This article was downloaded by: [University of Western Ontario]On: 16 November 2014, At: 09:00Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Psychology:Interdisciplinary and AppliedPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjrl20

Exploring Epistemological Beliefs ofBilingual Filipino Preservice Teachersin the Filipino and English LanguagesAllan B. I. Bernardo aa De La Salle University-ManilaPublished online: 07 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Allan B. I. Bernardo (2008) Exploring Epistemological Beliefs of BilingualFilipino Preservice Teachers in the Filipino and English Languages, The Journal of Psychology:Interdisciplinary and Applied, 142:2, 193-208, DOI: 10.3200/JRLP.142.2.193-208

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JRLP.142.2.193-208

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoeveras to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of theauthors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy ofthe Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

193193

Exploring Epistemological Beliefs of Bilingual Filipino Preservice Teachers in the Filipino and English Languages

ALLAN B. I. BERNARDODe La Salle University–Manila

ABSTRACT. In this study, the author investigated the epistemological beliefs of 864 bilin-gual Filipino preservice teachers using Filipino and English versions of the Schommer Epistemological Questionnaire (M. Schommer, 1998). The author conducted confirmatory factor analyses to determine the dimensions and structure of the epistemological beliefs. The results revealed two factors: Simple Learning and Structured Learning. The same fac-tors were found using the Filipino and English versions of the questionnaire. The author discusses the results in terms of how they contribute to the growing evidence regarding the possible problems with particular multidimensional theories and quantitative measures of epistemological beliefs. The results also indicate how the specific epistemological beliefs of the Filipino preservice teachers may reflect features of the Philippine educational system and its tensions regarding pedagogy.

Keywords: bilingual, epistemological beliefs, Phillippines, preservice teachers

INCREASING EVIDENCE SUGGESTS that students’ beliefs about the nature of knowledge and learning influence important aspects of their academic per-formance (Hofer, 2001). These beliefs, which researchers have referred to as epistemological beliefs, relate to students’ levels of understanding, adoption of goal orientations, and use of metacognitive and self-regulated learning strategies, among other important aspects of learning in schools (Hofer, 2001). Researchers have also shown that such beliefs are important in understanding the cognitions and teaching practices of preservice and practicing teachers (Raymond, 1997; Richardson, Anders, Tidewell, & Lloyd, 1991). In this study, I explored the

The research was supported by a grant from the University Research Coordinating Office, De La Salle University–Manila (Project No. 43 B U/C 3 03).

The author thanks Dr. Marlene Schommer-Aikins for permission to use the epistemo-logical questionnaire; Ofelia Posecion, Arnulfo Reganit, and Elizabeth Reyes for their assistance in gathering the research data; and Wainwright Yu, Emerald Sy, and Alpha Zamora Tan for their assistance in preparing and encoding the questionnaires.

Address correspondence to Allan B. I. Bernardo, De La Salle University–Manila, 2401 Taft Avenue, Manila 1004, Philippines; bernardoa@dlsu.edu.ph (e-mail).

The Journal of Psychology, 2008, 142(2), 193–208Copyright © 2008 Heldref Publications

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

9:00

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

epistemological beliefs of Filipino–English bilingual preservice teachers using a popular measure of epistemological beliefs written in English, the Schommer Epistemological Questionnaire (SEQ; Schommer, 1990), and a Filipino trans-lation of the questionnaire. I explored the dimensions of the epistemological beliefs of the preservice teachers in two languages: Filipino and English.

Hofer and Pintrich (1997) defined epistemological beliefs as conceptions “about the nature of knowledge and the nature or process of knowing” (p. 117). Various researchers have demonstrated the relations between epistemological beliefs and learning motivations, cognitions, and outcomes such as argumen-tative reasoning (Kuhn, 1991), critical thinking (King & Kitchener, 1994), achievement goals (Braten & Stromso, 2004), deeper comprehension during reading (Kardash & Scholes, 1996; Schommer, 1990), the need for cognition and interpretation of evidence (Kardash & Scholes), choice and use of learn-ing strategies (Kardash & Howell, 2000; Schommer, Crouse, & Rhodes, 1992), conceptual change learning (Qian & Alvermann, 1995), and general academic performance (Schommer, 1993). In reviews such as those by Hofer (2001), Hofer and Pintrich, and Qian and Alvermann (2000), authors have explored various models that account for the effects of specific epistemological beliefs on learning.

Some researchers have focused on the epistemological beliefs of teach-ers, who may be the primary agents of how educational experiences influence the development of students’ epistemological beliefs. A number of researchers have investigated how teachers’ epistemological beliefs relate to their teaching practices (Raymond, 1997; Richardson et al., 1991) and have generally found consistency between teachers’ beliefs and teaching practices. Research findings also indicate that elements of the teachers’ educational experiences are important factors that shape development of teachers’ epistemological beliefs (Brownlee, Purdie, & Boulton-Lewis, 2001; Nettle, 1998; Tatto, 1998; Wilson, 2000).

The SEQ

Various researchers have used different qualitative and quantitative means of studying the epistemological beliefs of students and teachers (see Duell & Schommer-Aikins, 2001, for a review of the various measures available). Among the varied quantitative measures of epistemological beliefs, the SEQ (Schommer, 1990) is perhaps the most widely used and studied. Schommer (1990) based the SEQ on a multidimensional theory of epistemological beliefs. Originally, Schommer (1990) proposed four dimensions of beliefs: (a) Certain Knowledge, (b) Simple Knowledge, (c) Quick Learning, and (d) Fixed Ability. Schommer (1990) developed the theory empirically as she developed a questionnaire that used a Likert scale. The scale had 63 items that were short statements express-ing various beliefs about knowledge and learning. Schommer (1990) categorized these 63 items into 12 subsets, which she then reduced to the four factors using

194 The Journal of Psychology

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

9:00

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

factor analytic procedures. I describe these four factors and the different subsets they subsumed in the following sections.

Certain Knowledge. Schommer (1990) conceptualized this factor as a continuum ranging from the belief that knowledge is absolute and never changing to the belief that knowledge is tentative and evolving or changing. Only one subset of items loaded into this factor.

Simple Knowledge. This second factor related to beliefs about the structure of knowledge. Schommer (1990) conceived the factor as a continuum rang-ing from the belief that knowledge comprises isolated, unambiguous bits of information to the belief that knowledge is composed of highly interrelated concepts. Three subsets of items loaded into this factor: Avoid Ambiguity (i.e., aversion for ambiguity), Seek Single Answers (i.e., knowledge is exact, explicit, and unequivocal), and Avoid Integration (i.e., aversion to integrating ideas; a preference for isolated facts).

Quick Learning. Schommer (1990) conceptualized the third factor as a continu-um ranging from the belief that learning is quick and all-or-none to the belief that learning is gradual. Only one subset—Quick Learning—loaded into this factor in the original study, but in other studies the subset Don’t Criticize Authority was also related to this factor (e.g. Schommer, 1993).

Fixed Ability. The fourth factor related to a range of beliefs regarding the nature of learning ability or intelligence. Schommer (1990) conceptualized this factor as a continuum ranging from the belief that the ability to learn is fixed at birth to the belief that learning improves over time with experience. This factor had several subsets: Can’t Learn How to Learn (i.e., efforts to improve learning ability would not be effective), Success is Unrelated to Hard Work (i.e., working hard does not lead to success in learning), Learn the First Time (i.e., learning has to happen at first encounter with the material), and Ability to Learn is Innate (i.e., learning is a special gift or endowment).

Evaluating the SEQ

The development of the SEQ was a significant milestone in epistemological beliefs research because it initiated the quantitative study of several dimensions of epistemological beliefs. The significance of the development of the SEQ notwithstanding, some researchers have raised criticisms related to its use. For example, Hofer and Pintrich (1997) questioned whether the factors related to learning (i.e., Quick Learning and Fixed Ability) should be considered epis-temological beliefs. They noted that such beliefs are separate constructs from beliefs about the nature of knowledge. Hofer and Pintrich further questioned the

Bernardo 195

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

9:00

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

construct validity of the scales given that many of the items in the questionnaire are vague and have questionable relevance.

The most important criticism of the SEQ relates to the stability of the four factors hypothesized by Schommer’s (1990) theory. Some researchers (e.g., Bendixen, Dunkle, & Schraw, 1994; Paulsen & Wells, 1998) used the SEQ and came up with similar factors, but others such as Cole, Goetz, and Willson (2000), Hofer (2000), and Qian and Alvermann (1995) found fewer and different factors. The number of factors found in Schommer’s studies also varied, and the load-ing of subsets in the factors varied, as well (Clarebout, Elen, Luyten, & Bamps, 2001). Three different studies by Schommer and colleagues (Schommer, 1993; Schommer et al., 1992; Schommer-Aikins, Mau, Brookhart, & Hutter, 2000) found only three factors of epistemological beliefs; the specific three factors also varied across the studies.

Studies With Non-American Students

All of the previously mentioned studies involved American students. How-ever, researchers have also investigated the stability of the factors of the SEQ using non-American samples with interesting results. Chan and Elliot (2000) studied the epistemological beliefs of Hong Kong preservice teachers (or teacher education students) using the SEQ. They conducted a principal axis factor analy-sis and found only three factors that were quite different in substance.

Clarebout et al. (2001) used the SEQ in two studies on the epistemologi-cal beliefs of Dutch-speaking students in Belgium and the Netherlands. The exploratory factor analysis for the first study yielded three factors that were somewhat similar to those hypothesized by Schommer (1990). For the second study, they found only two factors: Simple Knowledge and Certain Knowledge. For both studies, they then removed the factors with low factor loadings and performed a factor analysis with varimax rotation. The first study then also found just two factors.

Recently, Braten and Stromso (2005) studied the epistemological beliefs of Norwegian business administration and teacher education students using the SEQ. Their principal components analysis yielded four factors related to (a) Speed of Knowledge Acquisition, (b) Knowledge Construction and Modifica-tion, (c) Certainty of Knowledge, and (d) Control of Knowledge Acquisition. The items in the four factors came from different subsets and factors from those in the original Schommer (1990) study.

The fact that researchers identified different factors in studies with non-American samples has been interpreted differently. Clarebout et al. (2001) interpreted their results and similar findings as suggesting that the SEQ lacks reliability and validity. However, Chan and Elliot (2002, 2004) interpreted such results as indicating cultural differences and influences on the structure of epistemological beliefs. In this spirit, other scholars have proposed alternative

196 The Journal of Psychology

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

9:00

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

dimensions and measures of epistemological beliefs that can be studied cross-culturally (e.g., Youn, 2000).

The Present Study

In the present study, I explored the dimensions of epistemological beliefs of preservice teachers in the Philippines using the SEQ. Previous researchers have suggested that preservice teachers in the Philippines are not capable of engaging in more complex forms of problem solving and thinking, but they tend to be effective in dealing with simple, low-level knowledge (Wong-Fernandez & Reyes, 2003). Filipino teachers’ classroom behaviors and lesson planning indicate an emphasis on low levels of learning and simple types of knowledge (Bernardo, Limjap, Roleda, & Prudente, 2005). These behaviors seem consistent with the school curriculum, which emphasizes discreet and factual knowledge (Bernardo, Reyes, & Limjap, 2002). Even teacher educators are more comfort-able with simple and low levels of knowledge and have difficulties with more complex forms of learning and thinking (Bernardo, 2008). The Philippine edu-cational culture seems to emphasize learning simple, low-level forms of knowl-edge and thinking. In this study, I explored whether this emphasis is reflected in preservice teachers’ epistemological beliefs.

Because preservice teachers in the Philippines are bilingual in Filipino and English, I also explored whether the structure of preservice teachers’ beliefs is similar when it is assessed in Filipino and in a foreign language. Filipinos with high levels of educational attainment are proficient bilinguals (many are proficient in more than two Philippine languages and in English) because the formal edu-cational system is bilingual. The national bilingual education policy requires that beginning in the third grade, students are taught using English in selected subjects, whereas Filipino is used for other subjects from the first grade until the last year of high school. English is the medium of instruction in almost all colleges and uni-versities in the country. Preservice teachers who wish to enroll in teacher education programs in colleges and universities in the Philippines must demonstrate adequate levels of bilingual proficiency before they can be admitted.

Previous research among bilingual populations suggests that the language used to evoke psychological responses has an influence on how bilingual indivduals respond. These findings may relate to Hong, Morris, Chiu, and Benet-Martinez’s (2000) theory of bicultural–bilingual minds. According to Hong et al., different psychological concepts may be evoked in the minds of bicultural–bilingual persons, depending on the prevailing cultural cognitive set of the person. Thus, a person who is primed to think in one culture is more likely to evoke concepts consistent in that culture. Without necessarily argu-ing that Filipinos are bicultural, I explored the possibility that the language used to present information evokes different subcultural experiences within Philippine culture, particularly as these experiences may relate to individuals’

Bernardo 197

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

9:00

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

beliefs about knowledge. This view seems to be supported in at least one Phil-ippine study. Watkins and Gerong (1999) found differences in how Cebuano– English bilingual participants responded to a self-concept task when it was given in English and in Cebuano (one of several major Philippine languages). In particular, they found that the responses in English seemed to be reflective of their English-language educational context but that the responses in Filipino did not. It is possible that regarding epistemological beliefs, bilingual Filipi-nos’ responses might be different if the assessment is conducted in English, which might evoke the epistemological beliefs found in their English-language educational experiences in school, compared with if the assessment is done in Filipino, which might evoke the epistemological beliefs found in their every-day lives in their communities.

However, Filipinos study under a bilingual education system in which the curriculum is split into two clusters of subjects that are taught either in Filipino or in English. Thus, individuals may develop similar beliefs regarding the nature of knowledge and beliefs in relation to the two linguistic systems because the underlying curriculum and pedagogy are the same. If so, then there should be no difference in the structure of epistemological beliefs assessed in the two languages. I explored the possible influence of language by having some of the participants answer the epistemological beliefs questionnaires in Filipino and having other participants answer the same questionnaire in English. I explored the factor structure of participants’ epistemological beliefs using factor analysis for the data from the two language versions of the questionnaires.

To summarize, I sought to answer two questions: (a) What are the dimen-sions of the epistemological beliefs of bilingual Filipino preservice teachers? and (b) Are these dimensions different when assessed in the preservice teachers’ two languages?

Method

Participants

Participants were 864 preservice teachers completing their baccalaureate degree in education from two private institutions (one in Region 5 and one in Region 6) and one public institution (in the National Capital Region). The par-ticipants randomly received either the Filipino or English version of the SEQ. In total, 456 participants (121 men, 331 women, 4 unidentified) completed the Fili-pino version, and 408 participants (126 men, 282 women) completed the English version. The average age of those who answered the Filipino version was 18.9 years (SD = 2.73 years), and the median age was 18 years, whereas the average age of those who answered the English version was 20.3 years (SD = 6.02 years), and the median age was 18 years. All participants were asked to complete the survey as part of a class requirement.

198 The Journal of Psychology

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

9:00

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Instrument

I used the college version of the SEQ (Schommer, 1998) in this study with permission from M. Schommer. The questionnaire has 63 items (28 of which have negative valence) distributed among 12 subsets of items. The 12 subsets of items are used as variables in different factors, as follows:

Factor 1. Simple Knowledge: (a) Avoid Ambiguity, (b) Seek Single Answers, (c) Avoid Integration, and (d) Depend on Authority

Factor 2. Fixed Ability: (e) Can’t Learn How to Learn, (f) Success Unrelated to Hard Work, (g) Learn the First Time, and (h) Innate Ability

Factor 3. Quick Learning: (i) Quick Learning, and (j) Don’t Criticize Authority

Factor 4. Certain Knowledge: (k) Certain Knowledge

The 12th subset of items, (l) Concentrated Effort is a Waste of Time, did not load in any of the four factors in Schommer’s 1990 study. But in another study (Schommer et al., 1992), the subset loaded into the Fixed Ability factor. The 63 items appeared in the same order as in the original questionnaire (Schommer, 1998) and were to be answered using a 5-point Likert scale with values ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Other details of the instrument may be obtained from Schommer (1990, 1998; Schommer et al., 1992).

I rephrased some of the items in English to make them more understand-able to the Filipino participants. For example, I rephrased, “If a person forgot details, and yet was able to come up with new ideas from a text, I would think they were bright” as “If a person forgot details, and yet was able to come up with new ideas from a text, I would think that he/she was bright.” A Filipino–English bilingual research assistant then translated all the English items into conversational Filipino (used by college-level students in Metro Manila). A second Filipino–English bilingual research assistant independently translated the Filipino translations back into English. Last, the two assistants compared the back-translations with the original English items and revised some of the Filipino translations to more closely reflect the original English items. Both assistants agreed on the final Filipino translations for all items.

Results

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

I studied the structure of the Filipino students’ epistemological beliefs using a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using the structural equation modeling technique. The CFA and the procedures I used to improve the fit

Bernardo 199

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

9:00

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

between model and data followed the procedures used by Schommer-Aikins et al. (2000). I used Statistica 6 software for this procedure, which involved using the maximum likelihood method to compute the discrepancy function. I allowed the latent factors to correlate and did not propose any within-factor correlated measurements. I used various indexes to test the absolute and incre-mental fit of the model to the data: chi-square (χ2), chi-square to degrees of freedom (χ2/df), relative noncentrality index (RNI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI). To evaluate the fit of the model to the data, the χ2 should not be significant, the χ2/df should be less than 2, the RNI and TLI values should be .90 or greater, and the RMSEA should be less than .05.

As discussed in the Method section, the research literature based on Schom-mer’s (1990) theory indicates a four-factor structure plus one subset of items that was not originally included in the four identified factors. Thus, the first CFA I conducted on each data set tested a five-factor model, with the subset of items labeled Concentrated Effort is a Waste of Time treated as a separate factor.

Filipino Version of Questionnaire. The CFA of the data from the Filipino version of the questionnaire indicated a bad fit with the five-factor structure. The fit indexes were χ2(1819, N = 456) = 6261.33, p < .0001; χ2/df = 3.44; RNI = .00, TLI = .40, RMSEA = .10. To improve the fit, I omitted items with small factor loadings and those that did not correlate with other items following the procedures used by Schommer-Aikins et al. (2000). Consequently, I combined the Quick Learning factor items with the Fixed Ability factor items, retaining the Fixed Ability label for this combined factor. This four-factor model was different from the four-factor model in Schommer’s (1990) theory. The CFA on this four-factor model indicated a better fit with the data: χ2(458, N = 456) = 1155.54, p < .0001; χ2/df = 2.52; RNI = .25, TLI = .64, RMSEA = .08. All indexes except χ2/df showed improvement, and the χ2(1361, N = 456) = 5105.79, p < .0001 indicated a significant improvement of fit. However, the indexes still indicated that the fit was less than adequate.

To further improve the fit, I removed more items with small factor loadings. I removed all the items for Certain Knowledge. I also removed all but one of the items from Concentrated Effort and combined the remaining item with the Simple Knowledge factor items. Thus, only two factors remained. The CFA indi-cated a good fit between the data and the two-factor model: χ2/df = 1.63; RNI = .91, TLI = .91, RMSEA = .04. But the χ2(134, N = 456) = 218.11, p < .0001 was not acceptable. However, the χ2 statistic is sensitive to sample size, and even if the discrepancy between the data and the proposed model is small, a model may be rejected if the sample size is large. Moreover, the χ2(324, N = 456) = 937.43, p < .0001 also indicated a significant improvement of fit. Thus, the two-factor model could still be considered a good fit with the data.

The two-factor model indicated a very high negative correlation between the two factors, which suggested that the two factors may be subsumed under a

200 The Journal of Psychology

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

9:00

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

single bipolar factor. I tested a one-factor model, and the fit indexes were almost identical to those of the two-factor model: χ2(135, N = 456) = 218.948, p < .0001; χ2/df = 1.63; RNI = .91, TLI = .91, RMSEA = .04. The computation of the ∆χ2 indicated that there was no significant improvement in model fit, χ2(1, N = 456) = 0.835, p > .05. Because the two models had nearly identical fit indexes, I consid-ered the more parsimonious model, that is, the one-factor model, to be the better model for the data. Figure 1 shows the one-factor model, which included only 18 items using the Filipino version of the questionnaire. A sample of the retained items is shown in the Appendix.

English Version of Questionnaire. The CFA of the data from the English version of the questionnaire also indicated a bad fit with the five-factor structure. The fit indexes were: χ2(1819, N = 408) = 3368.13, p < .0001; RNI = .02, TLI = .43, RMSEA = .07. Only the χ2/df = 1.85 met the criterion requirement. As with the data from the Filipino questionnaire, I omitted items with small factor loadings and those that did not correlate with other items to improve the fit. Consequently, only one item was left in the Concentrated Effort scale, and I included it with the Simple Knowledge factor. The same item was combined into the Simple Knowledge factor in the Filipino version of the analysis. The four factors analyzed in the English ver-sion were different from those analyzed in the Filipino version of the questionnaire but were the same four factors defined in Schommer’s (1990) research. The CFA on this four-factor model indicated an improvement in all fit indexes: χ2(293, N = 408) = 508.53, p < .0001; χ2/df = 1.74; RNI = .72, TLI = .80, RMSEA = .05. The χ2(1526, N = 408) = 2859.60, p < .0001 suggested an improved fit, but most of the indexes indicated that the fit was less than adequate.

To further improve the fit, I removed more items. I combined the remaining items for Quick Learning with the items in Fixed Ability and retained the latter factor label. The CFA indicated further improvement in the fit between the data and the three-factor model: χ2(149, N = 408) = 274.99, p < .0001; RNI = .84, TLI = .86, although the χ2/df = 1.84 and RMSEA = .05 were slightly poorer. The χ2(144, N = 408) = 233.54, p < .0001 suggested an improved fit, but most of the indexes still indicated an inadequate fit.

To further improve the fit, I removed more items with small factor loadings, and as a result, only two factors were left. These factors comprise the same items retained in the two-factor model for the Filipino data. The CFA indicated a good fit between the data and the two-factor model: χ2/df = 1.67; RNI = .90, TLI = .90, RMSEA = .04. As with the data from the Filipino questionnaire, the χ2(118, N = 408) = 197.43, p < .0001 was not acceptable, but the χ2(31, N = 408) = 77.56, p < .0001 suggested an improved fit.

As with the data from the Filipino questionnaire, there was a negative cor-relation between the two factors, again suggesting that the two may be subsumed under one bipolar factor. I tested a one-factor model, and the fit indexes were nearly identical, but declined slightly: χ2(119, N = 408) = 201.32, p < .0001;

Bernardo 201

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

9:00

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

202 The Journal of Psychology

FIG

UR

E 1

. The

one

-fac

tor

mod

el f

or t

he F

ilipi

no v

ersi

on o

f th

e ep

iste

mol

ogic

al b

elie

fs q

uest

ionn

aire

. (It

em n

umbe

rs a

ppea

r in

box

es.)16 .7

5

.31

74 .96

.33

27 .84

.33

37 .69

.42

40 .60

.47

61 .98

.38

44 1.59.61

55 1.10.36

36 .41

.53

51 .67

.65

57 .48

.44

58 .62

.32

23 .64

–.28

29 .65

–.43

31 .75

–.37

70 .48

–.51

50 .69

–.37

65 .61

–.47

Fact

or 1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

9:00

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Bernardo 203

χ2/df = 1.69; RNI = .90, TLI = .89, RMSEA = .04. The computation of the ∆χ2 indicated that there was a decline in the model fit, χ2(1, N = 408) = 3.89, p < .05; thus, I consider the two-factor model to be the better fitting model for the Eng-lish version of the questionnaire. Figure 2 shows this two-factor model, which retained fewer items than did the Filipino version.

Discussion

My purpose in the present study was to explore bilingual Filipino preser-vice teachers’ epistemological beliefs using two language versions (Filipino and English) of the SEQ (Schommer, 1990). There are several key findings in this exploratory study. First, the structure of the epistemological beliefs of the Filipino preservice teachers has only two sets of items that constitute one or two factors, not the four factors suggested by Schommer’s (1990) theory. All of the items in the first set came from two of Schommer’s (1990) original factors: Fixed Ability and Quick Learning. Most of the items from the Fixed Ability factor come from one subset: Can’t Learn How to Learn. The other items come from other Fixed Ability subsets (Ability to Learn is Innate, Success is Unrelated to Hard Work, Learn the First Time) and the Quick Learning subsets (Don’t Criticize Authority, Learning is Quick). However, almost all of the items retained were stated negatively. Thus, the

FIGURE 2. The two-factor model for the English version of the epistemologi-cal beliefs questionnaire. (Item numbers appear in boxes.)

671.06 .39

16.57 .47

27.55 .34

37.70 .36

40.42 .53

441.41 .73

36.66 .42

51.83 .52

57.60 .42

58.69 .29

23 .93.31

65 .66.47

50 .60.38

71 1.13.35

70 .77.44

31 .60.49

29.40

–.92

Factor 1 Factor 2

.55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

9:00

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

204 The Journal of Psychology

preservice teachers who responded to these items were not directly agreeing with the notion that the ability to learn is fixed. Instead, the items seem to indicate that the respondents were disagreeing with the notion that the learning process can be improved. Indeed, the totality of the items in this first set seem to express a simple or even simplistic view of the learning process. That is, the items express ideas related to either the conception of learning as an elementary and uncomplicated process, or, more appropriately, its converse—the conception that learning is a complex process that can be further improved, elaborated, or even critiqued. There-fore, the items in this set can be referred to as the simple-learning items.

The items in the second set were mostly items from the Seek Single Answers subset and also included isolated items from the Avoid Integration and Concen-trated Effort is a Waste of Time subsets. A careful inspection of the items indi-cates that most are related to the structure or organization of the learning process. In particular, most of the items express a belief in the importance of organization, precision, and certainty in the learning processes. Thus, the items in this set can be referred to as structured-learning items.

The Filipino preservice teachers’ epistemological beliefs seem to relate to these two sets of items, both of which seem to be related to the learning process. Thus, the items fall only under the first of the two dimensions of epistemological beliefs defined by Chan and Elliot (2004), which are knowing and knowledge. Both the simple-learning and structured-learning items seem to be premised on a simple or unsophisticated view of knowledge. Thus, although the two sets of items seem to relate more to the process of acquiring knowledge, there is nev-ertheless a very clear underlying belief in the uncomplicated and unproblematic nature of the knowledge that has to be learned. This underlying belief may be related to the characteristic of the basic education curriculum that sets learning goals of this nature (Bernardo et al., 2002).

The second key finding relates to the strong negative correlation between the simple-learning and structured-learning items. In the one-factor model for the Filipino language data, the simple-learning items loaded positively into the factor, whereas the structured-learning items loaded negatively. In the two-factor model for the English language data, the simple-learning factor was negatively correlated with the structured-learning factor. The participants who believed that learning is an uncomplicated process were not likely to believe in the importance of organiza-tion and precision in the process. Indeed, it makes sense that one would only value structure in the process of learning if one also believes that learning processes can be complex and problematic. Thus, even as both beliefs about the learning process seem to assume that knowledge is simple, the two beliefs still represent contrasting conceptions about how this simple knowledge is best acquired.

This finding might reveal a tension between two approaches to learning: one that emphasizes discipline, structure, and concentration and another that emphasizes more critical, constructive, and effortful approaches. The negative correlation between the sets of items or factors may stem from the contrasting

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

9:00

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Bernardo 205

views that learning (a) is an inert process that needs to be distilled and (b) is an evolving process that needs to be effortfully and reflectively pushed forward. The two contrasting views seem consistent with alternative pedagogies such as the more didactic pedagogies based on behaviorist views of learning on the one hand, and the more constructivist pedagogies and views of learning on the other. Previous research on teachers’ pedagogical beliefs (e.g., Bernardo, 2002; Bernardo et al., 2005) has revealed that many Filipino teachers struggle between these two contrasting pedagogical approaches.

One final finding is worth noting. The observed structure of the epistemologi-cal beliefs of the bilingual preservice teachers was similar regardless of whether the instrument used to assess these beliefs was written in their native language or a second language. Although I found that one-factor and two-factor models best fit the data from the Filipino and English questionnaires, respectively, the sets of items that composed these models were essentially the same. Indeed, a compari-son of the items in the final Filipino and English versions of the model shows that the two sets of items of epistemological beliefs retained in the two models were almost identical. This is perhaps the first demonstration of the stability of episte-mological beliefs across the two language modes of bilingual persons. The results indicate that for educated bilingual individuals who have relatively high levels of proficiency in both languages, there seems to be no difference in how they construe the nature of knowledge and learning when using either language. Perhaps beliefs about the nature of learning are not linked to distinct linguistic or cultural meaning systems in the minds of bilingual individuals. This is not unlikely, because Filipino students study under a bilingual educational system, wherein the curriculum is split into areas that are studied in either Filipino or English. Thus, it is possible that similar beliefs about the nature of the two factors of epistemological beliefs are developed when learning in two different languages.

Conclusion

The results of this exploratory study revealed two aspects of the epistemo-logical beliefs of Filipino preservice teachers using adapted versions of the SEQ (Schommer, 1990), and I obtained similar dimensions when assessing the beliefs in the bilingual preservice teachers’ two languages. The results add to previous observations regarding the problems with Schommer’s (1990) original theory defining the four dimensions of epistemological beliefs. The two dimensions of epistemological beliefs were only clarified after most of the items in the original questionnaire were dropped from the analysis, which adds further evidence for arguments that the SEQ is a problematic instrument.

It is possible that the bilingual Filipino preservice teachers have epistemological beliefs with other important dimensions, but that these were not captured by the SEQ. It may be necessary to undertake studies of the epistemological beliefs of Filipino pre-service teachers using other quantitative and even qualitative measures. Nevertheless,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

9:00

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

206 The Journal of Psychology

the two sets of items or factors of epistemological beliefs indicate the interesting find-ings that (a) the two sets of items both imply an unsophisticated epistemology and (b) the factors relate to constrasting views about learning. It is also possible that the nature of the two factors is related to characteristics of the Philippine formal education sys-tem and the tensions within. Thus, despite some limitations in the original theory and the measure, the approach I used in this study is useful for understanding significant aspects of the preservice teachers’ beliefs and cognitions in a population that is distinct from the original population for which the theory and measure was developed.

AUTHOR NOTE

Allan B. I. Bernardo is a professor in the Counseling and Educational Psychology Department at De La Salle University in Manila, Philippines.

REFERENCES

Bendixen, L. D., Dunkle, M. E., & Schraw, G. (1994). Epistemological beliefs and reflec-tive judgments. Psychological Reports, 75, 1595–1600.

Bernardo, A. B. I. (2002). Filipino college mathematics teachers’ beliefs about learning and teaching: Reckoning with the school-mathematics and the inquiry-mathematics traditions. Learning Edge, 3, 44–71.

Bernardo, A. B. I. (2008). Learning about learning: Cognitive processing constraints in teacher educators developing new understandings about learning and pedagogy. In B. Atweh, M. U. Balagtas, A. B. I. Bernardo, M. B. Ferido, & I. Macpherson (Eds.), Rip-ples of change: A journey of teacher education reform in the Philippines (pp. 43–59). Pasig City, Philippines: Commission on Higher Education.

Bernardo, A. B. I., Limjap, A. A., Roleda, L. S., & Prudente, M. S. (2005). Endline study on math and science teaching for the SBTP. Manila, Philippines: Japan International Coop-eration Agency & Lasallian Institute for Development and Educational Research.

Bernardo, A. B. I., Reyes, M. L., & Limjap, A. A. (2002). Defining the learning goals of Philippine elementary education [Final technical report to the Third Elementary Educa-tion Project]. Pasig City, Philippines: Department of Education.

Braten, I., & Stromso, H. I. (2004). Epistemological beliefs and implicit theories of intelligence as predictors of achievement goals. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 371–388.

Braten, I., & Stromso, H. I. (2005). The relationship between epistemological beliefs, implicit theories of intelligence, and self-regulated learning among Norwegian post-secondary students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 539–565.

Brownlee, J., Purdie, N., & Boulton-Lewis, G. (2001). Changing epistemological beliefs in pre-service teacher education students. Teaching in Higher Education, 6, 247–268.

Chan, K.-W., & Elliot, R. G. (2000). Explanatory study of epistemological beliefs of Hong Kong teacher education students: Resolving conceptual and empirical issues. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 28, 225–234.

Chan, K.-W., & Elliot, R. G. (2002). Exploratory study of Hong Kong teacher education students’ epistemological beliefs: Cultural perspectives and implications on beliefs research. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 392–414.

Chan, K.-W., & Elliot, R. G. (2004). Epistemological beliefs across cultures: Critique and analysis of belief structure studies. Educational Psychology, 24, 123–142.

Clarebout, G., Elen, J., Luyten, L., & Bamps, H. (2001). Assessing epistemological beliefs: Schommer’s questionnaire revisted. Educational Research and Evaluation, 7, 53–77.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

9:00

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Bernardo 207

Cole, R. P., Goetz, E. T., & Willson, V. (2000). Epistemological beliefs of underprepared college students. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 31, 60–72.

Duell, O. K., & Schommer-Aikins, M. (2001). Measures of people’s beliefs about knowl-edge and learning. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 419–449.

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

Hofer, B. K. (2001). Personal epistemology research: Implications for learning and teach-ing. Journal of Educational Psychology Review, 13, 353–383.

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

Hong, Y. Y., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C. Y., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2000). Multicultural minds: A dynamic constructivist approach to culture and cognition. American Psy-chologist, 55, 709–720.

Kardash, C. M., & Howell, K. L. (2000). Effects of epistemological beliefs and topic-specific beliefs on undergraduates’ cognitive and strategic processing of dual-position text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 425–535.

Kardash, C. M., & Scholes, R. J. (1996). Effects of preexisting beliefs, epistemological beliefs, and need for cognition on interpretation of controversial issues. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 260–271.

King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kuhn, D. (1991). The skill of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Nettle, E. B. (1998). Stability and change in the beliefs of student teachers during practice

teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14, 193–204. Paulsen, M. B., & Wells, C. T. (1998). Domain differences in the epistemological beliefs

of college students. Research in Higher Education, 39, 365–384.Qian, G., & Alvermann, D. (1995). Role of epistemological beliefs and learned helpless-

ness in secondary school students’ learning science concepts from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 282–292.

Qian, G., & Alvermann, D. (2000). Relationship between epistemological beliefs and conceptual change learning. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 16, 59–74.

Raymond, A. M. (1997). Inconsistency between a beginning elementary school teacher’s mathematics beliefs and teaching practice. Journal for Research in Mathematics Edu-cation, 28, 550–576.

Richardson, V., Anders, P., Tidewell, D., & Lloyd, C. (1991). The relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices in reading comprehension instruction. American Educa-tional Research Journal, 28, 559–586.

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

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

Schommer, M. (1998). The influence of age and schooling on epistemological beliefs. British Journal of Social Psychology, 68, 551–562.

Schommer, M., Crouse, A., & Rhodes, N. (1992). Epistemological beliefs and mathemati-cal text comprehension: Believing it is simple does not make it so. Journal of Educa-tional Psychology, 84, 435–443.

Schommer-Aikins, M., Mau, W.-C., Brookhart, S., & Hutter, R. (2000). Understanding middle students’ beliefs about knowledge and learning using multidimensional para-digm. The Journal of Educational Research, 94, 120–127.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

9:00

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

208 The Journal of Psychology

Tatto, M. T. (1998). The influence of teacher education on teachers’ beliefs about purposes of education, roles, and practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 49, 66–77.

Watkins, D., & Gerong, A. (1999). Language of response and the spontaneous self-concept. A test of the cultural accommodation hypothesis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30, 115–121.

Wilson, B. A. (2000). The epistemological beliefs of technical college instructors. Journal of Adult Development, 7, 179–186.

Wong-Fernandez, B., & Reyes, J. A. S. (2003). A review of research studies on the pre-service teacher education systems in the Philippines [Final Technical Report]. Pasig City, Philippines: Commission on Higher Education.

Youn, I. (2000). The culture specificity of epistemological beliefs about learning. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 87–105.

APPENDIX Sample Corresponding Items Retained in the One-Factor and

Two-Factor Models

Filipino QuestionnaireFactor 1: Simple Learning

44. Ang wisdom ay hindi nakikita sa kung alam mo ang mga kasagutan, imbes ay nakikita ito sa kaalaman kung paano matuklasan ang kasagutan. (–)

51. Kung hindi maintindihan ng isang tao ang isang bagay sa maikling panahon, dapat na subukan pa niya nang subukan. (–)

65. Kadalasan, maiintindihan mo rin ang mga mahihirap na konsepto kung aalisin mo ang lahat ng mga distraksyon at magko-concentrate ka nang husto. (+)

70. Naa-appreciate ko talaga ang mga gurong ino-organize nang maayos ang kanilang mga lektyur at pagkatapos ay sinusunod ang organisasyong ito. (+)

English QuestionnaireFactor 1: Simple Learning

44. Wisdom is not knowing the answers, but knowing how to find the answers. (–)51. If a person can’t understand something within a short amount of time, he/she

should keep on trying. (–)

Factor 2: Structured Learning

65. Usually you can figure out difficult concepts if you eliminate all outside dis-tractions and really concentrate. (+)

70. I really appreciate instructors who organize their lectures meticulously and then stick to their plan. (+)

Original manuscript received October 20, 2006Final version accepted June 10, 2007

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

9:00

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14