relationships among preservice science teachers’ epistemological beliefs, epistemological world...

This article was downloaded by: [Colorado College]On: 01 December 2014, At: 17:51Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of ScienceEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

Relationships among PreserviceScience Teachers’ EpistemologicalBeliefs, Epistemological World Views,and Self‐efficacy BeliefsOzgul Yilmaz‐Tuzun a & Mustafa Sami Topcu b

a Middle East Technical University , Turkeyb Yuzuncu Yil Universitesi , TurkeyPublished online: 28 Nov 2007.

To cite this article: Ozgul Yilmaz‐Tuzun & Mustafa Sami Topcu (2008) Relationships amongPreservice Science Teachers’ Epistemological Beliefs, Epistemological World Views,and Self‐efficacy Beliefs, International Journal of Science Education, 30:1, 65-85, DOI:10.1080/09500690601185113

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690601185113

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 whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising 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 &

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/09500690601185113

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690601185113

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

7:51

01

Dec

embe

r 20

14

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

International Journal of Science EducationVol. 30, No. 1, 15 January 2008, pp. 65–85

ISSN 0950-0693 (print)/ISSN 1464-5289 (online)/08/010065–21© 2008 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/09500690601185113

RESEARCH REPORT

Relationships among Preservice Science Teachers’ Epistemological Beliefs, Epistemological World Views, and Self-efficacy Beliefs

Ozgul Yilmaz-Tuzuna* and Mustafa Sami TopcubaMiddle East Technical University, Turkey; bYuzuncu Yil Universitesi, TurkeyTaylor and FrancisTSED_A_218434.sgm10.1080/09500690601185113International Journal of Science Education0950-0693 (print)/1464-5289 (online)Original Article2007Taylor & [email protected]

This study discusses preservice elementary science teachers’ (PSTs) epistemological beliefs andthe relationships among their epistemological beliefs, epistemological world views, and self-efficacybeliefs. Four hundred and twenty-nine PSTs who were enrolled in five large universities completedthe Schommer Epistemological Questionnaire (SEQ), the Epistemological World Views Scale,and the Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument. Factor analysis results revealed four factorsfor the SEQ. These factors were Innate Ability, Simple Knowledge, Certain Knowledge, andOmniscient authority. Multiple regression analysis suggests that for “Innate Ability” factor scores,three of the predictor variables—self-efficacy, outcome expectancy, and world view—contributedsignificantly to the model. For “Simple Knowledge,” only one predictor variable—epistemologicalworld view—contributed significantly to the model. For “Certain Knowledge” factor scores, onlyone predictor variable—outcome expectancy—contributed significantly to the model. None of thepredictor variables significantly contributed to the “Omniscient Authority” factor scores. Resultsrevealed that in Turkish culture, PSTs’ epistemological beliefs support the multidimensionaltheory. In addition, while PSTs developed more sophisticated beliefs in some of the SEQ dimen-sions, they had less sophisticated beliefs in other dimensions. Also PSTs indicated that, when theywant to teach science with student-centered methods, they believed that they would be successfulonly if their students memorize the scientific concepts and facts.

Introduction

Epistemological Beliefs

The term epistemology can be defined as “the origin, nature, limits, methods, andjustification of human knowledge” (Hofer, 2002, p. 4). The epistemological belief

*Corresponding author. Department of Elementary Education, Middle East Technical University,06531 Ankara, Turkey. Email: [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

7:51

01

Dec

embe

r 20

14

66 O. Yilmaz-Tuzun and M. S. Topcu

refers to specific belief that people hold about nature of knowledge (Schraw & Olaf-son, 2002). A person holds several epistemological beliefs at the same time, andthose beliefs shape that person’s epistemology. Personal epistemological beliefs areclassified under different headings by different researchers (King & Kitchener, 2004;Perry, 1968; Schommer, 1990). Schommer identified five independent beliefs,which are Certain Knowledge, Simple Knowledge, Innate Ability, Quick Learning,and Omniscient Authority. In each dimension, people may possess a range of beliefs.For example, a science teacher’s belief about Certain Knowledge may fall in anyplace in the continuum of seeing science as unchanging to changing.

Research on the nature of knowledge, epistemology, started with Perry (1968).Since then personal epistemologies have been defined in two different ways. In onedefinition, researchers have viewed personal epistemologies as developmental stages(e.g., Kegan, 1982; King & Kitchener, 2004; Perry, 1970). In this definition,personal epistemologies develop in parallel with individual cognitive development.For example, King and Kitchener (1994) proposed a seven-stage developmentalscheme for personal epistemologies. At the first stage, children view knowledge ascertain and given by authorities. At a later stage, knowledge is seen as cumulativeconstructions of observations but subject to judgment by different individuals.Researchers, who accept this development scheme also view personal epistemologiesas unidimensional constructs in which an individual passes through these stagesbased on their cognitive development. In other words, it is not usual for a person topass on a later stage of epistemological understanding without accomplishing anearlier stage.

Another group of researchers defined the personal epistemologies as collection ofbeliefs (e.g., Schommer, 1988; Schommer & Walker, 1997; Schraw, Dunkle, &Bendixen, 1995). Schommer (1990) defined the epistemological beliefs as beliefsabout the nature of knowledge. It was argued that individuals may develop epistemo-logical beliefs about the certainty, the source, the justification, the acquisition, andthe structure of knowledge. These dimensions of knowledge led researchers to defineepistemological beliefs from a multidimensional perspective. Unidimensional theoryalready accepts that personal epistemologies are complex cognitive developments andmultifaceted. One difference between unidimensional and multidimensional theoryis how people develop or gain epistemological views or beliefs. Unidimensional theoryargues that people attain different dimensions of epistemological understanding attheir cognitive development. In other words, if a person develops earlier stages ofepistemological understanding, she will also develop later stages. In contrast, multi-dimensional theory suggests that if a person develops a dimension of epistemologicalbeliefs, he/she may or may not develop other dimension(s).

Students’ epistemological beliefs were explored using both quantitative andqualitative research methods (e.g., King, 1986; Perry, 1968; Schommer, 1990).Schommer’s studies pioneered the quantitative measurement of epistemologicalbeliefs on multidimensional perspectives. In her studies, Schommer validated anepistemological questionnaire she had developed. The questionnaire used bySchommer (1990, 1993), Schommer-Aikins (2004), Schommer, Crouse, and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

7:51

01

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Preservice Teachers’ Epistemological Beliefs 67

Rhodes (1992), and Schommer, Calvert, Gariglietti, and Bajaj (1997) has fivehypothesized epistemological beliefs. These hypothesized beliefs are: (a) the stabilityof knowledge ranging from unchanging knowledge (simple, less sophisticated belief)to tentative knowledge (developed and sophisticated belief)—Certain Knowledge;(b) the structure of knowledge ranging from isolated bits and pieces (simple, lesssophisticated belief) to integrated concepts (developed and sophisticated belief)—Simple Knowledge; (c) the source of knowledge ranging from omniscient authorityto reason (simple, less sophisticated belief) and empirical evidence (developed andsophisticated belief)—Omniscient Authority; (d) the speed of learning ranging fromquick (simple, less sophisticated belief) or not-at-all to gradual (developed andsophisticated belief)—Quick Learning; and (e) the ability to learn ranging from fixedat birth (simple, less sophisticated belief) to improvable (developed and sophisti-cated belief)—Innate Ability.

Schommer carried out several studies to validate the questionnaire. In these stud-ies, four factors were generally obtained but the names of those factors were differentfrom one study to another, depending upon the sample characteristics, its size, andthe nature of the research. For example, in one of Schommer’s (1990) studies, sheworked with 117 junior college students and 149 university students. Factor analysisgenerated four factors for this group of students. Factor 1 was “Ability to learn isinnate” (Innate Ability); Factor 2 was “Knowledge is discrete and unambiguous”(Simple Knowledge); Factor 3 was “Learning is quick or not at all” (Quick Learning);and Factor 4 was “Knowledge is certain” (Certain knowledge). Schommer et al.(1992) worked with 424 undergraduate and graduate students. Schommer’s originalquestionnaire was reaffirmed to assess students’ epistemological beliefs. This timethree factors were generated. Factor 1 was “learning is innate and quick” (InnateAbility). Factor 2 was “knowledge is discrete and unambiguous” (Simple Knowl-edge). Factor 3 was “knowledge is certain and questionable” (Certain Knowledge).

Epistemological World Views

Epistemological world views represent the sum of teachers’ collective beliefs andassumptions about knowledge and knowledge acquisition (Schraw & Olafson,2002). Based on their assumptions Scraw and Olafson divided these collectivebeliefs into three categories; namely, realist, contextualist, and relativist. Eachcategory included a set of epistemological beliefs and other beliefs such as how epis-temological beliefs are acquired and develop, and how these beliefs change overtime. Thus teachers with realist world view see themselves as active in their teachingbecause their role is to transmit knowledge to students, who are seen as passiverecipients of the knowledge. Teachers with contextualist world view focus onconstructing knowledge and extending the application of that knowledge into thecontext it is learned in. Teachers with relativist world view provide opportunities tostudents to learn and think independently.

There are certain differences between epistemological beliefs and epistemologicalworld views. Epistemological beliefs consist of specific beliefs that possess certain

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

7:51

01

Dec

embe

r 20

14


characteristics of knowledge such as certainty, simplicity, or origin. Epistemologicalworld views consist of beliefs that determine individuals’ attitude toward the natureand the acquisition of knowledge (Schraw & Olafson, 2002). Previous studies useddifferent terminology, but in this study we preferred to use “world view” since thisterm was used by Schraw and Olafson. The term epistemological world view wasused for two reasons. First was that “a world view suggests a broad intellectualperspective that serves as a lens to see the world than transcends individual beliefsabout knowledge,” and the second was that “it is easier from a practical perspectiveto communicate with teachers and students what we mean by a world view asopposed to a stance or way of knowing” (Schraw & Olafson, 2002, p. 103).

Our literature review revealed that there are few studies (Schraw & Olafson, 2002;Tsai, 2002) conducted to measure inservice and preservice teachers’ epistemologicalworld views. However, it is possible that there is a relation between teachers’ episte-mological world views and students’ learning. Schraw and Olafson assumed that ifteachers believe in a relativist epistemological world view, they would organize theirclassroom in accordance with the constructivist and inquiry-oriented practices.Consequently, such a learning environment could provide students opportunities tolearn concepts more effectively. However, Schraw and Olafson found that epistemo-logical world views were not strongly related to teaching practices. For instance,even though teachers indicated that they believed in the effectiveness of student-centered teaching approaches (developing relativist world view), they still useddistrict-wide mandated curriculum and expository teaching practices. Thus, scienceeducators should help teachers develop essential skills in order to apply requiredteaching practices that are aligned with their epistemological world views. At theirteacher education programs, preservice science teachers (PSTs) need to be guidedby their instructors. However, in the first place those beliefs need to be determined.

Self-efficacy Beliefs

For over 40 years many researchers defined the teachers’ efficacy beliefs. Accordingto Rotter (1966), teacher efficacy beliefs were referred to as teachers’ beliefs aboutcontrolling students’ achievement and motivation. Another group of researchersdefined teacher efficacy as teachers’ beliefs about their capacity to affect students’performance (Berman, Mclaughlin, Bass, Pauly, & Zellman, 1977). Bandura (1977,cited in Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998) sees teacher efficacy as part of selfefficacy. Self-efficacy is defined as a cognitive process in which individuals developtheir beliefs based on their abilities to accomplish certain tasks. Thus, people’sbehaviors are influenced by their self-efficacy beliefs. These behaviors can besummarized as the effort that people put forward to do certain tasks, the duration oftheir persistence on the tasks despite of obstacles, their strength in dealing withunsuccessful attempts, and the amount of stress they can handle in demandingsituations (Bandura, 1997, cited in Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). Since all thesebehaviors are performed in classroom environment, teachers’ self-efficacy beliefsplay an important role in determining effectiveness of their teaching.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

7:51

01

Dec

embe

r 20

14


Bandura stated that in order to perform certain behaviors people need to possessboth self-efficacy and belief in desired outcomes, because “people not only expectcertain behaviors to produce desirable outcomes (outcome expectancy), but theyalso believe in their own ability to perform the behaviors (self-efficacy)” (Bandura,1977, cited in Riggs & Enochs, 1990, p. 626). For example, a science teacher coulddecide to implement inquiry teaching in his/her classroom. His/her self-efficacybeliefs refer to his/her beliefs about his/her ability in successfully implementinginquiry method in her classroom. His/her outcome expectancy beliefs refer to his/herbeliefs about her ability to develop inquiry skills (such as observing, carrying outinvestigation, and developing hypothesis) on students. Gibson and Dembo (1984)emphasized the importance of these beliefs for the teachers to have confidence intheir own teaching abilities and encouraging positive student learning outcomes.Numerous research studies have indicated that teachers’ self-efficacy influences theireffectiveness in their teaching, students’ academic success, and development ofaffective skills as much as cognitive skills (e.g., Ashton & Webb, 1986; Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998; Woolfolk, Rosoff, & Hoy, 1990).

The issue of teachers’ self-efficacy has been explored by a number of authors in arange of settings (i.e., Ashton & Webb, 1986; Dembo & Gibson, 1985; Riggs &Enochs, 1990; Lumpe, Haney, & Czerniak, 2000; Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990). In thepast decade, researchers in science education have made extensive use of one partic-ular self-efficacy instrument, the Science Teachers Efficacy Beliefs Instrument(STEBI), which was developed by Enochs and Riggs (Enochs & Riggs, 1990; Riggs& Enochs, 1990). The authors first developed the STEBI instrument for inserviceteachers (STEBI-A). Later, they revised this instrument for preservice science teach-ers and named it STEBI-B. One of the strengths of the STEBI instruments is theirtheoretical base; why and how items were authored for the instrument, as discussedby Enochs and Riggs (1990). Enochs and Riggs created two dimensions: (1) self-efficacy beliefs, and (2) outcome expectancy beliefs. In their categorization, theyused self-efficacy and outcome expectancy components of Bandura’s social cognitivetheory in their instrument. In this instrument, teachers’ self-efficacy and outcomeexpectancy beliefs are assumed independent of each other. In other words, someteachers may believe teaching is effective in students’ academic success but they maynot possess the necessary skills to influence their students’ learning (Ashton &Webb, 1986). Analysis of this instrument by many research studies successfullyrevealed that self-efficacy and outcome expectancy were found as two distinctdimensions in the instrument (e.g., Cannon & Scharmann, 1996; Desouza, Boone,& Yilmaz, 2004; Ginns & Watters, 1996; Ramey-Gassert, Shroyer, & Staver, 1996;Scharmann & Hampton, 1995; Settlage, 2000).

We believe that PSTs’ epistemological beliefs may influence their self-efficacy inteaching and students’ outcome expectancy beliefs. For example, we think that if ateacher holds less sophisticated beliefs about Certain Knowledge, he or she mayhave high self-efficacy in teaching science as unchanging knowledge (CertainKnowledge). Therefore, in this study, we aimed at exploring direction andmagnitude of the relations between epistemological beliefs and self-efficacy beliefs.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

7:51

01

Dec

embe

r 20

14


Study Purpose and Rationale

The rationale of this study is two-fold. Firstly it is related to characteristics ofTurkey, and secondly it considers the relationship of the factors being exploredin this study.

There are several reasons that we investigated Turkish preservice elementaryscience teachers’ beliefs regarding epistemology, self-efficacy, and epistemologicalworld views. First, as it was stated by Schommer (1994), epistemological beliefs areinfluenced by education and culture. Since there are not many studies about devel-opment of individual epistemological beliefs in Turkey and about how Turkisheducational system and culture contributed to this development, it is important toinvestigate Turkish preservice teachers’ epistemological beliefs. Findings from thisstudy could be used to support the ongoing reform efforts in science and technol-ogy education. Second, Turkey presents some interesting and unique characteris-tics. Turkey has traditionally been influenced by the East and the West; thusepistemological data from the Turkish context could provide possible differencesbetween the East and the West. Finally, Turkey is currently redesigning aspects ofits educational policy with regard to teachers and students. Thus, the findings ofthis study are of great value in terms of guiding such efforts at the local andnational level.

We believe that teachers’ epistemological beliefs, epistemological world views,and self-efficacy beliefs may be related to each other. Epistemological beliefs referto teachers’ beliefs about the nature of knowledge (Simple Knowledge, CertainKnowledge, Innate Ability, Omniscient Authority, Quick Learning). Possessing aparticular belief about the nature of knowledge may influence teachers’ epistemo-logical world views (relativist, realist, contextualist). For example, if a teacher holdsa less sophisticated belief about Omniscient Authority, in which this teacherbelieves that scientific knowledge is held by authority, we may expect this teacherto hold a realist world view, in which he or she transfers to students the scientificknowledge discovered by scientists. Since epistemological world views are related toteaching practices, this teacher’s epistemological world view may influence his orher self-efficacy beliefs. But one needs to be careful in investigating the relation-ships among these constructs, because they can occur in any direction. Forinstance, in the example above this direction is given as epistemological beliefs →epistemological world views → self-efficacy beliefs. However, this relationship mayoccur in any combination of these factors in different magnitudes. Thus, directionand magnitude of the relationships among these factors were examined in thisstudy.

This study aimed to determine PSTs’ epistemological beliefs and examinethe relationships among epistemological beliefs, epistemological world views,and self-efficacy. The research questions of this study were: (1) What types ofepistemological beliefs do PSTs develop?, and (2) What are the relationshipsamong epistemological beliefs, epistemological world views, and self-efficacybeliefs?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

7:51

01

Dec

embe

r 20

14


Method

Sample

The Schommer Epistemological Questionnaire (SEQ) was administered to 429PSTs of five research universities located in three large cities in Turkey: Ankara,Eskisehir, and Van. Of the 429 participants, 246 were female and 183 were male.Cities were selected purposefully to gather data from the Western (Eskisehir),Middle (Ankara), and Eastern (Van) parts of Turkey. Our reason of selectinguniversities from the different regions was to generalize our findings to the largerpopulation in Turkey. Moreover, selecting different regions enabled us to representTurkey culturally better. With this data collection strategy we were able to capturedifferent experiences gained by PSTs in different universities. However, we did nottreat region as one of our independent variables in this study because our purposewas to capture a holistic view of Turkey. Ankara, the capital city of Turkey, hasmany universities. Data for this city were collected from three large researchuniversities to represent the students’ characteristics. A total of 324 preserviceteachers participated from these three universities. The other two cities have onlyone research universities each; therefore, from each of these cities, only one univer-sity was enrolled. Thirty-five preservice teachers from Eskisehir and 70 preserviceteachers from Van participated in the study. All of the universities were stateuniversities. All students were voluntarily involved in the study.

Instruments

Schommer Epistemological Questionnaire. Schommer (1990) developed the SEQ tomeasure college students’ epistemological beliefs. The questionnaire includes 63items. For each item, students select one of the five options (strongly disagree, disagree,undecided, agree, and strongly agree). We scored strongly disagree as 1 and strongly agreeas 5. Thus, a participant who got a higher score from the survey would be thought ofas having a simple or less sophisticated knowledge. There are 12 subsets in the ques-tionnaire. For each subset, the number of items differs. The SEQ was translated intoTurkish and validated earlier (Topcu & Yilmaz-Tuzun, 2006). Translation of theSEQ into Turkish was done by two researchers, whose native language was Turkish.Once the Turkish translation was done, the original and translated questionnaireswere examined by a bilingual assistant professor, who was an expert on epistemolog-ical issues and the nature of science and currently conducting his studies in the USA.At the end of this process, agreement was established on each item. Once the trans-lation was done, a pilot study was conducted with 94 preservice science teachers. Forfurther validity of the scale we conducted a factor analysis. Similar to Schommer’sstudy we successfully captured the epistemological beliefs possessed by PSTs in theTurkish context. Item reliability was calculated for each factor. Since all items workedin the expected direction, we decided to keep all of them for this study.

In Schommer (1990) and Schommer et al. (1992), 12 subsets, presented in Table1, were classified into their hypothetical dimensions mentioned earlier. Schommer

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

7:51

01

Dec

embe

r 20

14


theoretically put these 12 subsets into their best defined hypothetical dimensions.During the analysis, she focused to find out the degree to which these 12 subsetsloaded into their hypothetical dimensions.

The reliability of the SEQ was measured by inter-item reliability for the itemscomposing each factor, ranging from .51–.78 (Schommer, 1993). To validate theSEQ, Schommer carried out numerous studies summarized in the introduction. Inthose studies, she computed factor analysis and often found three or four factors.These factors were, namely, Innate Ability, Simple Knowledge, Quick Learning, andCertain Knowledge. She could not find Omniscient Authority as one individualfactor in any of her studies since the subsets did not load into this hypotheticaldimension.

Epistemological World View scale. This scale focuses on three different epistemologicalworld views. Schraw and Olafson (2002) named these views as realist, contextualist,and relativist. These world views were defined as:

Realist: ‘Realists believe that there is a fixed, core body of knowledge that is bestacquired through experts via transmission and reconstruction.’

Contextualists: ‘Contextualists believe that learners construct shared understandings insupportive contexts in which teachers serve as facilitators.’

Relativists: ‘Relativists believe that each learner constructs a unique knowledge basethat is different but equal to other learners’ knowledge.’ (Schraw & Olafson, 2002,p.101)

If teachers hold a realist world view, they use teacher-centered methods mostly andview their students as passive recipients of knowledge. These teachers assess theirstudents’ learning using norm-referenced tests, such as standardized tests. Theirpurposes are to compare students’ learning with each other and the amount of

Table 1. Hypothetical dimensions and associated subsets of the epistemological questionnaire

Subset dimension Hypothetical dimension

Simple Knowledge Seek single answersAvoid integration

Certain Knowledge Avoid ambiguityKnowledge is certain

Omniscient Authority Do not criticize authorityDepend on authorityCan not learn how to learn

Innate Ability Success is unrelated to hard workAbility to learn is innateLearning is quick

Quick Learning Learn first timeConcentrated effort is a waste of time

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

7:51

01

Dec

embe

r 20

14


information they learn from a specific unit. If teachers hold a contextualist worldview, they give importance to the learning process rather than the type of knowledgethat students need to learn. In this learning process, teachers accept their role asfacilitator and encourage peer support and expert scaffolding in their classrooms. Ifteachers hold a relativist world view, they create an environment where students canconstruct their own knowledge independently but equal to other learners’ knowl-edge. Thus, teachers mostly use student-centered teaching methods. In this learningprocess, teachers support students’ self-regulation, which enables students to learnknowledge by themselves in the future. To assess students’ learning, teachers usecriterion-based assessment strategies according to students’ needs (Schraw &Olafson, 2002). The terms realist, contextualist, and relativist were selected for thisstudy because they are the most frequently repeated terms across the literature. Thisinstrument includes three vignettes. For each vignette, a five-choice, three-itemLikert-type scale was used.

For the validity of the translation of the Epistemological World View scale, aprocedure similar to that for the SEQ was followed.

Self-efficacy scale. The respondents in the study completed the STEBI-B (preserviceversion) developed by Riggs and Enochs (1990). The two scales in the STEBI-Bwere entitled Personal Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Scale (self-efficacy dimen-sion) and Science Teaching Outcome Expectancy Scale (outcome expectancydimension). The STEBI-B was a five-choice Likert-scale. This instrument used afive-choice, 23-item Likert-scale. The self-efficacy dimension had 13 items and theoutcome expectancy dimension had 10 items. Riggs and Enochs reported that theitems in the self-efficacy scale and the outcome expectancy scale had high reliabili-ties (.89 and .76, respectively). Appropriate changes in the wording of the itemswere made for the Turkish teachers in a previous study (Tekkaya, Cakiroglu, &Ozkan, 2004).

Data Collection and Analysis

Data collection was carried out during the fall semester of 2006. An assistant at eachuniversity administered the scale. The response rate was 80% for each of the datacollection sites. In order to assure the consistency of the data collection procedures,each assistant was informed about the administration of the scale. Assistantsexplained the study purpose to the students in classes and invited them to participatein the study voluntarily. Students who have agreed to participate completed thequestionnaire in classes while the assistants were present in order to answer any ofthe students’ questions. Assistants collected the completed questionnaire forms andmailed them to the authors.

In the first part of the data analysis, factor analysis was computed to determine thefactor structure of the SEQ in the Turkish context. This analysis enabled us tocompare our results with the previous research findings. In factor analysis, once the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

7:51

01

Dec

embe

r 20

14


factor structure was determined, factor scores were calculated for each factor. Forlater analysis, these factor scores were used.

In the second part of the data analysis, multiple regression analysis was conductedto better understand how the predictor variables might be associated with eachfactor score of the SEQ. A statistical stepwise regression strategy was used to deter-mine the best model associated with each factor scores of the SEQ. In this analysis,predictor variables were inserted into the model based upon the statistical criteria.When a stepwise strategy is used to investigate a data-set similar to that presented inthis paper, a regression analysis is initiated with no variable, and each predictorvariable is added to the equation, one at a time, to determine whether the predictorvariable significantly contributes to the regression equation (Tabachnick & Fidel,2001). For all of our analyses, Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)version 13.0 for Windows was used.

Results

Factor Structure of the SEQ

Factor analysis enabled us to determine the number and the characteristics of factorsthat could account for students’ responses in the questionnaire. In this analysis, thesubset scores mentioned earlier were computed. The 12 subset scores werecomputed with the mean scores of the subset items. The 12 subsets of items wereused as variables in factor analysis.

With orthogonal varimax rotation and an eigenvalue that is greater than one (as acutoff point for factors), “principal factoring extraction” generated four factors thataccount for 54.61% of the variance. Factor analysis revealed four factor structures inthe data. Factors were named with the technique that Schommer used in herstudies. She gave descriptive titles to each factor on the basis of high loadings subsetsof items. While naming the factors, she only considered the subsets that have factorloadings higher than .50. We followed the same procedure in naming our factors. Inour analysis, Factor 1 was named “Innate Ability,” which includes the subset dimen-sions of “Can not learn how to learn” and “Success is unrelated to hard work.”Factor 2 was named “Certain Knowledge,” which includes the subset dimension of“Avoid ambiguity.” Factor 3 was named “Simple Knowledge,” which includes thesubset dimension of “Seek single answers.” Factor 4 was named “OmniscientAuthority,” which includes the subset dimension of “Depend on authority.”Variances associated with factors and their eigenvalues are presented in Table 2.

In order to determine better factor structures, we also did oblique rotations but wecould not obtain better interpretable findings than orthogonal varimax rotation.Similar to Schommer’s findings, our factor analysis results clearly indicated thatpreservice teachers develop their epistemological beliefs as a set of more or less inde-pendent beliefs due to having four factors instead of one factor.

Inter-item reliabilities for items that compose each factor range from .20 to .60.Schommer has found this range in her studies between .51 and .78. From Table 2 it

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

7:51

01

Dec

embe

r 20

14


is clear that dimensions (e.g., Knowledge is certain) could not successfully load intotheir hypothesized dimension for some of the subsets. On the contrary, these subsetdimensions loaded highly to other factors. This finding revealed that in the Turkishcontext participants might not have successfully differentiated subset items due totheir close meaning. In this study, having difficulty in differentiating the items mighthave influenced having lower reliability scores than Schommer’ reliability scores.

Exploring the Relationships among PSTs’ Epistemological Beliefs, Self-efficacy Beliefs, and Epistemological World Views

Multiple regression analysis is used to explain how accurately each of the four factorscores (Innate Ability, Certain Knowledge, Simple Knowledge, OmniscientAuthority) generated for PSTs’ epistemological beliefs can be predicted from alinear combination of self-efficacy (factor score 1), outcome expectancy (factor score2), and epistemological world view (mean scores). In order to test the assumptions,we checked the normal distribution with the histogram of the standardized residuals,sample size, multicollinearity (none of the correlations among independent variableswere found to be higher than .50), and linearity. All of the assumptions were notviolated for each of our regression analysis.

For Innate Ability factor scores, three of the predictor variables—self-efficacy,outcome expectancy, epistemological world view—contributed significantly to themodel. Altogether these variables explained 29.6% of the variability in the InnateAbility factor scores of the SEQ (adjusted R2 = 0.296, F(1, 420) = 59.94, p < .01).

Table 2. Factor loadings from principal component factor analysis

Factor loading

Subset 1 2 3 4

1. Can not learn how to learn .727 −.110 .040 .0112. Concentrated effort is waste of time .671 −.001 .004 .2373. Avoid integration .657 .120 .225 .0464. Success is unrelated to hard work .620 .202 −.180 −.1335. Do not criticize authority .613 .033 .099 −.0666. Learning is quick .568 .144 −.094 −.1157. Learn the first time .478 −033 −118 .1638. Avoid ambiguity −.102 .768 .211 .1959. Ability to learn is innate .294 .759 −.066 −.18010. Knowledge is certain .295 −.029 .781a −.07511. Seek single answers −.321 .192 .646 .03712. Depend on authority .067 .026 −.032 .925Eigenvalue 3.059 1.413 1.056 1.024% of variances 25.494 11.774 8.804 8,535

aPattern of loadings that is not consistent with the hypothesized epistemological dimensions.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

7:51

01

Dec

embe

r 20

14


The β weights for self-efficacy were −.356 for self-efficacy, −.258 for outcomeexpectancy, and −.235 for epistemological world view. The negative β values foreach predictor variable indicate that teachers who had lower Innate Ability factorscores also had high self-efficacy beliefs (which means that those teachers whobelieve that they are good teachers tended to see their students learning ability as notfixed), high outcome expectancy beliefs (which means that those teachers whobelieve that their students would do well in science tended to see their studentslearning ability as not fixed), and possessing a more relativist epistemological worldview (which means that those teachers who believe the effectiveness of student-centered approaches in teaching tended to see their students learning ability as notfixed). In other words, these teachers accept that their students’ learning ability isnot fixed at birth but instead is an ever-changing characteristic of learners and can bedeveloped by teachers’ effective teaching practices.

For Certain Knowledge factor scores, only one predictor variable—outcomeexpectancy—contributed significantly to the model. This variable explained 1.4% ofthe variability in the Certain Knowledge factor scores of the SEQ (adjusted R2 =0.014, F(1, 420) = 7.07, p < .01). The β weight for outcome expectancy was .129.Even though the β value indicated that there is a positive relationship between epis-temological world view and Simple Knowledge factor scores, the interpretation ofthis positive relationship is inverse due to the scoring of the items. Interestingly,teachers who had higher outcome expectancy beliefs scores had higher CertainKnowledge factor scores (less sophisticated beliefs in Certain Knowledge). Thisfinding indicated that those teachers who believe that their students would do well inscience tended to feel confident about influencing students’ achievement only whenthat scientific knowledge is Certain Knowledge (knowledge is unchanging).

Only one predictor variable—epistemological world view—contributed signifi-cantly to the prediction of Simple Knowledge factor scores. This variable explained0.8% of the variability in the Simple Knowledge factor scores of the SEQ (adjustedR2 = 0.008, F(1, 420) = 4.41, p < .05). The β weight for epistemological world viewwas .102. Similar to the finding for the Certain Knowledge factor scores of the SEQ,there is also an inverse relationship. Thus, this finding indicated that those teacherswho believe the effectiveness of student-centered teaching approaches in studentlearning tended to feel that science may be best taught when students memorize theisolated facts or the body of scientific knowledge (Simple Knowledge).

None of the predictor variables significantly contributed to the explanation of theOmniscient Authority factor scores. Table 3 summarizes the multiple regressionanalysis results.

Discussion

The SEQ showed satisfactory results in defining epistemological beliefs dimensionsin Turkey, similar to the U.S. context. The factors we found in this study clearlyindicate that epistemological beliefs are a set of more or less independent beliefs inthe Turkish culture. It is not an easy task to determine epistemological beliefs both

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

7:51

01

Dec

embe

r 20

14


qualitatively and quantitatively. As mentioned earlier, Schommer carried outnumerous research studies with different samples and methods. The results of thesestudies revealed three to four different factor structures. This varied number offactors show that it is difficult to expect similar factor structures for different samplecharacteristics. In this study, we found four factor structures. The “OmniscientAuthority” factor that Schommer did not find in her studies was found in thepresent study. Conversely the “quick learning factor” Schommer found did notappear in our analysis.

The factor analyses of the Turkish SEQ version shows similar patterns withSchommer’s (1990) findings. Our results suggest that multidimensional theory ismore appropriate than unidimensional theory in explaining PSTs’ epistemologicalbeliefs. According to the unidimensional theory, one should expect to see only onefactor at a time to define development of PSTs’ epistemological beliefs. However,we found four factors similar to Schommer’s findings. Thus, PSTs’ epistemologicalbeliefs might be considered “as a set of more or less independent beliefs”(Schommer, 1990, p. 500).

Another observation we made was the number and type of factor structures. Inher studies, Schommer often found four factor structures. Those factors were QuickLearning, Certain Knowledge, Simple Knowledge, and Innate Ability. In Turkishsample, we found “Omniscient Authority” as one of four factor structures. Thisfactor was also found in our earlier validation study of the SEQ (Topcu & Yilmaz-Tuzun, 2006). This is an interesting finding shedding light on the cultural differ-ences in educational contexts between the two countries. PSTs in teacher educationprograms enter their programs with certain experiences about teaching due to theexperience gained through their previous education (McDiarmid, Ball, & Anderson,1989; Gunstone, Slattery, Bair, & Northfield, 1993; Hollingsworth, 1989). There-fore, their previous learning experiences influence their professional developmentthroughout teacher education programs. In the Turkish educational system, manyteachers might have applied traditional teaching strategies (e.g., expository). Thosetraditional teaching approaches might have led students to comprehend that scienceis a body of knowledge discovered by scientists, in which the teachers’ role is to

Table 3. Multiple regression results investigating the associations between the SEQ dimensions, epistemological world views, and self-efficacy beliefs

SEQ dimension β weight Adjusted R2 F p value

Innate AbilitySelf-efficacy −.356 0.296 59.94 0.000Outcome expectancy −.258Epistemological world view −.235

Certain KnowledgeOutcome expectancy .129 0.014 7.07 0.008

Simple KnowledgeEpistemological world view .102 0.008 4.41 0.036

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

7:51

01

Dec

embe

r 20

14


deliver this knowledge to students. That kind of teaching environment might havedistracted our students from critically reflecting upon the scientific knowledge andthe ways scientists make their discoveries in any time of their life as a student. Thisapproach might be the reason for the Omniscient Authority we found in our factorstructures.

Our reliability analysis showed lower values than Schommer’s findings. Thosedifferences might have been caused by the translation. The Turkish version mightnot have captured the full and literal meaning of the original survey. Turkishstudents might have understood the items differently from students in the USA; thisis a limitation for almost all translated scales. In addition, cultural differencesbetween Turkey and USA might also have led Turkish students to interpret some ofthe items differently from those students in the USA, as indicated by Schommer(1994). Replication of this study with different and larger sample characteristics willimprove the characteristics of the items, and the reliability will be improved basedupon the findings.

Another reason for the low reliability might be the difficulty in differentiating theitems due to close meanings of the subset items. Factor analysis results revealed thatsome of the subset items highly loaded to other hypothesized dimensions. This highloading and correlation with other subset items decreased the reliability indices ofsome of the subset items.

According to multiple regression analysis results, the Innate Ability dimension ofthe SEQ was found to have a significant (negative) relationship with self-efficacy,outcome expectancy, and world view. These negative relationships indicated thatthe less preservice teachers believe in Innate Ability the more they (a) feel confi-dent about their science teaching (self-efficacy), (b) feel confident about influenc-ing their students’ achievement, and (c) are relativist in their epistemological worldview. This finding indicates PSTs believe that they can teach science effectivelywhen they accept their students’ learning ability is not fixed at birth, but indeed itis an ever-changing characteristic of learners and can be developed by teachers’effective teaching practices. This finding is consistent with Schommer’s (1994)synthesis about the relationship between epistemological beliefs and learning.According to her, “epistemological beliefs affect the degree to which individuals:(a) actively engage in learning, (b) persist in difficult tasks, (c) comprehend writtenmaterial, and (d) cope with ill-structured domains” (Schommer, 1994, p. 302).According to studies by Dweck and Bempechat (1983), and Dweck and Legett(1988) “Persist in difficult task” categorized students as fixed theorists, whobelieve that ability to learn is fixed and incremental theorists, who believe thatintelligence of individual can be developed (as cited in Schommer, 2004). Thus,their orientations for completing an academic task also differ. The fixed theoriststry showing their intelligence while the incremental theorists perform academictask to develop their intelligence. In our study we found that PSTs, who believestudents’ ability to learn is not fixed and learning is an active process, can facilitatestudent learning and help students develop intelligence using effective teachingmethods and practices.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

7:51

01

Dec

embe

r 20

14


According to multiple regression analysis results, the “certain knowledgedimension” was found to have a significant (negative) relationship with only“outcome expectancy.” This relationship indicates that preservice teachers feelconfident about influencing students’ achievement (outcome expectancy) only whenthe scientific knowledge they teach is accepted as unchanging scientific findings(Certain Knowledge). They feel unsure about their students’ understanding ofscience knowledge if they teach this knowledge as always being changing. When thepredictors of the Simple Knowledge dimension were examined, only world view hada significant (positive) relationship with this factor scores. According to these inter-esting results, PSTs believe the effectiveness of student-centered teachingapproaches (relativist world view). They also accept that science may be best taughtwhen students memorize the isolated facts or body of scientific knowledge (SimpleKnowledge).

Predictors of the Certain Knowledge and Simple Knowledge dimensions revealedseveral exciting results. First, our findings related to Innate Ability, Certain Knowl-edge, and Simple Knowledge support Schommer’s (1994) argument about howepistemological beliefs are developed by an individual. She says:

I proposed that epistemological beliefs be reconceived as a system of more or lessindependent beliefs. By system, I mean that there is more than one belief to consider.And by more or less independent, I mean that individuals may be sophisticated in somebeliefs, but not necessarily sophisticated in other beliefs. (Schommer, 1994, p. 300)

In this study, preservice teachers showed very sophisticated beliefs in the InnateAbility dimension but their beliefs about Certain Knowledge and Simple Knowledgestayed at a simple level.

Second, when it comes to teaching scientific facts or concepts to students, PSTsbelieve that they feel insecure about their students’ success (outcome expectancy) ifthey see scientific concepts as ever-changing scientific understandings. In otherwords, preservice teachers believe that they will fail teaching science if they acceptscientific knowledge as always continuously developing. Moreover, they feel securedto use student-centered teaching practices and implementation only when studentssuccessfully memorize the isolated facts or body of scientific knowledge. This findingalso supports the “comprehend written material-integration of information” dimen-sion of Schommer’s (1994) synthesis about the relationship between epistemologicalbeliefs and learning. According to Songer and Linn (1991, cited in Schommer,1994) there are two types of student learning characteristics: (1) static believers, wholearn science effectively if they memorize the words and facts; and (2) dynamicbelievers, who learn science by doing it. The latter group’s epistemological develop-ment is more completed than the other. In our study, PSTs might think theirstudents as static believers when they think teaching scientific concepts and facts. Asmentioned earlier, PSTs are treated as static believers during their schooling. Thismight lead them to think their future students as static believers rather than dynamicbelievers. Czerniak and Lumpe’s (1996) findings also indicate similar results. Intheir study, they found that inservice teachers’ self-efficacy scores contributed

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

7:51

01

Dec

embe

r 20

14


successfully to teachers’ beliefs about application of constructivist teaching practicesin the classroom. However, when they teach science with constructivist theories,81% of teachers did not believe in the effectiveness of using constructivist strategiesin their science classrooms to be an effective teacher. Czerniak and Lumpe arguedthat teachers are likely to teach science the way they were taught, such as lecturing.Thus teachers think that science is isolated facts and concepts and can be taughteffectively if students memorize these facts and if the teacher transfers this knowl-edge to students. Our study added student dimension to Czerniak and Lumpe’sfinding. In this study PSTs believe that they can use student-centered methods onlywhen they see students as static believers. This finding suggests that letting dynamicbelievers learn with student-centered environments might cause chaotic classroomenvironments. Handling this classroom would be difficult for PSTs in terms offollowing students’ learning. Thus PSTs believe in the effectiveness of student-centered learning but they are insecure about handling the classroom environment.As a conclusion they developed a very interesting belief. According to this belief, astudent-centered method would be successful only when their students were staticbelievers. In other words, a student’s role is to memorize and learn scientific factsand concepts through student-centered methods. Similarly, Schraw and Olafson(2002) found that even though teachers indicated that they believed in the effective-ness of student-centered teaching approaches, they still used district-wide mandatedcurriculum and expository teaching practices. This finding suggests that PSTs’beliefs and their applications in classrooms are two different aspects that requirefurther investigation.

Conclusion

In this study PSTs’ epistemological beliefs were determined and the relationshipsamong different dimensions of epistemological beliefs and epistemological worldviews and self-efficacy beliefs were explored. Results of this study revealed someissues of critical importance related to the implementation of effective scienceteaching practices for PSTs in teacher education programs in Turkey.

Study results suggested that PSTs’ epistemological beliefs developed as more orless independent beliefs. In other words, while PSTs develop sophisticated beliefs insome epistemological dimensions (e.g. Innate Ability) they develop less sophisti-cated beliefs in other epistemological dimensions (e.g. Certain Knowledge, SimpleKnowledge). From this result we need to pay attention to two important observa-tions. First, according to factor analysis results, four factor structures indicated thatepistemological beliefs are a set of more or less independent beliefs in Turkishculture. In other words, PSTs possess different epistemological beliefs in differentdegrees. Thus it is imperative to find out those beliefs in teacher education programsand develop them when it is necessary due to their influence on students’ learning.Several research studies have already proved that these beliefs strongly influencedindividuals’ interpretation of information (Schommer, 1990), integration ofinformation (Schommer, 1990), attitude toward school (Schommer & Walker,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

7:51

01

Dec

embe

r 20

14


1997), and examined someone’s learning (Ryan, 1984). Being aware of someone’sepistemological development is very important for that person to work on develop-ment of his/her epistemological beliefs. If this person is a teacher then the issuebecomes more critical due to this teacher’s influence on students. According toSchommer-Aikins (2004), if teachers know their students’ epistemological beliefs,they will be able to apply appropriate instructional strategies to help lower achievingstudents into higher level thinking and help higher achiever students to make appro-priate development during their courses. In order to accomplish this, teachers firstneed to achieve this development on their own learning. Then it will be easier forthem to apply similar strategies for their students. Teacher education programs playan important role in attaining this goal.

Second, teachers play a central role to improve the effectiveness of science instruc-tion. Their epistemological beliefs will certainly affect the way they teach. In ourstudy, when it comes to teaching scientific knowledge to students, PSTs see them-selves successful only if their students memorize the scientific concepts and facts.According to them, there are certain facts and concepts for students to memorize. Ifstudents do not memorize these facts and concepts they feel insecure about theirstudents’ learning and application of student-centered teaching practices. Thisconflict needs to be solved during their teacher education programs. This needs tobe attained both within method classes and in actual classroom settings during fieldexperiences. PSTs need to be given opportunities to practice student-centeredmethods and see the effectiveness of these methods on students’ learning to developtheir epistemological beliefs. Czerniak and Lumpe (1996) also raised a similar issuein their study. They indicated that, in order to make teachers believe in the effective-ness of constructivist theories on students’ learning, “Teachers need to see construc-tivist practices modeled. And they need time to practice the teaching strategies, andreflect upon their efforts, engage in dialogue with others” (Czerniak & Lumpe, 1996,p. 259).

Implications

In this section we offer our suggestions for PSTs’ education. Teacher educationprograms aim to prepare better teachers who can improve their schools according tothe changing characteristics of the world. It is believed that teachers need to under-stand their beliefs and the relationships of these beliefs with their classroom practices(Schraw & Olafson, 2002). Some of these beliefs are epistemological beliefs, episte-mological world views, and self-efficacy beliefs. Our research suggests that PSTshold less sophisticated epistemological beliefs. Further, it is found that those beliefsare influenced by epistemological world views and self-efficacy beliefs. It is necessaryfor teacher educators to help students be aware of their beliefs and change them ifnecessary. Epistemological beliefs are one of these. Since teachers’ beliefs and ideashave been shaped for a very long time, it is usually difficult for preservice teachers tochange them during teacher education programs (Aguirre & Haggerty, 1995;Mellado, 1998). A systematic approach is needed to help PSTs change their less

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

7:51

01

Dec

embe

r 20

14


sophisticated epistemological beliefs. Throughout the teacher education programs,several courses such as nature of science, philosophy and history of science, andscience education methods courses may help those teachers develop their epistemo-logical beliefs. PSTs may easily develop their content knowledge while taking extrascience courses. However, knowledge about how scientific knowledge are discoveredand improved, epistemology, scientific method, scientific principles, and their mean-ings can be gained through courses such as nature of science and philosophy andhistory of science. PSTs need to be encouraged and supported to take these coursesduring their education. At this point, it is clear that teacher education programsmust concentrate on the determination and development of PSTs’ epistemologicalbeliefs (Brownlee, Purdie, & Boulton-Lewis, 2001).

Above, we stated that science education methods courses may also be importantin shaping PSTs’ epistemological beliefs. These courses can provide a context forPSTs to see how their epistemological beliefs are connected with their epistemologi-cal world views and their self-efficacy. During science education methods courses,PSTs may identify their epistemological beliefs and see how those beliefs influencetheir epistemological world views. For example, in our study we found that PSTshad less sophisticated beliefs about Simple Knowledge and Certain Knowledge butat the same time they developed a relativist world view. In the light of these twocontradictory beliefs, PSTs developed a very interesting teaching approach in whichthey preferred to implement student-centered methods if their students see scienceas unchanging and memorize scientific facts. This finding revealed that PSTsdevelop understanding about the theory (different teaching methods and theirunderlying theories) but they cannot figure out how this understanding can beimplemented practically due to the less sophisticated epistemological beliefs theyhold. Thus, during science education methods courses these PSTs should see howstudent-centered methods may not be implemented when students see science asunchanging and memorized scientific facts. They need to link between theory andpractice with continuous discussion of the theoretical understanding, their imple-mentation, and the effects of their epistemological beliefs on those practices duringtheir microteaching and field experiences (Schraw & Olafson, 2002).

Field experiences may help PSTs see how theoretical understanding about teach-ing and learning takes place in the classroom settings. According to Anderson andMitchener (1994, p. 18), “field experience in schools is an opportunity for studentsto try out who they are as professional educators and what it is they are learning intheir classes.” However, it is known that the theories that PSTs learned during theteacher education programs are rarely being practiced in classrooms (Cochran-Smith, 1991). At this point school and university cooperation need to be fostered andencouraged to provide PSTs to have an opportunity to change their epistemologicalbeliefs.

Many studies have been conducted to understand the development of students’epistemological beliefs (Schommer, 1994; Schommer et al., 1997). Few researchstudies have investigated the development of teachers’ epistemological beliefs andepistemological world views (Schraw & Olafson, 2002; White, 2000). This research

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

7:51

01

Dec

embe

r 20

14


revealed that researchers need to focus in future research on how epistemologicalbeliefs and epistemological world views of PSTs can be improved.

References

Aguirre, M., & Haggerty, S. (1995). Preservice teachers’ meaning of learning. International Journalof Science Education, 17, 119–131.

Anderson, R. D., & Mitchener, C. P. (1994). Research on science teacher education. In D. Gabel(Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 3–44). New York: Macmillan.

Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers’ sense of efficacy and studentachievement. New York: Longman.

Berman, P., Mclaughlin, M., Bass, G., Pauly, E., & Zellman, G. (1977). Federal programssupporting educational change: Vol. VII. Factors affecting implementation and continuation (Rep.No. R-1589/7-HEW). Santa Monica, CA: RAND. (ERIC Document Reproduction ServiceNo. 140432)

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

Cannon, J. R., & Scharmann, L. C. (1996). Influence of a cooperative early field experience onpreservice elementary teachers’ science self-efficacy. Science Education, 80(4), 419–436.

Cochran-Smith, M. (1991). Learning to teach against the grain. Harvard Educational Review,61(3), 279–310.

Czerniak, C. M., & Lumpe, A. T. (1996). Relationship between teacher beliefs and scienceeducation reform. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 7(4), 247–266.

Dembo, M. H., & Gibson, S. (1985). Teachers’ sense of efficacy: An important factor in schoolimprovement. The Elementary School Journal, 86(1), 173–184.

Desouza, J. M. S., Boone, W. J., & Yilmaz, O. (2004). A study of science teaching self-efficacy andoutcome expectancy beliefs of teachers in India. Science Education, 88(6), 837–854.

Dweck, C. S., & Bempechat, J. (1983). Children’s theories of intelligence: Consequences forlearning. In S. G. Paris, G. M. Olson, & H. W. Stevenson (Eds.), Learning and motivation inthe classroom (pp. 239–256). Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum.

Dweck, C. S., & Legett, E. L. (1988). A social–cognitive approach to motivation and personality.Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.

Enochs, L. G., & Riggs, I. M. (1990). Further development of an elementary science teaching effi-cacy belief instrument: A preservice elementary instrument. School Science and Mathematics,90(8), 694–705.

Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 76, 569–582.

Ginns, I. S., & Watters, J. J. (1996). Science teaching self-efficacy of novice elementary school teachers.Paper presented at the annual meeting of NARST, St Louis, MO.

Gunstone, R. F., Slattery, M., Bair, J. R., & Northfield, J. R. (1993). A case study exploration ofdevelopment in preservice science teachers. Science Education, 77, 47–73.

Hofer, B. (2002). Personal epistemology: Conflicts and consensus in an emerging area of inquiry.Interactive symposium, Division D, American Educational Research Association. NewOrleans, LA.

Hollingsworth, S. (1989). Prior beliefs and cognitive change in learning to teach. AmericanEducational Research Journal, 26(2), 160–189.

King, P. M. (1986). Formal reasoning in adults: A review and critique. In N. R. Mines & K.Kitchener (Eds.), Adult cognitive development. New York: Praeger.

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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

7:51

01

Dec

embe

r 20

14


King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (2004). Reflective judgement: Theory and research on develop-ment of epistemic assumptions through adulthood. Educational Psychologist, 39, 5–18.

Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problem and process in human development. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Lumpe, A. T., Haney, J. J., & Czerniak, C. M. (2000). Assessing teachers’ beliefs about theirscience teaching context. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(3), 275–292.

McDiarmid, G. W., Ball, D. L., & Anderson, C. W. (1989). Why staying one chapter aheaddoesn’t really work: Subject-specific pedagogy. In M.C. Reynolds (Ed.), Knowledge base for thebeginning teacher (pp. 193–205). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.

Mellado, V. (1998). The classroom practice of preservice teachers and their conceptions ofteaching and learning science. Science Teacher Education, 82, 197–214.

Perry, W. B. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. NewYork: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Perry, W. G., Jr. (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)

Ramey-Gassert, L., Shroyer, M. G., & Staver, J. R. (1996). A qualitative study of factorsinfluencing science teaching self-efficacy of elementary level teachers. Science Education,80(3), 283–315.

Ryan, M. P. (1984). Monitoring text comprehension: Individual differences in epistemologicalstandards. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 248–258.

Riggs, I. M., & Enochs, L. G. (1990). Toward the development of an elementary science teacher’sscience teaching efficacy belief instrument. Science Education, 74(6), 625–637.

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforce-ment. Psychological Monographs, 80, 1–28.

Scharmann, L. S., & Hampton, C. O. (1995). Cooperative learning and preservice elementaryteacher science self-efficacy. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 6, 125–133.

Schommer, M. (1988). Dimensions of tacit epistemology and comprehension. Paper presented at theannual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

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

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

Schommer, M. (1994). Synthesizing epistemological belief research: Tentative understandingsand provocative confusions. Educational Psychology Review, 6(4), 293–319.

Schommer, M., Calvert, C., Gariglietti, G., & Bajaj, A. (1997). The development of epistemologi-cal beliefs among secondary students: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology,89, 37–40.

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

Schommer, M., & Walker, K. (1997). Epistemological beliefs and valuing school: considerationsfor college admissions and retention. Research in Higher Education, 38, 173–186.

Schommer-Aikins, M. (2004). Explaining the epistemological belief system: Introducing theembedded systemic model and coordinated research approach. Educational Psychologist, 39(1),19–29.

Schraw, G., Dunkle, M. E., & Bendixen, L. D. (1995). Cognitive processes in well-defined and ill-defined problem-solving. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 523–538.

Schraw, G., & Olafson, L. (2002). Teachers’ epistemological world views and educationalpractices. Issues in Education, 8(2), 99–149.

Settlage, J. (2000). Understanding the learning cycle: Influences on abilities to embrace theapproach by preservice elementary school teachers. Science Education, 80(1), 43–50.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

7:51

01

Dec

embe

r 20

14


Songer, N. B., & Linn, M. C. (1991). How do students’ views of science influence knowledgeintegration. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 761–784.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidel, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, USA: Allyn &Bacon.

Tekkaya, C., Cakiro[gbreve] lu, J., & Özkan, Ö. (2004). Turkish pre-service science teachers’ understand-ing of science and their confidence in teaching it. Journal of Education for Teaching, 30(1), 57–66.

Topcu, M. S., & Yilmaz-Tuzun, O. (2006, May 25–28). The effects of self-efficacy and epistemologicalworld views on preservice science teachers’ epistemological beliefs. Paper presented at the 8thInternational Conference on Education, Atina, Greece.

Tsai, C. C. (2002). Nested epistemologies: science teachers’ belief of teaching, learning, science.International Journal of Science Education, 24(8), 771–783.

Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning andmeasure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202–248.

White, B. C. (2000). Pre-service teachers’ epistemology viewed through perspectives onproblematic classroom situations. Journal of Education for Teaching, 26, 279–305.

Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers’ sense of efficacy and beliefs aboutcontrol. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 81–91.

Woolfolk, A. E., Rosoff, B., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and their beliefsabout managing students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 6(2), 137–148.

g

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

7:51

01

Dec

embe

r 20

14

relationships among preservice science teachers’ epistemological beliefs, epistemological world...

Documents