts a mixed method approach (Greene, Caracelli, & Graham, 1989) in whicha quantitative study was complemented by qualitative data gained from interviews. For thequantitative study, 385 teacher education students of the Hong Kong Institute of Educationwere asked to complete a questionnaire based around Schommer’s 63-item epistemologicalbeliefs questionnaire. The questionnaire used in this study consisted of two parts. The firstpart sought demographic data of the participants while the second part elicited responses toquestions designed to tap the epistemological beliefs of participants using a Likert five-pointscale. Details of developing the questionnaire are reported elsewhere (Chan & Elliott, 1998)and briefly noted below. For the qualitative study, 23 students from the quantitative studywere invited to attend interviews on a voluntary basis. The interviews enabled the authors toacquire a fuller understanding of the students’ beliefs about the nature, source of knowledge,and knowing or learning.

The participants in the quantitative study were drawn from the Certificate in Education (CE)course. There are two streams in this course, an English and a Chinese stream. The age ofthe students ranged from 20 to 40. Many of them were around 21 and 22 and only very fewwere below 20 or above 30. Of those who indicated their gender, 115 were male and 263 werefemale students (in the ratio of 30 to 70%, respectively). This proportion was approximately thesame as that of male to female (about 1:2.8) in the Institute. The CE course is a 2-year full-time subdegree course designed to educate nongraduate teachers for primary (Primary 1 to6) and junior secondary (Secondary 1 to 3) school teaching. Students admitted to the 2-yearfull-time CE course have to possess at least two Advanced Level (‘‘A’’ level) subject passes,the normal entrance requirement to universities in Hong Kong. Therefore, the students ofCE courses are roughly equivalent to university undergraduates and were comparable to theuniversity or college students used in research by Schommer (1990) and Jehng et al. (1993).The English and Chinese streams of the CE course basically are the same, in terms of admissionrequirement and curriculum. Differences exist with respect to the lecturers or instructors andthe medium of instruction. Some native English speakers are employed as lecturers for theEnglish course and these students are expected to teach in English during their teaching prac-tice.


MATERIALS

Quantitative Study

The instrument for this study was adapted from Schommer’s 63-item epistemological beliefsquestionnaire through iterative processes of factor analysis, item identification, and modifica-tion.

Initially, it was intended that Schommer’s (1990) 63-item questionnaire would be used forthe study because she reported consistent findings with her American samples (Schommer,1990, 1993a, 1993b). However, as Marsh (1981) has emphasized, there are dangers in assum-ing that instruments developed in one setting can be used effectively in new settings withoutfirst testing their applicability (Marsh, Hau, Chung, & Siu, 1998). To reduce misunderstandingdue to language, Schommer’s questionnaire was translated into Chinese by the first author.Comments were sought from two educational psychology lecturers in the Hong Kong Instituteof Education to check whether the Chinese version was appropriate and matched the Englishversion in meaning. Using such feedback, the items were revised to make them readily under-stood and convey the same meaning as the original version.

Thus, Schommer’s 63-item questionnaire, in both English and Chinese, constituted the firstversion of the epistemological beliefs questionnaire used in this study. The questionnaire wasthen administered and Schommer’s 12 hypothetical–conceptual subscales were used as vari-ables for principal axis factor analysis, followed by varimax and oblimin rotation. This wasthe same analytical procedure adopted by Schommer in her analysis. The oblimin rotationproduced no clearer factor pattern structure than the varimax (orthogonal) rotation (see Tables2 and 3). With an eigenvalue of 1 as the cut-off and a scree plot test, three factors (cumulativepercentage of the variance, 46.5%) were extracted instead of the five proposed in Schommer’stheoretical framework. A fourth factor with an eigenvalue of .98, similar to one reported inSchommer’s studies (1993a, 1993b), was also noted. In both cases, subscales for ‘‘Can’t learnhow to learn,’’ ‘‘Success is unrelated to hard work,’’ and ‘‘Learn first time’’ loaded on Factor1 with loading values greater than .4. Subscales for ‘‘Ability to learn is innate’’ and ‘‘Avoidambiguities’’ loaded together. Similarly, subscales ‘‘Don’t criticize authority’’ and ‘‘Knowl-edge is certain’’ loaded on the same factor with high loading values. Loading values greaterthan .4 are in bold type and italicized in Tables 2 and 3. Thus, Schommer’s factor structure

TABLE 2Loading for Three Factors with Eigenvalues Greater Than 1.00 as Cut-off (PAF: Varimax

Rotated Factor Matrix) in Descending Order

Schommer’s 12 conceptual subscales Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

Can’t learn how to learn .69 .21 2.36Success is unrelated to hard work .61 .10 .03Learn first time .41 .12 .17Avoid integration .35 .26 .13Concentrated effort is a waste of time .32 .02 .01Don’t criticize authority .11 .80 .08Knowledge is certain .09 .43 .09Learning is quick .23 .40 .23Ability to learn is innate .16 .09 .61Avoid ambiguities .01 .06 .48Seek single answers 2.29 .19 .35Depend on authority .02 .23 .31


TABLE 3Loading for Three Factors with Eigenvalues Greater than 1.00 as Cut-off (PAF: Oblimin

Rotated Factor Matrix) in Descending Order

Schommer’s 12 conceptual subscales Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

Can’t learn how to learn .69 2.40Success is unrelated to hard work .61 — —Learn first time .41 .17 —Seek single answers 2.33 .31 2.19Concentrated effort is a waste of time .32 — —Avoid integration .32 — 2.21Ability to learn is innate .15 .63 —Avoid ambiguities — .49 —Depend on authority — .27 2.20Don’t criticize authority — 2.11 2.86Knowledge is certain — — 2.44Learning is quick .18 .16 2.37

was not replicated in the Hong Kong sample when her 12 conceptual subscales were used asthe basis of analysis. An interitem reliability check of the 12 conceptual subscales yieldedlow to moderate Cronbach alpha values, ranging from .1 to .58. These data cast doubt on thereliability and validity of the scale and also on the general applicability of Schommer’s 63-itemquestionnaire across cultural groups (in this case, the Hong Kong (Chinese) teacher educationstudents).

Given this doubt, the original responses to the 63 items (i.e., not using the collapsed 12subscales) were factorized to see if they loaded on the 12 subscales as hypothesized by Schom-mer. The 63 items did not load on Schommer’s hypothesized 12 subscales and hence theauthors decided to abandon Schommer’s 12 conceptual subscales and develop a specific instru-ment suitable for use in this study based on an adaptation and modification of the 63-itemquestionnaire.

Development of Epistemological Beliefs Instrument

Based on the suggested procedures of Burnett and Dart (1997), Comrey and Lee (1992),Fanshawe and Burnett (1991), and Stevens (1996), those items which loaded on the factorsin the above study were identified as a starting point. It is interesting to note at this pointthat three items loading onto a factor representing Omniscient Authority were identified—animportant contrast to findings by Schommer. Further items were written and included in anewly developed questionnaire, with the intention to improve the alpha values of the subscales.The target number of items for a fully developed new scale was around 30 to 40 to cover thedimensions as well as avoid a lengthy questionnaire, which might cause the respondents tolose motivation for completion.

To prepare these extra items for the revised instrument, several principles were considered.First, the items should be evenly distributed within the subscales. The distribution of itemsin the subscales also followed the suggestion given by Burnett and Dart (1997) that eachsubscale should contain at least four to five items of high loading value. Second, the itemstatements should be simple and short, to make them clear and meaningful. Third, the itemsshould carry appropriate face validity, that is, be able to tag the intended construct with noambiguities. Where possible, the item statements should be constructed in such a way thatthey measure directly the construct and dimension. Some negative items should be included


to check the response from items tapping the same dimension but written in an opposite man-ner; for example, ‘‘I believe in what the experts say’’ versus ‘‘Often, even advice from expertsshould be questioned.’’

The additional items were obtained from a number of sources. The first source consistedof a literature review of related studies. The second source was the actual identified 20 itemsthemselves, to identify how these items could be rephrased or changed to produce new ones.The third source was Schommer’s 63 items. These latter items were modified through reword-ing to render them more effective in tapping the dimension. To ensure high validity, twoChinese lecturers teaching educational psychology were also invited to comment on the clarityof the scale in terms of the language and meaning, as well as whether the items were measuringthe constructs that were intended.

A total number of 45 items were written in the revised questionnaire. Six students wereinvited to attempt the questionnaire and expressed their viewpoints as to whether the itemswere clear and made sense to them. Accordingly, items were revised and reworded and eventu-ally a questionnaire of 45 items was prepared using a Likert five-point scale. This was adminis-tered to 385 teacher education students and the data were factor analyzed, using principal axisfactoring followed by oblimin rotation.

The process resulted in a scale of 30 items and this was subject to confirmatory factoranalysis with LISREL8 (Byrne, 1989; Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993; Schumacker & Lomax,1996) indicating a good fit model (GFI 5 .93, AGFI 5 .90, RMSEA 5 .058). The 30 itemsloaded on four factors, constituting four subscales with Cronbach alpha values ranging from.60 to .70. Thus, the data indicate this questionnaire was more reliable than the Schommer’sinstrument and that reported by Jehng et al. (1993).

Qualitative Study

Questions and schedules for interviews were developed to collect qualitative data to supportand clarify the information extracted from the questionnaire. Respondents were interviewedafter they completed the questionnaire. A brief introduction of the interview was given toensure the interviewees understood the purpose of the activity and the questions to be asked.Field notes were taken and each interviewee was invited to provide a written commentary onthe questions. The written messages were checked against the field notes to maintain authentic-ity and reliability.

The interview focused on the source and nature of knowledge and the essential process ofacquiring knowledge. Semistructured questions were used to allow the interviewees to providea free and open response. Very often, they were asked to explain why they held such a beliefand to elaborate what they said with examples. These strategies were used to clarify anyconfusion and misunderstanding of the answers. The following examples illustrate the ques-tions asked.

Source of Inquiry QuestionsSource of Knowledge Do you believe, without doubt, the knowl-

edge taught by the teacher? Why?Do you agree that the content of textbooksis in general correct and highly believable?Why do you have such a belief? Do youthink textbooks are written by authorities/experts?

Nature of Knowledge Do you believe that knowledge is definitelyunchanged or changes with time? Whatcauses you to have such a belief? Is thereany evidence to support your belief?


Elements in acquiring knowledge Which of the following are the deciding fac-tors in obtaining knowledge? inborn/innateability, effort, understanding, learning methodand strategy.Based on a rank order of importance, whichis the most important one? List the rank or-der of other factors.

DATA ANALYSIS

Quantitative Study

MANOVA was applied to investigate the relationship between epistemological beliefs andgender, age, electives studied, and course type (English or Chinese). A confidence level of.01 level was adopted to reduce Type I error. For the analysis of age, the sample was dividedinto four groups in an interval of 5 years of age. The electives studied were divided into fivegroups according to the subject classification adopted by the Hong Kong Institute of Education:(1) Business and technology, (2) cultural subjects, (3) language subjects, (4) mathematics andscience, and (5) social subjects.

Qualitative Study

Content analysis was applied to the qualitative data obtained from interviews. Responsesassociated with the three areas of inquiry viz. source of knowledge, nature of knowledge, andelements of acquiring knowledge were categorized, grouped, and tallied.

RESULTS

Dimensions of Epistemological Beliefs

The factor analysis of the questionnaire responses resulted in 30 items(loading value greater than .3) which loaded on four factors (see Table 4).Based on the nature of the loaded items, these four factors were labeledFixed/Innate Ability, Authority/Expert Knowledge, Certainty Knowledge,and Learning Effort/Process.

The four factors represent four epistemological belief dimensions held byHong Kong teacher education students and constitute four subscales. Usingsubscale values, each student can be represented on each of the four dimen-sions. For a given dimension student can be placed on a continuum rangingfrom a naıve view at one polarity to a sophisticated view at the other.

In these four dimensions students vary along a continuum with polarities.For example, students’ beliefs about Fixed/Innate Ability can be representedon a scale where one’s ability is inborn and fixed at one end (higher end) andone’s ability is not innate and changeable at the other (lower end). Authority/Expert Knowledge ranges from students’ believing that the source of knowl-edge is handed down by experts and authority at one end (higher end) toknowledge being derived from one’s experience and judgment at the other(lower end). Certainty Knowledge relates to the nature of knowledge. Thisdimension ranges from a belief that knowledge is certain, unambiguous, and


TABLE 4Extraction of Four Factors from the Epistemological Beliefs Questionnaire UsingExploratory Factor Analysis (Pattern Matrix: Oblimin Rotation with Eigenvalue

Greater than 1.00 as Cut-off )

Question item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4

A40 There isn’t much you can do to make .55 2.10 .11 .03yourself smarter as your ability is fixedat birth

A31 Our abilities to learn are fixed at birth .54 2.15 .18 2.01A15 One’s innate ability limits what one .48 .08 2.02 .08

can learnA10 Some people are born good learners, .47 2.01 2.15 2.11

others are just stuck with limited abilityA30 Some children are born incapable of .46 .05 2.12 .13

learning well in certain subjectsA5 The ability to learn is innate/inborn .44 .09 2.14 2.06A25 Students who begin school with ‘‘aver- .44 2.08 .17 .01

age’’ ability remain ‘‘average’’ through-out school

A20 The really smart students don’t have .42 2.08 2.13 2.06to work hard to do well in school

A21 People who challenge authority’s .21 2.08 .18 2.14knowledge are over-confident

A6 You can believe most things you read .16 .11 .12 2.15in textbooks written by famous scholarsas they are usually subject experts

A32 Nothing is certain and absolute .10 2.05 .04 2.01A13 If people can’t understand something 2.06 .54 .03 .02

right away, they should keep on tryingA29 Knowing how to learn is more impor- 2.02 .48 2.05 .13

tant than the acquired factsA28 One learns little if one does not work .06 .41 .01 .06

hardA42 Understanding course materials and .02 .40 2.02 .12

thinking process are more important thanacquiring knowledge/facts

A9 Everyone needs to learn how to learn 2.02 .38 2.07 2.06A24 People will learn better if they focus 2.03 .35 2.05 .05

more on the process of understandingrather than the facts to be acquired

A8 Learning something really well takes a .04 .33 2.07 2.08long time or much effort

A23 How much you get from your learning 2.09 .33 .03 2.13depends mostly on your effort

A3 Getting ahead takes a lot of work 2.00 .33 .17 2.05A34 If one tires hard enough, then one will 2.09 .32 .01 2.25

understand the course materialA19 Wisdom is not knowing the answers, 2.10 .32 2.17 2.01

but knowing how to find the answers


TABLE 4—Continued

Question item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4

A37 Most problems have one best solution .14 .30 .11 2.15no matter how difficult they area

A14 If people find the time to re-read a 2.00 .29 .00 .02textbook chapter, they will learn newthings the second time

A4 The most successful learners have dis- .12 .22 .02 2.17covered how to learn

A1 Sometimes, I don’t believe the facts in 2.08 2.04 .51 2.09textbooks written by authorities

A11 Even advice from experts should often .01 2.23 .49 .02be questioned

A16 I often wonder how much experts 2.04 .07 .39 .05really know

A7 Knowledge is tentative and uncertain, 2.12 .01 .38 .13because it is always changinga

A38 I am very aware that teachers/lecturers .29 .07 .33 2.12know a lot more than I do and so I agreewith what they say is important ratherthan rely on my own judgment

A45 I still believe in what the experts say .14 .13 .31 2.16even though it differs from what I know

A26 I have no doubts in whatever the .21 2.11 .30 2.26experts say

A17 Scientists will ultimately get to the 2.15 2.01 2.14 2.72truth if they keep searching for it

A2 If scientists try hard enough, they can .01 2.02 2.09 2.56find the truth to almost anything

A18 Any one can figure out difficult con- 2.10 .21 .05 2.43cepts if one works hard enough

A12 I believe there should exist a teaching .10 2.07 .03 2.40method applicable to all learning situa-tions

A22 Scientific knowledge is certain and .18 2.09 .19 2.35does not change

A27 There is a definite answer to every pro- .25 2.13 .12 2.28blem

Note. Factor 1: Innate/fixed ability, α 5 .69. Factor 2: Learning effort/process, α 5 .66.Factor 3: Authority/expert knowledge, α 5 .60. Factor 4: Certainty knowledge, α 5 .60.

a Item A7 appeared to be odd-man out and was removed from the group items in finalizingthe subscale Authority/Expert Knowledge and to improve interitem reliability. The same alsohappened to item A37, which was removed in finalizing the subscale Learning Effort/Process.


unchanged (upper end) to a belief that knowledge is tentative and ever chang-ing (lower end). Learning Effort/Process can be represented by the beliefthat knowledge acquisition requires effort and that learning processes aremore important than the acquired facts at one end (upper end) and that learn-ing needs little effort and acquired facts are more important at the other(lower end).

Mean subscale scores across the sample were used to develop a profileof beliefs in the sample for each of the four dimensions. For the dimensionor subscale Innate/Fixed Ability, the mean score was 2.82 (SD 5 .49). Theresult suggests that many of the students are uncertain in their beliefs aboutwhether ability is innate or fixed. This is also evidenced by the modal valueof 3. It is also interesting to note that more students tend to believe thatlearning ability is changeable (56.4%) than those who believe ability is innateand fixed (31.4%). Thus, while only a very small number of students appearto hold beliefs corresponding to the extremes of the scale, students are mildlydispersed toward the lower end. That is, Hong Kong teacher education stu-dents tended to disagree that learning ability is innate. Instead, there is atendency for the students to believe that learning ability is acquired andchangeable. Also, there is a fairly large range of beliefs represented by therespondents’ responses, from a maximum of 4.38 to a minimum of 1.13. Inother words, while some student teachers tended to believe in innate or fixedability, more student teachers tended to disagree.

For the dimension or subscale of Learning Effort/Process, the mean scoreis 3.92 (SD 5 .35) which is close to 4 on the five-point scale. The positionof the mean subscale score at the higher end of the five-point scale impliesthat teacher education students tended to believe that knowledge is createdthrough learning effort and process. A mode of 4.00 might be taken as addi-tional support for this interpretation.

As for the dimension or subscale Authority/Expert Knowledge, the meanscore was 2.62 (SD 5 .47). This suggests that there is a tendency amongthe students to believe that knowledge is created from personal experiencerather than being handed down from authority figures. A large proportionof students (74.5%) disagreed with the items representing Authority/ExpertKnowledge, casting doubt on the belief that knowledge comes from authorityfigures or experts.

The situation is similar to that for the dimension or subscale CertaintyKnowledge in that the mean score was also 2.62 (SD 5 .56), positioned at thelower end of the five-point scale. Using the same principle of interpretationarticulated above, it may be inferred that while a number of the teacher edu-cation students were uncertain about whether knowledge is fixed and certain,they tended to believe that knowledge is tentative and ever changing.

On the whole, the students under study appeared to believe that learningis a process requiring effort, understanding, and judgment, the result of which


is knowledge construction. Such knowledge is not derived entirely from au-thority figures or limited by innate abilities. Further, they tend to believethat knowledge is tentative and changing instead of being permanent. Suchconclusions can be inferred from the relative position of the mean scores ofthe four dimensions or subscales identified in the questionnaire. Interviewdata from the 23 students about the source and nature of knowledge andprocesses in knowledge acquisition provided similar findings to the quantita-tive data. The data, however, provided a greater depth of understanding ofthese issues. One point of note here is that some of the interviewees’ re-sponses were, at times, inconsistent and occasionally contradictory. Suchinconsistency might account for lower reliability and Cronbach alpha valuesreported in some of the subscales, especially that related to Certainty Knowl-edge.

Referring to the source of knowledge, the majority of the students inter-viewed (over 62%) did not completely believe in what their teachers taught.They reported that teachers do not know everything and are likely to makemistakes. In some students’ minds, teachers were not to be regarded as au-thority figures of knowledge. Students also cast doubt on the content of text-books as they indicated that mistakes could be found in such texts.

Nevertheless, some students unfailingly believed in textbooks becausethey considered the content edited and proofread. In addition, if the textbookswere written by authorities and experts, they argued such books were of highcredibility. However, many students still insisted on the need for thinkingabout and reflecting on the content of textbooks—whether written by author-ities and experts or not. This implies that the students did not rely entirelyon authorities and experts as the source of knowledge. Instead, they pointedout the importance of individual judgment through thinking and analysis.

When questioned about how knowledge was acquired, many intervieweespointed to learner processes of thinking, questioning, and analyzing, apartfrom processes of transmission by the teacher. In other words, the studentsreported that they obtained their knowledge not simply through transmissionby the teacher, but also through personal reading, thinking, and analysis.Many were not mere passive recipients of knowledge and do not rely entirelyon teacher, textbooks, and authorities and experts as the source of knowl-edge. Of all the interviewees, only a few of them (about 19%) believed inthe word of authority and experts even when they considered such expertsto be more knowledgeable than themselves. The overall pattern seems to beone of depending on their own thinking and analysis of what was providedby teachers, textbooks, and authorities. This conclusion supported the find-ings from the questionnaire where the mean score of the dimension (sub-scale) Authority/Expert Knowledge was below 3 (the midpoint of the scale).Some interviewees indicated a higher level of credibility toward textbook


content written by authorities and experts, but they also indicated the needfor thinking about and analyzing such content.

With respect to the nature of knowledge, the majority of interviewees(about 73%) considered knowledge to be tentative and changing with time.A typical comment was that ‘‘scientific and technological knowledgechanges with time as new discoveries are made.’’ Other interviewees, how-ever, were not so certain. They considered some knowledge as permanentand other knowledge tentative. For example, ‘‘the sun rises from the east’’could be regarded as permanent while knowledge about ‘‘information tech-nology’’ is tentative and changes with time. While some interviewees consid-ered truth to be everlasting and absolute, there were queries raised about‘‘What is truth?’’ and whether truth is everlasting and permanent.

Over 72% of interviewees believed that nothing is absolute. Some claimedthat knowledge consists of two types (a) absolute, unchanged and (b) tenta-tive. Others thought knowledge to be partly permanent and partly tentative,depending on the situation and the type of knowledge. These mixed view-points reflect the difficulty students had in considering the permanent or ten-tative nature of knowledge and points to the difficulty of attempting to inves-tigate beliefs through the use of scales exclusively. This may also accountfor some of the inconsistent or contradictory responses noted in the responsesto the epistemological belief questionnaire concerning the permanent andtentative nature of knowledge.

As to whether knowledge is simple or complex, varied responses wereagain noted. A total of 41% of the interviewees considered knowledge to becomplex, 35% thought it was simple, and 24% considered knowledge tobe both complex and simple. This also explains the difficulty of tappingthe simple versus complex and tentative versus permanent dimensions ofknowledge through a questionnaire survey. While some students consideredknowledge to consist of isolated facts, many believed that the process ofintegration, organization, and understanding is essential in creating knowl-edge. Inevitably, these mixed and contradictory beliefs reduce the internalconsistency or reliability of the subscales in measuring the certain and com-plex nature of knowledge.

As for the elements involved in acquiring knowledge, interviewees wereasked to list the essential factors or components in rank order. Some consid-ered personal processes to be the most important element. Others took inbornability to be the most important and there were those who considered effortto be the most significant. A few thought that a learning strategy was themost important element while only one thought that all these factors wereimportant. Of the varied responses given, most tended to believe that effortor hard work was the most important (consistent with the traditional beliefsof Chinese culture), and fewer believed that ability was fixed at birth and


could not change. Students tended to believe that ability could be changed,learning and effort being the most frequent process of change. Friends,schools, education, and nurture were also thought to be factors innate abilitycould change.

Thus, over 86% of the students in the interview believed that learninghow to learn was very important. Some admitted that their beliefs aboutwhether ability is innate influences their attitude and method of learning. Alarge proportion of students believed in the changing nature of ability andthe importance of learning effort and process. This result might explain therelatively higher reliability coefficient (Cronbach alpha) for the subscale–dimension ‘‘Innate/Fixed Ability’’ and ‘‘Learning Effort/Process’’ in thequestionnaire.

In summary, factor analysis identified four epistemological belief dimen-sions held by Hong Kong teacher education students. The mean subscalescores across the sample provide a profile of beliefs in the sample for eachof the four dimensions. Interview data indicate the complexity of some ofthe belief dimensions, in particular, the permanent versus tentative nature ofknowledge, and accounts for some of the inconsistent questionnaire re-sponses. Thus complementary usage of interview data would help the ques-tionnaire survey resolve the problem of better understanding the nature ofepistemological beliefs.

As for the relationship of epistemological beliefs and demographic vari-ables such as age, gender, electives, and courses, they were obtained by sub-jecting the questionnaire responses to MANOVA analysis, and the resultsare shown in the next section.

Epistemological Beliefs, Age, Gender, Electives, and Courses

The MANOVA analysis indicated no significant difference in epistemo-logical beliefs held by the Hong Kong teacher education students in termsof their age (Wilks 5 .962, F(12, 955) 5 1.18, p . .01), gender (Wilks 5.988, F(4, 372) 5 1.08, p . .01), and the electives studied (Wilks 5 .932,F(16, 1115) 5 1.64, p . .01 for electives 1 and Wilks 5 .970, F(16, 1115) 5.70, p . .01 for electives 2). However, there were significant differences inthe beliefs held by students of the English and the Chinese courses (Wilks 5.955, F(4, 378) 5 4.43, **p , .01) (see Table 5). Univariate F-tests indi-cated significant statistical differences lie in the dimensions of Innate/FixedAbility (F 5 10.51; Sig. of F, .001**) and Authority/Expert Authority (F 57.68, Sig. of F, .006**) (see Tables 6 and 7).

It appeared that more students in the Chinese course (than in the Englishcourse) disagreed with the items that ability is innate. This is reflected inthe mean of the Innate/Fixed Ability subscale scores (Chinese course 2.77versus English course 2.91). A similar result was found with the dimensionAuthority/Expert Knowledge. It seems that more students in the Chinese


TABLE 5Univariate F-tests Study of the Four Epistemological Beliefs Dimensions/Subscales

across the Chinese and English Course

Hypo. Error Hypo Error Sig. ofVariable SS SS MS MS F F

Innate/Fixed Ability 7.32 265.12 7.32 0.69 10.51 0.001**Learning Effort/Process 4.01 255.55 4.01 0.67 5.97 0.015*Authority/Expert Knowledge 4.96 245.93 4.96 0.65 7.68 0.006**Certainty Knowledge 0.16 258.85 0.16 0.68 0.23 0.631

* p , .05.** p , .01.

TABLE 6Statistical Description of the Epistemological Beliefs Dimension: Innate/Fixed Abilityacross the Chinese and English Courses of Hong Kong Teacher Education Students

Chinese course (N 5 246) English course (N 5 139)

Mean 2.77 S.E. mean 0.03 Mean 2.91 S.E. mean 0.04Std. dev. 0.51 Variance 0.26 Std. dev. 0.44 Variance 0.19Kurtosis 0.03 S.E. kurt 0.31 Kurtosis 0.53 S.E. kurt 0.41Skewness 20.05 S.E. skew 0.16 Skewness 20.17 S.E. skew 0.21Range 2.88 Minimum 1.13 Range 2.75 Minimum 1.63Maximum 4.00 Maximum 4.38

TABLE 7Statistical Description of the Epistemological Beliefs Dimension: Authority/Expert

Knowledge across the Chinese and English Course of Hong KongTeacher Education Students

Chinese course (N 5 246) English course (N 5 138)

Mean 2.57 S.E. mean 0.03 Mean 2.71 S.E. mean 0.04Std. dev. 0.47 Variance 0.22 Std. dev. 0.47 Variance 0.22Kurtosis 0.06 S.E. kurt 0.31 Kurtosis 1.85 S.E. kurt 0.41Skewness 20.05 S.E. skew 0.16 Skewness 0.86 S.E. skew 0.21Range 2.83 Minimum 1.00 Range 3.00 Minimum 1.67Maximum 3.83 Maximum 4.67

course than in the English course disagreed with the belief items. This con-clusion is supported by the minimum, maximum, and mean values of thetwo groups. Students of the Chinese course, to a somewhat greater extentthan those of the English course, seemed to believe that knowledge is con-structed from one’s personal experience and judgment. A two-tail signifi-cance t-test for Innate/Fixed Ability and Authority/Expert Knowledge indi-cated a significant difference between the two student groups (p , .01).


CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

Concerning epistemological beliefs, the use of Schommer’s 63-item epis-temological beliefs questionnaire is problematic in the Hong Kong context.However, the identification of four epistemological belief dimensions in thisstudy tends to support Schommer’s hypothetical framework of a multidimen-sional system of more or less independent epistemological beliefs. However,the specific dimensions found by Schommer have not been able to be entirelyreplicated in this study.

The four extracted factors in this study represent four epistemological be-lief dimensions held by Hong Kong teacher education students. The dimen-sions were labeled as Innate/Fixed Ability, Authority/Expert Knowledge,Certainty Knowledge, and Learning Effort/Process. These dimensions aresimilar in number but different in nature to those reported by Schommer. Ingeneral it may be concluded that care needs to be exercised in applyingSchommer’s questionnaire in another cultural contexts.

The conclusions that Hong Kong teacher education students tend to be-lieve in knowledge acquisition through effort and process and that ability ischangeable and malleable through effort need to be interpreted in terms ofthe traditional Chinese Confucian-heritage culture. In such a culture muchvalue is placed on diligence, working hard, and effort. Effort is seen to bevery important for vertical mobility and acquired status in traditional Chinesesocieties. These points are supported by many attribution studies on Chinesestudents. Chinese people are keen about self-improvement rather than outper-forming others, and they attribute their performance more to effort than toability. Related to this, Chinese teachers, parents, and students believe abilityto be modified by effort (Chen, Lee, & Stevenson, 1996; Hau & Salili, 1996).Students are also aware of the advantages gained through appropriate studyapproaches and processes, coupled with effort. This may explain why theteacher education students in this study regard the learning process and effortas significant. The close association of the two elements, learning effort andprocess, might again have its origins in a strong Chinese belief in the powerof hard work. Chinese parents strongly emphasize to their children that ifone works hard, one will slowly build up one’s interest and study skills(Hau & Salili, 1996). However, these Hong Kong teacher education studentstended not to believe in Authority/Expert Knowledge and Certainty Knowl-edge. This may appear strange to Westerners if they consider Chinese stu-dents to abide authority and to be unquestioningly obedient, relying onrote methods of learning, involving memorization and surface approachesto learning (Watkins & Biggs, 1996). The difference between expectationand empirical results may be possibly accounted for by the fact that theConfucianism-heritage culture in Hong Kong has been weakened by Westernthoughts, philosophy, and experiences encountered by the students. Hong


Kong is a unique context, under the British rule for a long time and beingsimultaneously exposed to both Chinese and Western cultures. It is a com-mon belief that contemporary children in Hong Kong resent strict and author-itarian parenting and seek independence and freedom from parental control.The persistence of a traditional Chinese culture and philosophy against theinteracting Western philosophy and thought might account for the relativelylarge range (minimum 1.00, maximum 4.67) of beliefs related to Authority/Expert Knowledge in this study.

The finding that Hong Kong teacher education students tended not to be-lieve in Certainty Knowledge was in line with previous studies conductedby other researchers such as Perry (1968), Ryan (1984), and Schommer(1990, 1993a, 1993b). Younger students usually hold naıve beliefs about thenature of knowledge, believing that knowledge is certain and unambiguous.As they grow older, they start to adopt a more sophisticated viewpoint aboutknowledge and believe knowledge is changing and tentative. Some studentsin this study were probably in a transitional stage of development of episte-mological beliefs while others had already passed through the naıve stage.Instead of strongly believing in the certainty and unchangeable nature ofknowledge these latter students may be aware of the tentative nature anduncertainty of what they had learned. No significant statistical relationshipbetween age, gender, or fields of study and epistemological beliefs werefound in the MANOVA study. There was a significant statistical differ-ence in epistemological beliefs held by students in the Chinese and Englishcourses. The students in the Chinese course tended to disagree more withthe belief in Innate/Fixed Ability and Authority/Expert Knowledge than stu-dents in the English course. Again, this is a somewhat unexpected result ifone attempts to interpret the findings simply based on the traditional Chineseculture. Perhaps it was due to different entering beliefs of the students ordifferent exposure and types of interaction in the two courses. Students in theEnglish course were frequently taught by expatriate lecturers from Westerncountries and usually students who entered the English course had betterresults in the public examination. Consequently, students in the Englishcourse might believe more in Innate/Fixed Ability while students in the Chi-nese course might believe more in learning effort. Also, English had beenconsidered an essential language in Hong Kong and an important conditionfor social mobility in the past. Subsequently, students might consider theexpatriate lecturers from the Western countries to be more authoritative fig-ures and an important source of knowledge.

Before considering pedagogical implications and future research possibili-ties flowing from this study, it is important to reflect on the specific out-comes. While this study may be seen as successful in deriving a global pic-ture of beliefs, doubt remains that the understandings are at a surface level.Using a quantitative approach, the multidimensional system of epistemologi-


cal beliefs as hypothesized by Schommer (1990) has been confirmed in theHong Kong context. The number of dimensions existing within the beliefsystem and the relatively independent nature of the beliefs are still controver-sial and subject to further clarification. This finding illustrates well the com-plexity of beliefs and belief systems and also illustrates the difficulty of fullyunderstanding such beliefs by using a quantitative approach alone. It appearsthat in-depth interview studies to complement the quantitative data providebetter understandings. An important outcome of the study is that new knowl-edge about the belief dimensions has been generated. Such knowledge issignificant given that literature on epistemological beliefs is limited and de-veloping.

IMPLICATIONS

The fact that findings of North American students (e.g., Schommer, 1990)have not been replicated in this study implies that culture is an importantvariable in the study of epistemological beliefs. Caution must be exercisedif applying epistemological hypotheses and instruments which were devel-oped in different contexts. Modification of these seems necessary before con-sidering their relevance in a different context. As well, educational environ-ments and academic practices, irrespective of students’ gender and fields ofstudy, seem to be influential factors in shaping and developing one’s episte-mological beliefs. While epistemological beliefs may be related to meta-cognitive activities, it is also likely that they bear some relation to the cogni-tive processes of learning how to teach. Teacher educators, therefore, canhelp their students to clarify their personal theories about teaching and learn-ing through discussion and analysis about what they believe concerningknowledge acquisition. That is, epistemological beliefs may have a signifi-cant role to play in learning to teach. Insofar as selecting students to becometeachers, teacher education institutions can explore applicants’ epistemologi-cal beliefs in the admission processes. The fact that students recognize thatability is changeable through effort points to the significance of reflectivethinking in learning to teach. Through such a process, teacher education stu-dents may be motivated to take a more positive attitude and an appropriatestudy approach toward their learning and teaching practice in schools.

With respect to beliefs research, the epistemological beliefs instrumentdeveloped in this study is a further refinement of prior instruments. Althoughthe psychometric properties of the developed epistemological beliefs ques-tionnaire have been found satisfactory for this study, the instrument shouldbe considered as a base for future development and research.

Similar studies of epistemological beliefs with samples from a range ofcountries would assist in clarifying the significance of cultural determinants.As an extension of this research, the interaction effect of particular vari-ables, such as age, gender, and fields of study on epistemological beliefs,


may be investigated with much larger samples. Moreover, longitudinal andcross-sectional studies of teacher education students’ epistemological beliefswould provide an interesting area of inquiry to address questions of stabilityand the significance of particular variables at different times. Comparativestudies of preservice and in-service student teachers in different courses (e.g.,primary versus secondary level) would also provide an understanding of theinfluence of entry characteristics, maturity and teaching experiences, and theimpact of teacher education experiences and program effect on beliefschanges.

Epistemological beliefs are linked to many meta-cognitive strategies. Thusit would be important to study the relationships between epistemologi-cal beliefs and personal or implicit theories about teaching and learning.Through such studies, better understandings of teacher education students’beliefs about teaching and learning, choices of study approaches and theinfluence of their epistemological beliefs on their implicit and personal theo-ries, and learning approaches could result. In turn, the findings would enableteacher educators to provide better guidance about learning to teach andstudy approaches and strategies.

REFERENCES

Arredondo, D. E., & Rucinski, T. T. (1996, Nov.). Epistemological beliefs of Chilean educa-tors and school reform efforts, Paper presented at the Tercer Encuentro National de En-foques Actuales on education Pontificia Universidad Catohea Chile Santiago de Chile.ED 402673.

Bond, M. H. (1996). The handbook of Chinese psychology. Hong Kong: Oxford UniversityPress.

Burnett, P. C., & Dart, B. C. (1997). Conventional versus confirmatory factor analysis: meth-ods for validating the structure of existing scales. Journal of Research and Developmentin Education, 30(2), 126–132.

Byrne, B. M. (1989). A Primer of LISREL: Basic applications and programming for confirma-tory factor analytic models. Springer-Verlag, Berlin/New York.

Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: Beliefs and knowledge. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee(Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 709–725). New York: Macmillan.

Carter, K. (1990). Teachers’ knowledge and learning to teach. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Hand-book of research on teacher education (pp. 291–310). New York: Macmillan.

Chan, K. W., & Elliott, B. (1998, April). Hong Kong student teachers’ epistemological beliefs:Cross cultural implication. Paper presented at the International Teacher Education Con-ference at Shanghai, China.

Chen, C. S., Lee, S. Y., & Stevenson, H. W. (1996). Academic achievement and motivationof Chinese students: A cross-national perspective. In S. Lau (Ed.), Growing up the HongKong: Chinese way: Chinese child and adolescent development (pp. 69–91). ChineseUniversity of Hong Kong Press.

Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers’ thought process. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.),Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 255–296). New York: Macmillan.


Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational Research,38, 47–65.

Fanshawe, J. P., & Burnett, P. C. (1991). Assessing school-related stressors and coping mecha-nisms in adolescents. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 92–98.

Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework formixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 11, 255–274.

Hau, K. T., & Salili, F. (1996). Achievement goals and causal attributions of Chinese students.In S. Lau (Ed.), Growing up the Chinese way: Chinese child and adolescent development.Hong Kong: Chinese University of Hong Kong.

Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefsabout knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Re-search, 67, 88–140.

Jehng, J. J., Johnson, S. D., & Anderson, R. C. (1993). Schooling and students’ epistemologicalbeliefs about learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 23–35.

Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with theSIMPLIS command language. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kardash, C. A. M., & Scholes, R. J. (1996). Effects of pre-existing beliefs, epistemologicalbeliefs, and need for cognition on interpretation of controversial issues. Journal of Educa-tional Psychology, 88, 260–271.

King, P. M., Kitchener, K. S., Davison, M. L., Parker, C. A., & Wood, P. K. (1983). Thejustification of beliefs in young adults: A longitudinal study. Human Development, 26,106–116.

Kitchener, K. S. (1986). The reflective judgment model: Characteristics, evidence, and mea-surement. In R. A. Mines & K. S. Kitchener (Eds.), Adult cognitive development: Methodsand models (pp. 76–91). New York: Praeger.

Kitchener, K. S., & King, P. M. (1981). Reflective judgment: Concepts of justification andtheir relationship to age and education. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology,2, 89–116.

Kitchener, K. S., & King, P. M. (1990). The reflective judgment model: Ten years of research.In M. L. Commons, C. Armon, L. Kohlberg, F. A. Richards, T. A. Grotzer, & J. D.Sinnott (Eds.), Adult development 3: Models and methods in the study of adolescent andadult thought, New York: Praeger.

Kitchener, K. S., King, P. M., Wood, P. K., & Davison, M. L. (1989). Sequentially and consis-tency in the development of reflective judgment: A six-year longitudinal study. Journalof Applied Developmental Psychology, 10, 73–95.

Lee, B. (1995). Differences in the epistemological beliefs of Korean and American graduatestudents and their influence on the academic writing task. Ph.D. Dissertation. Universityof Texas at Austin.

Marsh, H. W. (1981). Students’ evaluations of tertiary instruction: Testing the applicabilityof American surveys in an Australian setting. Australian Journal of Education, 25, 177–192.

Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., Chung, C. M., & Siu, T. L. P. (1998). Confirmatory factor analysisof Chinese students’ evaluations of university teaching. Structural Equation Modelling,5, 143–164.

Mori, Y. (1997, March). Epistemological beliefs and language learning beliefs: What do lan-


guage learners believe about their learning? Paper presented at the Annual meeting ofthe Educational Research Association. Chicago, IL.

Pai, A. (1990). Cultural foundations of education. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy con-struct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307–332.

Perry, W. G. (1968). Patterns of development in thought and values of students in a liberal artscollege: A validation of a scheme. Cambridge, MA: Bureau of Study: Counsel, HarvardUniversity (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 024315).

Qian, G. (1995, Nov.). The role of epistemological beliefs and motivational goals in ethnicallydiverse high school students’ learning from science text. Paper presented at the AnnualMeeting of the National Reading Conference (New Orleans, LA).

Qian, G., & Alvermann, D. (1995). Role of epistemological beliefs and learned helplessnessin secondary school students’ learning science concepts from text. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 87, 282–292.

Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula(Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 102–119). New York:Macmillan.

Ryan, M. P. (1984). Monitoring text comprehension: Individual differences in epistemologicalstandards. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1226–1238.

Schommer, M. (1989). Students’ beliefs about the nature of knowledge: What are they andhow do they affect comprehension. (Technical Report No. 484).

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

Schommer, M. (1993a). Comparisons of beliefs about the nature of knowledge and learningamongst postsecondary students. Research in Higher Education, 34, 355–370.

Schommer, M. (1993b). Epistemological development and academic performance among sec-ondary students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 406–411.

Schommer, M. (1994a). Synthesizing epistemological belief of research: tentative understand-ings and provocative confusions. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 293–319.

Schommer, M. (1994b). An emerging conceptualization of epistemological beliefs and theirrole in learning. In R. Garner & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Beliefs about text and instructionwith text (pp. 25–40). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Schommer, M. (1998). The influence of age and education on epistemological beliefs. BritishJournal of Educational Psychology, 68, 551–562.

Schommer, M., Crouse, A., & Rhodes, N. (1992). Epistemological beliefs and mathematicaltext comprehension: Believing it is simple does not make it so. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 84, 435–443.

Schommer, M., & Walker, K. (1995). Are epistemological beliefs similar across domains?Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 424–432.

Schommer, M., Calvert, C., Gariglietti, G., & Reja, A. (1997). The development of epistemo-logical beliefs among secondary students: A longitudinal study. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 89, 37–40.

Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (1996). A beginner’s guide to structural equation model-ing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (3rd ed.). Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.


Watkins, D., & Biggs, J. (Eds.). (1996). The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological, andcontextual influences. Comparative Education Research Centre, University of Hong Kongand the Australian Council for Educational Research Ltd., Victoria, Australia.

Young, R. E. (1981). A study of teacher epistemologies. Australian Journal of Education 25,194–208.

exploratory study of hk teacher education students' epistemological beliefs

Documents